Talk:Drudge Report/Archive 1

message: I clicked one of the lined parody websites ("Drunken Report") and it came out with an explicitly sexual ad, which embarrased the hell out of me. Some one should get rid of the link or just post a warning.67.80.32.189 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning one of the parody sites of the Drudge Report

message: I just added in the past couple of days heavily-sourced material about the Drudge Report's extremely well-documented mockery campaign (which goes on virtually daily) against the term "global warming."  It was accurate, nuanced and NPOV.  And as a separate matter I gently corrected the ridiculous suggestions that the reactionary site is not conservative, and I carefully footnoted that, while still including the opposing views (however ludicrous they are).  
I was shocked to see that this material was immediately reverted.  I now get the impression that abuse on Wiki is more common than I had realized.  People are on here defending their treasured causes, and they don't have any intention of informing, only propagandizing.  References that don't support their position are routinely excised.  And the supposed mechanisms that Wiki has for policing these abuses have proven hopelessly inadequate.  Mare Nostrum 07:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV is just one of Wikipedia's three content policies.  Your content, even if NPOV, runs afoul of WP:OR. Poshua 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I've added an NPOV tag to this article.  As it stands right now, this article is more a huge criticism piece on the Drudge Report rather than being informative. I also moved the sources to the expanded article to the main page. Equinox137 13:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think most of the information in the article is sound, I would welcome more general information so that it doesn't give the reader the impression that drugereport is constantly in error or surrounded by controversy. --Quasipalm 22:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm getting at - I don't doubt any of the information, but it's so spinned by detractors and people who can't stand him - it's not funny. Equinox137 23:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tag

message: "A later erroneous report emerged in the 2004 US presidential campaign, one week before Senator Kerry announced his selection of Senator John Edwards as his vice presidential running mate. The Report headlined a prediction from a "top D.C. insider" saying that Senator Kerry would be announcing Senator Hillary Clinton as his running mate, declaring it to mark the beginning of a "massive love fest." [16] (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/07/01/20040701_012802_kerryhrc.htm) The story was de-linked one day later. After Edward's selection, Drudge removed all "VP Hillary" coverage without comment; the correction or outright removal of false content published at the Report is usually handled in similar no-comment fashion."
This entire section seems to be in error.  Is it false content to report what you are told?  While the source may be in error, unless there is evidence that this source did not tell him this, that there was a retraction by this source, or that the source didn't exist, it seems out of place. 172.131.58.54 08:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is good journalism to have two sources for every claim.  Drudge recklessly defies that tradition, which is why he is the source of so many falsehoods. 68.9.184.173 13:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You're splitting hairs.  Was the New York Post in error when they reported Gephardt was Kerry's VP?  Yes.  Even though they said that "source say", they should have done fact checking and were being poor journalists.  In the same way, Drudge was in error, or at least perpetuated a mistake, and so I don't believe this section is incorrect.  --Quasipalm 18:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll accept that.  The problem then becomes what to include and what not to.  As there are many more cases where sources have been incorrect.  Is there a certain amount thats proper to reference?172.130.241.8 23:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I think this paragraph could be shortened -- it's a pretty minor error in the big picture.  (Not as notable as the NY Post calling Gephardt, or Dan Rather presenting a story with unverified, forged documents, for example.)  --Quasipalm 01:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your responses Quasi.  I have personally become terrified of actually editing sections of articles due to the edit wars that will inevitably pop-up, and my not-to-great ability at putting my thoughts into words.  Sorry if it seems rather lazy of me, but I'd rather bring up objections, or suggest content in the talk pages and let the more brave among us do the actual editing.  Again, appreciate your time. 172.130.241.8 09:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: There should be something here about his handling of the Cindy Sheehan story. Once again, he editorializes through images. He keeps posting the most unattractive pictures of her he can find. As a "libertarian," he should actually support private citizens who speak out against big government. Instead, he is siding with the Bush administration against a bereaved mother. Whether you are a hawk or a dove, you have to find it shady when a professed libertarian repeatedly sides with big government against the private citizen. 68.110.199.122 15:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.  I think this shows that Drudge isn't really a strict libertarian, but rather, he is a person that walks the republican party line (with a few rare exceptions, like bemoaning the rising public debt under GWB).--Quasipalm 16:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went and checked out the image...  It's so rediculous (I mean, this woman lost her son) that I put a comparison of two images into the article.  --Quasipalm 17:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, Quasi. 68.110.199.122 06:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This couldn't possibly be because he thinks she is a crock of B.S.  Just because someone is a libertarian does not mean that you agree with every individual out there.  You can be very antiwar, and still not agree with someone who gives a thumbsup while hugging Hugo Chavez.74.129.17.185 16:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drudge as Libertarian

message: http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100007 68.110.199.122 06:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this worth covering in this article?

