Talk:Santa Barbara News-Press controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Organized Labour Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

I think the `proseline' criticism is no longer valid. Of course, the Didionesque list will be objectionable to some, and I'd prefer to make a nice table/list out of that, but I don't have the time. So the article could use more editing, but I think it is above the median for Wiki... snug 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

With not a single heading, this article is an unreadable unencyclopedic mess, far below the WP median. -- Jibal 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK... thanks for the observation snug 02:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I organized the info into headings... that is a significant improvement. I think it could still be made better, but I do think it is above the median now. snug 19:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I think when you have 30 or so references in a row, we really needs to reevaluate some things. --waffle iron ^talk 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure... that info is best organized into a table/list. The number of separations grew unexpectedly, and the value of the information is proven, I think, by the fact that many news outlets refer to the total number of separations (like 40, 50, etc). But a complete list is not available anywhere else. I've not had time to do make the table/list, and until someone does, I think leaving it is a reasonable solution. snug 16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Santa Barbara Independent has reorganized its website, and essentially all the links, and there are many links and very important ones, are now broken to that site. Sigh. snug 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed most of the Santa Barbara Independent links. Next I'll start in on the LA Times links, most of which have timed out. Oh Boy. snug 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also just noticed that a number of the Craig Smith Blog links are out of data, because he put his 2006 stuff on an archive page. Only took me 5 months to notice. snug 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Think I got the Craig Smith links refreshed (although not yet standardized... some say `Entry' and some do not). Webcite and the Wayback machine do not have copies of the 5 or so stale links I've pursued... slowly but surely I'll update the LA Times links to their archive site.

A blog is not a reliable source that can be used as a reference for citing facts in articles. exceptions are for BLP articles when the blog run by the BLP subject is referenced. That is not the case here. Piperdown 05:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing those references is incorrect in this case. The Blogs you removed simply are reliable sources, and your removal of the references without prior discussion or contact is near-vandalism of the article. The blogasphere in Santa Barbara has blossomed due to the travails of the News-Press, and the Independent regularly follows up and references to the Craig Smith blog, for example. I would like to revert the article to its pre-July 11 form, but I believe in discussing before taking precipitous actions. Concerning the address: I already reverted that because it is not the home of anyone, it is an empty lot.snug 11:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just put one reference in, where the Santa Barbara Independent followed up on the original Craig Smith Blog entry concerning the response of Lou Cannon to Wendy McCaw. Craig Smith is a recognized expert on Santa Barbara media issues, who appeared as a regular commentator on local and national TV during the Michael Jackson trial here, prior to the News-Press controversy. One of his blog entries per week is published in the Daily Sound, a print newspaper in Santa Barbara. I think his blog qualifies under the guidelines, since he is a recognized expert who appeared in editorially-supervised media outlets prior to the topic of the article. In any case, he simply is a reliable source, and that fact makes his blog satisfy the Wikipedia policy, although one could quibble about whether his blog satisfies the guideline. I think the only way to deal with the deletion of all the references to his blog is to revert the article. snug 12:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A source is not unreliable merely by virtue of being labeled a blog. Craig Smith is a former DA and a law professor at the local college, appears on local TV news as an expert on legal affairs, writes a column for the Daily Sound that he republishes on his blog, has been reporting on this case since it started, and many of the principles in this "controversy", including Lou Cannon, the fired reporters, and News-Press representatives such as Barry Capello and David Millstein talk directly to Smith, with their comments published on his blog often being picked up by local media. Craig Smith is an entirely reliable source by the dictionary definition of the word. Wikipedia, as part of the shift toward non-commercial on-line information sources, is institutionally hypocritical if its policies don't recognize this shift. -- Jibal 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)