User talk:Pballen

Mark Dice Michael Reagan's ridiculous statements
Wikipedia is not a platform for Mark Dice promotion. Please don't add anything about him that doesn't have a reliable, 3rd-party source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For heaven's sake - the information I put up on Michael Reagan's page was hardly *promotional*. And I sourced it with a recording of his precise quote. I actually supposed that the quote and controversy would make the news.  It didn't, and that's fine.  But that person's controversial activities seem like a fine topic for his article. As to Dice, I have no relation to him.  I just heard the ridiculous statements by a talk show host and figured they would get heard by more people than they did. Pballen (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: man, I was just the first person to get that up on there! The Net Rumbles with activity. Glad to see that some mainstream-ish media covered it and it's up there now. --Pballen (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

News
Because it's quick and easy to update, it's natural to assume that Wikipedia would be the first place to report a breaking story. But that's not the case at all. There is a sister project Wikinews, for that type of stuff. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. In some regards it is the last place that should report new information. It should certainly never be the first. Requiring secondary sources does two things: it puts the initial burden on fact-checking on professional writers, and it establishes the notability of the information. If a tree falls in the forest and no one reports it then it didn't happen, so far as Wikipedia is concerned, even if you saw it with your own eyes. Should you see a tree fall and think that it's a noteworthy event you might ask on the relevant talk page if anyone has seen any reporting on it. You might even call up some reporters and tell them what you saw and why they should report it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Having considered the matter carefully, I must respectfully beg to differ. Although it is an encyclopedia, it has become something more.  People go to Wikipedia for up-to-date information because of wikipedia's constant updates, publicity and popularity.  Current events, especially well-documented media events which do not require further journalist validation, should be linked from wikipedia in a neutral manner.  If an issue is small, it will be filtered out eventually and needn't take up much space or time on the page.  But wikipedia coverage can actually interact with the real world and change the events themselves.  It can draw the public eye so that the subject receives further attention. As such, there is a responsibility to be complete.