message: Is the Internet Archive no longer archiving Drudge Report? It was being archived daily until Nov 30, 2004 and then stops except for Dec 25, 2004. There is nothing from 2005.  Ewlyahoocom 15:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Not entirely relevant, but how does Drudge get away with not giving photo credits for the pictures he pirates from other sites? And why doesn't he resize them so they don't look so distorted? 68.9.184.173 00:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows -- but the reason he doesn't re-size them is because he doesn't even host them, and sometimes he's even deeplinked images from other news-sources.  Basically "stealing" their bandwidth to show images on his page (this is very easy technically, unless they protect themselves).  Lately, most of the images are hosted on another (yimg?) server that he probably pays to deep-link from his website.  Or maybe he doesn't pay -- it's hard to tell with this guy.  --Quasipalm 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Today I noticed "deep-linking" ...  He is showing an image of the NYTimes' Dowd (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/10/26/magazine/30dowd.450.jpg) and he's not hosting the image himself.  He is just linking to the image on the NYTimes' server.  Why do these websites let him get away with this?  I'm sure it's a ton of bandwidth.  --Quasipalm 19:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: My guess is that the way he gets by using the photos is specifically because he deep links them.  Hosting is stealing but you can link anything that is public.Rtrev 04:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: There are several unsubstantiated/uncited "some"s and "many"s -- some critics, many feel, etc. etc. -- that tilt this article away from a neutral point of view. --EEMeltonIV 19:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: Just a reminder... this article more than many others seems to smack of original research.  Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be a TERTIARY soruce.  Which means you should rarely cite the Drudge Report itself, the Internet Archive, or internet discussion groups.  Instead of using your own analysis and observations in Wikipedia, please refer to reputable sources (books, news reports, etc.) that make that analysis and analyze the original research.  I removed the following because it seems like the textbook definition of original research.  If someone wants to find this analysis and a secondary source and rework the content, that would be cool (although I doubt it can be found)--Bibliophylax 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Actually, according to WP:RS: Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following: ... (snip)  I believe it is completely appropriate to use something from Drudge's archives to verify a statement such as, "On such and such date, the Drudge Report published ..." - Crockspot 23:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You're definitely right that the Drudge Report isn't ruled out as an unreliable source under WP:RS.  But that doesn't mean that it can be used in original research.  See WP:NOR.  For example, the article talks about pictures being used to editorialize and backs this up with samples of the Drudge Report.  That is original research because it doesn't cite a source for the claim that the pictures are editorializing.  Another example is the paragraph I removed below on 10/02.  It tries to speculate about when the Drudge Report started by looking at evidence.  That's original research because it should instead cite another source that has researched it and already reached the conclusion.  It's a little confusing... but any analysis or synthesis in the article has to be from another source.--Bibliophylax 16:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Agreed. Conclusionary statements are certainly OR. Just wanted to clarify that the self source of Drudge can be used in particular circumstances. Crockspot 16:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Only problem is that after looking through the Bias and Criticism sections it seems that the whole thing is uncited or original research.  These sections should be in the article but as it stands they are not article ready.  The only problem is that I am loathe to delete them outright but they probably shouldn't stay as is.  Any suggestions?  Anyone have time to re-write/cite/non-original research? Rtrev 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already put in a ton of time on the Matt Drudge article in the past few days. You could check there and see if any of the new cites I added can be used here. Otherwise, I would suggest moving the entire section here to the talk page, and we can work on it here. Crockspot 17:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is confusing at all, pretty cut and dry original research. Rtrev 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: The Internet Archive "Wayback Machine" shows that the Drudge Report website had its debut on December 6, 1998.  It is unclear exactly when Drudge began publishing non-web reports.  On April 2, 2004, he splashed a headline on his site which read "Drudge Report Turns Nine Years Old".  In a Usenet post from that month, Drudge advertised his Report as covering "the Entertainment industry, Poli-Video shows (political talk shows,) Talk Radio, and a cross section of things that the editor Matt Drudge is focusing in on.  This weekly report arrives on Monday and is complimented (sic) with NEWS BREAKS as they occur. Already read by key players, this tip sheet will be sure to peak (sic) your interest." 
(Removed by Bibliophylax 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is confusing at all, pretty cut and dry original research. Rtrev 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed the following original research 10/02/06

