Problematic reporting

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Problematic reporting

You literally claim, in the editorial voice, that someone "explained" that cannabis oil cured his prostate cancer.

"Explained" is not neutral wording; it implies that the statements are factually accurate.

Are there any peer-reviewed, scientific papers saying that cannabis oil can cure cancer? So far as I'm aware, no. You're reporting a fringe medical claim as fact.

And that's appallingly bad reporting for a site that claims to be more neutral and balanced than normal newspapers. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden (talk)02:34, 27 April 2014
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 04:54, 27 April 2014

Considering your past bullshit re Wikinews, you can't credibly pretend to care about facts or neutrality.

However, those of us who do take these things seriously will consider what action is appropriate in this case.

Pi zero (talk)03:42, 27 April 2014

On a side note, when there are issues with an article, its talk page is the correct venue for raising them. It makes your edit appear in the watchlist of people who are watching the article (which comments don't, I believe.).

Gryllida03:48, 27 April 2014

The watchlists are separate for comments pages, yes. Although the publishing reviewer creates the comments page and therefore ends up watching it.

Pi zero (talk)04:12, 27 April 2014

"editorial voice". Such a lovely turn-of-phrase, no?

The gentleman in question stood up and made these claims, and we've reported that he did so. That doesn't trump scientific study any more than your moronic little graph helped you kill off Wikinews the last time you decided to try taking pot-shots at "the project you're incapable of contributing to".

Seriously? This is the best you can come up with? A warped reading of phrasing, and Grand Canyon leap of deduction, to allege Wikinews is unreliable?

Before you get your frilly panties in a Gordian Knot at any follow up that reads your character back to you, read the bit at the top of this page.

By your own capricious standards, your 'mouthpiece' — commonly known as The Signpost — should've been shut down years ago. Then you'd be where you belong, along with your wiki-hating cronies who "don't do content", sitting on Wikipedia Review being irrelevant; it's not as-if you're particularly relevant anywhere else.

Brian McNeil / talk07:19, 27 April 2014

I've commented in favor of Wikinews at two of the places he canvassed about this on Wikipedia. [1] [2] I hope that people here will take heart that their coverage of this important cause is valuable and welcome, and not be intimidated by those who would try to punish them for not self-censoring their content to avoid undermining a mad party line that harms millions of people. Wnt (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wnt (talk)22:37, 27 April 2014

Our editorial voice is our neutrality; we take no "editorial stance" on issues. We can and do cover newsworthy events that a contributor has the will and wherewithal to cover. There's zero chance of our being intimidated out of doing so; and they're just trolls, after all. They make this stuff up out of whole cloth.

Pi zero (talk)23:07, 27 April 2014

The actual discussion Adam has started over on Wikipedia isn't worth getting overly-involved in. Particularly with the willful misreading of who wrote what on Wikinews. The discussion is for Fringe Theories on Wikipedia; the relevant single-word correction has been made here, so leaving our detractors to rant and troll there is the best thing to do. Saner heads on Wikipedia will eventually conclude they're being disruptive for no net gain.

Brian McNeil / talk07:14, 28 April 2014