2 ms·

I see. The onus is on me to personally verify the details of a large, well respected news source. But you are defending a Wikipedia editor for deleting a entr

• BeetleB 5y ago
  > The onus is on me to personally verify the details of a large, well respected news source. I did not say that. At all. The onus is on you to understand what the article does and does not contain. The criticism of the article is about possibly vital pieces of information that are excluded. It's pretty obvious on a single read of the article that there is information missing. The "extra work" is to uncover that missing piece, which is not your responsibility. However, being aware that then article is excluding relevant information is. You and only you are responsible for what you believe, and how you evaluate information coming to you. Sorry, I do not want to engage with you if you don't read my comments properly. > But you are defending a Wikipedia editor for deleting a entry on a prominent scientist whose work eventually earns her a Nobel prize without any research at all... Yes, because that Wikipedia editor is not getting paid to do the research. Nor is it the editor's defined role. The journalist, however, is, and it is their role to do so.