message: I looked all over and couldn't find a cite for the statement that "the Drudge Report has been accused of editorializing with photo selection."  Do we have a source? --PTR 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that all Drudge does is link the photos directly from AP, Yahoo, etc., I doubt that one will be found. At least, one that meets WP:RS. Mostly just bloggers complaining about it, so probably should remove the statement. Crockspot 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we remove the statement we'll need to remove the photos.  I'll do it tomorrow if no one has objections.--PTR 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore my last message.  Photos have been removed.  Should look a the page before commenting.--PTR 14:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos - Editorializing 

message: Here are the images that have been removed -- if anyone can find reputable sources, please re-enter them.  -
The Drudge Report has been accused of editorializing with photo selection. Above is pictured Cindy Sheehan.
The Drudge Report has been accused of editorializing with photo selection. Above is pictured John Roberts.
Drudge has been accused of editorializing through the juxtaposition of arguably unrelated linked stories. Above is a sequence of links from a May 27, 2006 issue. Below is a sequence of links from a May 31, 2006 issue.
-Quasipalm 17:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Section

message: On his site right now he has a link titled "DRUDGE SEASON GREETINGS FROM MIDEAST... THANKS FOR A GREAT YEAR!!", the text is linked to this picture of himself: http://www.drudgereport.com/drx.jpg, does that mean he is currently in the middle east? and if so what country?
::It doesn't much matter in relation to this article.  We have no idea if it yet meets WP:NOTE. --Rtrev 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where in the world is matt drudge?

message: The subtitle of the article says, "Book Compares Online Newsman to Walter Cronkite" and the claim is made by the authors of that book. The quote on the second page of the article is: "Drudge's coverage affects the media's political coverage, Halperin said." You are disingenuous being by claiming "ABC" said it.
In fact, in the context of the article: "Matt Drudge is not doing stories on policy, on welfare, on healthcare. He's doing stories on the most salacious aspects of American politics," he said. "When that drives the dialogue, that's where the country heads, that's where our political coverage heads." It not really compliment. Arbustoo 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * You make a good point, Arbustoo. The ABC article (and book) are potentially misused here as puffery quotes for MD, whereas the actual content is more balanced. I have tried to reflect that. One might go further and quote the stuff about how Drudge tirelessly pushed the Swift Boaters claims.  Skopp (Talk) 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The title of the article appears nowhere in the book. The book is not mentioned in the article (except for the subtitle) until well into the second half of the article. You are the one being disingenuous here. - Crockspot 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are claiming "ABC News concluded that the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage." Concluded by who? What department? With what research? According to what spokesperson? The CEO believes this? The article is an interview attributing those quotes to authors of a book. If want to claim a news network believes this about a blog get a source to prove it. Arbustoo 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before I take this to an RfC, I will lay out my position as clearly as I can: ABC News published the article titled "Drudge Report Sets Tone for National Political Coverage" without a byline. The title itself makes a charactarization, and it is not quoted from a book. The first three paragraphs of the article are clearly making a similar charactarization (one of the strongest weapons...tremendous influence...can send shock waves through newsrooms and campaign headquarters nationwide ...) without any attribution to a third party. Then follows a supporting quote from Mark Halperin, ABC News Political Director. Then there are several more quotes, interspersed with unattributed statements of fact. Finally, at the thirteenth paragraph, we hear about the book which is referred to in the subtitle. Clearly this is not a book review, it is reporting by a reliable news organization. If the article had a byline, I would offer the compromise of attributing the charactarization to the author, ie., Joe Blow of ABC News drew the conclusion.... Furthermore, reporters do not usually write the headline which appears above their story. That is a task that falls to the editorial staff. So considering that ABC News chose to publish a story with no byline, with a headline that the editorial staff chose, with reporting that tends to support the headline, I would say that there is no one else to attribute the charactarization to except ABC News. The article itself is all the proof that is required. Are you actually asking for a reliable secondary source to prove a reliable secondary source? - Crockspot 23:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ABC claim 

