Talk:Galina Timchenko

What Timchenko did (not) say about Wikipeida
The sentence that I deleted went like this: «Timchenko believes and has expressed in public that "Wikipedia lies"». I starte with the **third** problem with statement: We do not know what Timchenko **believes** - unless she tells us what she believes. And she has not told us about her «beliefs about Wikipedia». I now continue with the **second** problem of that statement: The deleted article pointed to an interview in Echo of Moscow as source - however in the very same interview with Echo of Moscow, Timchenko spoke, in an ironic and critical way, about making sweeping claims of the type «all journalists lie»: „Это всё равно, что сказать «Все журналисты врут».“ Of course: Even if she stated that she could not subscribe to sweeping claims of the type «all journalist lies», it is of course still **possible** that she could still express the sweeping claim that (the entire) Wikipedia lies. However, it would be quite inconsistent of her if she was opposed to such a general statement about journalists but happy to make the the same general statement about Wikipedia. So, in summary, the second problem is that it would be insonsistent with othter claims in this article if she really had claimed that Wikipedia lies. And now finally, we come to the **first** problem with the sentences that I deleted, namely the statement itself: In the interview, Timchenko talked about Wikipedia when the interview switched to the topic of Sergei Roldugin. She says that she has only found information about Mr Roldugin in Wikipedia. Then she states: «One may point to Wikipedia - who is lying». Russian original: «Там можно ссылаться на Википедию — она врет.» In other words: This is not a sweeping claim about what she believes about Wikipedia. This is simply a statement in a very small context, namely in a discussion about certain facts about Roldugin. Thus, to conclude: The source - the interview with Echo of Moscow - does not support the claim that «Timchenko believes and has expressed in public that Wikipedia lies». To see the deleted sentence, | see this diff. --Komputist (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * She is very clear on two points: 1)"Wkipedia lies" (literally); (2) she indeed only could find info on Roldugin on Wikipedia and she is ashamed to present it because Wikipedia lies. I do not see how it could be more clear. We can of course decide that she does not believe that but still says it in public, well, fine, I could be happy even with the formulation «Timchenko has expressed in public that "Wikipedia lies"»--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a pity - and perhaps revealing - that you do not see how it could be more clear. One thing that might help you understand how it could have been more clear, is to aquaintance yourself with |the subject of speech acts. For instance, given the interview context (which I explained above), it seems reasonable to think that she simplly mean that «Wikipedia often lies» or «Wikipedia is often unreliable». I myself read Wikipedia every day. But even so I still think that Wikipedia is often unreliable. However, even if I had been a famous journalist, it would not have been worth a mention in Wikipedia that I often think Wikipedia is unreliable.  (1) You do not add anything new to the discussion by citing what she «literally» said. After all, I quoted, in Russian and English (and my translation is more literal than yours), what she said, above.  (2) You say that «she is ashamed to present it because Wikipedia lies». This is your interpretation. My interpretation is that she, as a journalist, finds that it below her journalistic standard to use Wikipedia as the single source. However, single source journalism is, in general, a problem, regardless of whether the single source is Wikipedia or another source. Also, every reliable wikipedia article contains links to its sources. Thus, any reliable Wikipedia article also contains sources. However, Timechenko said she could only find Wikipedia as source - so it sounds as if she found an article without sources for its claim. In a summary: There is nothing in what you have said, thus far, which justifies the deleted sentence.  Komputist (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is great that you decided to post walls of arrogant text. The matter of fact is nevertheless that she said that. Whereas it can be indeed interpreted in different ways all interpretations have the same thing in common: she believes Wikipedia in (intentionally) not reliable and she is ashamed to use it as a source. For the context, a chief editor of Meduza she is not ashamed to use anonymous gossip as a source. I do not see a single reason why this can not be added to the article. I am flexible on the formulation though.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"39 employees out of the total 84, including Director-general Yuliya Minder, including 32 correspondents, all photo-editors (5 people) and 6 administrators." This sentence sorely lacks a verb (and is an orthographical nightmare). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.25.129 (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)