Talk:Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

I have no problems with the article, but do wonder why it's part of SourceWatch. Are we competing with the regular wikipedia?--Allamakee Democrat 03:42, 21 Mar 2006 (EST)

Hi Allamakee Democrat. A couple of quick points (just back from a few days (mostly) off and have a mountain of email. 1) John Stauber and Sheldon authored the book Mad Cow USA so the page was a spin-off from that. 2) While we try and avoid unnecessary duplication with Wikipedia in terms of topics covered or specific articles, sometimes there is a good case for it. (Of course, the boundary lines are fuzzy and it is largely a matter of judgement. Firstly Wikipedia has NPOV policy which is sensible for an encyclopedia; SourceWatch is more journalistic and prefers a standard that is fair accurate and referenced. Secondly, often a SW article will take a very different tack than a Wikipedia article given our primary focus is on PR related topics.

(For what its worth I take the view that a SW article on the same topic/organisation as covered in Wikipedia is most sensible where a) it is a stub in Wikipedia b) it is on a topic that is central to the mission of SW; c) where there is a good reason for an alternative approach to the same topic that is not constrained by Wikipedia's NPOV policy; and d) SW contributors have expertise/knowledge in the area that is equal or greater than that demonstrated on Wikipedia's page. If a new article in SW doesn't meet most/all of these criteria then I sonlt really see the reason to create another article - but then sometimes I'm ambivalent and leave it so we can wait and see). Must go --Bob Burton 04:36, 21 Mar 2006 (EST)

Response

My view of The Wikipedia is that if it's article-worthy, then post it there. SW would seem to be a venue for doing leftist documentation (and yes, I'm leftist). --Allamakee Democrat 12:35, 21 Mar 2006 (EST)