message: *
*Primary question: Is this reliable secondary source making the charactarization or drawing the conclusion that "the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage", or is it an interview/book review that only reports the charactarizations of other parties? 
*Secondary question: If the conclusion is being drawn or charactarization made, can that conclusion be appropriately attributed to ABC News, when authorship of the source is not disclosed (no byline), or is an additional reliable secondary source required to make that attribution? - 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I'd say that a characterization (please stop misspelling it as "charactarization") is being made by another source, not the ABC. The subhead attributes the "setting tone" claim to the book, as I read it, and I'm sure that that is the intent. Therefore the secondary question is answered like this: the characterizations made can be accurately attributed to the authors of the book and the people they quote therein, rather than to what is effectively just a report about the book.  Skopp (Talk) 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Question - Is the subject of the book Matt Drudge? It is my understanding that he is just a minor part of this book. If it is simply a "book report" as you claim, how do you explain the entire focus of the article being on Matt Drudge? - Crockspot 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can answer that — because Mark Halperin works for ABC and they gave him several articles plugging his book, each covering a different topic in it.  Also, I wouldn't quite classify it as a minor part of the book — it's a pretty major part of it.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think that says it all, don't you?  Skopp (Talk) 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  reply You have some good info there, but I still do not agree on the RfC questions, considering the unattributed comments that are written into the ABC article. I am hoping for some outside opinions here. An RfC is pretty useless if it only has the normal disputants participating. - Crockspot 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't help understand the article: It does not state what ABC News thinks about the website. It says what authors of the book claimed. Most importantly, the cite as another user added in, does not give the website a glowing affirmation. The subtitle of the article is "Book Compares Online Newsman to Walter Cronkite." If you want to claim this is what ABC News thinks you need a source that makes the claim. Arbustoo 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: ABC claim 

message: * My case is made immediately above. Obviously, I believe it is a conclusion and that it can be attributed to "ABC News". - Crockspot 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I'd say that a characterization (please stop misspelling it as "charactarization") is being made by another source, not the ABC. The subhead attributes the "setting tone" claim to the book, as I read it, and I'm sure that that is the intent. Therefore the secondary question is answered like this: the characterizations made can be accurately attributed to the authors of the book and the people they quote therein, rather than to what is effectively just a report about the book.  Skopp (Talk) 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Question - Is the subject of the book Matt Drudge? It is my understanding that he is just a minor part of this book. If it is simply a "book report" as you claim, how do you explain the entire focus of the article being on Matt Drudge? - Crockspot 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can answer that — because Mark Halperin works for ABC and they gave him several articles plugging his book, each covering a different topic in it.  Also, I wouldn't quite classify it as a minor part of the book — it's a pretty major part of it.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think that says it all, don't you?  Skopp (Talk) 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  reply You have some good info there, but I still do not agree on the RfC questions, considering the unattributed comments that are written into the ABC article. I am hoping for some outside opinions here. An RfC is pretty useless if it only has the normal disputants participating. - Crockspot 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't help understand the article: It does not state what ABC News thinks about the website. It says what authors of the book claimed. Most importantly, the cite as another user added in, does not give the website a glowing affirmation. The subtitle of the article is "Book Compares Online Newsman to Walter Cronkite." If you want to claim this is what ABC News thinks you need a source that makes the claim. Arbustoo 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Please do not remove sources such as this one because the url does not give you a free copy. A valid citation of a published article does not require a hyperlink, they are included for convenience only. As long as a citation contains enough information for someone to find that article at their library, it is a valid citation. Footnotes and citations existed long before the internet. - Crockspot 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What someone said at a meeting of some group (which does not even have its own Wiki entry) is not notable, and especially when we cannot ascertain the validity of it without paying to see the only cite for it, which is itself an online-only resource. I think that that is a very iffy inclusion, Crock.  Skopp (Talk) 02:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was published in Editor and Publisher magazine, which the citation clearly states. That is a reliable source, and it is not an iffy citation at all. What game are you playing? Crockspot 02:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's up with the Lexis link you've now provided? It just goes to an endless search. BTW, in which library can I access that rag magazine (Editor and Publisher)?  Skopp (Talk) 02:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any large library will have it. The link works for me. Goes to an abstract with publishing info. Look, you may think that it requires an online version to be a valid cite, but it doesn't. E&P is a real paper magazine. You're beating a dead horse. - Crockspot 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  E&P is a respected publication and can be found fairly easily in print. --Rtrev 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Editor & Publisher is well-known and in print. Arbustoo 21:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sources 

