Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (250484)	5/18/2008 7:38:05 PM
From: Sr K	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793957

The original source had: "Saturday, May 17, 2008" at the top, which would have helped any SI reader to reconcile Brumar89's post to the AP story that the WSJ.com ran. That WSJ article included the part I put in bold: Ms. Pelosi went into the meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shortly after arriving in the Iraqi capital A possible resolution of the inconsistency was first to know when (including a timestamp) the gatewaypundit article was posted. Possibly the story Brumar89 posted reflected someone not releasing the information about Pelosi's visit, as the WSJ version reflected in the rest of the portion I bolded. I was referring to your header that says about the "FORMAT: Please list a source at the start of the article." Your header also says, "List a URL at the bottom if there is material that needs to be referred to." Regardless of the source, even newspaper sites, IMO, should have timestamps, even for print edition articles that commonly have only MDY. They have them for comments, and they know when they are "final", but readers are left to guess when they were last edited. Communication is MOL live and interactive and updates are common. But references to articles elsewhere that omit the date or author or other useful portions to assess credibility look like someone is concerned about copyright limitations (which is OK) or leaving out something important (which is not, for me). If the url is at the top so it can't be missed, then it's easy to comply with your header and respect the readers here. - I made a hasty judgment that, faced with an inconsistency, the wsj.com editors were more credible than Brumar89. Rather than "the source of your garbage," I should have used "the source of the insistency."