message: Please see the section above on this issue. Crockspot feels it is poorly sourced and a violation of WP:BLP whereas I feel it is both adequately sourced and moreover self-evident (page refreshes every 180 seconds with new advertisements as you read it). Comments please.  Skopp (Talk) 02:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note how Crockspot has become the arbiter of what constitutes source acceptability, and how he has decided that noting the page refresh issue is "defamatory", when it clearly is not.  Skopp (Talk) 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't the refreshing that is defamatory, it is the sources claiming that he is deceiving and possibly ripping off his advertisers that is defamatory. If you read the cited passage of BLP, these are exactly the kinds of sources the policy is saying not to use. Who are these "observers"? According to who? They're bloggers, according to bloggers. - Crockspot 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site itself cannot be used as a reference.  The code shows that the page is refreshed every three minutes, but we need reliable secondary sources to show that the fact that the page refreshes even matters and that the purpose of doing so is to inflate statistics.  None of the sources appear reliable; they all appear self-published or have questionable editorial oversight.  Please keep in mind that the onus is on the editor wanting to include material to provide sources that establish their reliability.  ShadowHalo 03:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think BLP does apply, because while this article is about a web site, the wording of the inclusion, and the sources cited, all refer to Drudge by name, as a person, not to his website. The sources are alleging that Matt Drudge is deceiving his advertisers. - Crockspot 03:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to try something which the great User:Thatcher131 suggested somewhere - let's see if we can avoid the highly contentious WP:BLP issue and cover this with something both more specific, and less contentious, Wikipedia:undue weight. We're talking about two sentences, of roughly equal length. One is a direct quote from a guy we have an article about, the executive editor of one of the two or three most important newspapers in the United States, making a public statement before an annual convention of his peers, and reported on by a source which seems to be a respected trade paper. The second is cited to "observers point out", and the observers are two blogs. That's undue weight: the bloggers' statements are not within several orders of magnitude of the same impact on the world as those of the editor of the Washington Post, and we should not make it seem that they are. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment : Drudge Report's Page Reloading to boost traffic statistics 

message: The fact that this page can't just come out and say that drudge is a conservative who picks his stories and exclusives to spin a particular view is just pathetic, and shows a real weakness with wikipedia.  Anyone who's actually read and used his great site knows this, and citing solely some back and forth on a laughable study claiming that he is a liberal is just astonishing in its duplicity.  Look: drudge's cite is historic and beloved.  But its selection of stories is conservative and everyone here knows that.  If there is no way for the article to reflect that, then we've failed.
:: More and more data is being sanitized from Wikipedia, so get used to it.  Skopp (Talk) 10:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty much a non-response.  A measure of whether or not wikipedia is succeeding is whether it can state obvious things forthrightly.  Anyone that insists that drudgereport isn't a conservative-slanted site is either ignorant, or, in the case of many people here apparently, smirkingly lying, and getting a big kick out of the game. The fact that there are lots of secondary sources that argue that drudge isn't conservative is about as useful as there being lots of creationist secondary sources that claim that the earth is 6000 years old.  If we can't state obvious facts because its easy to play games to confuse them, then we ARE failing in producing useful articles. 76.189.206.11 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the pillar policies of Wikipedia is WP:V, which states that the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If you can cite reliable secondary sources about something, it can generally be included. But if all you have is a bunch of ranting on blogs, then you generally cannot. There is also the concept of notable opinion. If an idea is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, reliable sources will have reported on it. If it is just the rantings of a few people on the web, it is not notable enough, and including it would violate WP:UNDUE, which is part of another pillar policy of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV. Anything you want to stick in wikipedia must be verifiable by the reader being able to look up the cited source, read it, and say to himself, "why yes, this source does say that about so and so." This holds true, whether the article is about Matt Drudge, or about the general theory of relativity. The non-expert reader MUST be able to verify anything that appears on WP through a reliable source. If these standards are something you don't agree with, then I suggest that you check out dkospedia, conservapedia, or one of the many wiki "encyclopedias" that do not have such strict verifiability and NPOV policies. - Crockspot 19:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any human being only needs to read drudge consistently to see its bias, and virtually no one BUT wikipedia continues to maintain that it is not a conservative site.  My point is that as such, something has clearly gone wrong here: either we aren't getting enough editors looking for material, or, far more likely, we have a concerted effort to avoid the obvious by trying to present bogus information as a counter to claims of bias in order to keep the statement of bias out of the article.  There are no end to the sources, both conservative and liberal which agree that drudge is a conservative site: it's called so regularly by almost anyone commenting on it.  Except for wikipedia.  The only mention any of this gets is a whole paragraph on a study so lousy that its own authors have abandoned it... and yet from wikipedia's perspective, we might as well rewrite the article on cold fusion so that it only cites the original paper in which cold fusion was claimed to work, mentioning only in passing that "others disagree."Plunge 16:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias: why can't we just come out and say it?