Difference between revisions of "Talk:Christian Research Journal: Inside the "Heavenly Elite""
From XFamily - Children of God
(corrections and fact checking) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
**I would prefer not to use a rating system, as its objectivity would be difficult to ensure. However, I have been planning to "factcheck" these articles and publications and suggest we do so. In cases where there are clear factual errors we should point them out. In cases where we believe academic standards are shoddy we should make that case, etc. --[[User:Craven de Kere|Craven de Kere]] 00:02, 13 Sep 2005 (CDT) | **I would prefer not to use a rating system, as its objectivity would be difficult to ensure. However, I have been planning to "factcheck" these articles and publications and suggest we do so. In cases where there are clear factual errors we should point them out. In cases where we believe academic standards are shoddy we should make that case, etc. --[[User:Craven de Kere|Craven de Kere]] 00:02, 13 Sep 2005 (CDT) | ||
***Sounds good to me.... and I see your point about rating. --[[User:WalkerJ|WalkerJ]] 18:48, 13 Sep 2005 (CDT) | ***Sounds good to me.... and I see your point about rating. --[[User:WalkerJ|WalkerJ]] 18:48, 13 Sep 2005 (CDT) | ||
| + | **** I have noticed plenty of factual errors and inaccuracies in some of the press clippings that have been archived. Some of the errors are relatively minor and some are more significant. Maybe we can have two versions of each one - the original version presented as close to the original as possible and an annotated version with notes and corrections. [[User:Peterf|Peter F.]] 03:46, 14 Sep 2005 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 08:46, 14 September 2005
- I vote this the worst-researched article I've read on the COG/TFI to date. Did we ever come up with a system for rating news articles for content quality / accuracy? --WalkerJ 22:42, 12 Sep 2005 (CDT)
- I would prefer not to use a rating system, as its objectivity would be difficult to ensure. However, I have been planning to "factcheck" these articles and publications and suggest we do so. In cases where there are clear factual errors we should point them out. In cases where we believe academic standards are shoddy we should make that case, etc. --Craven de Kere 00:02, 13 Sep 2005 (CDT)
- Sounds good to me.... and I see your point about rating. --WalkerJ 18:48, 13 Sep 2005 (CDT)
- I have noticed plenty of factual errors and inaccuracies in some of the press clippings that have been archived. Some of the errors are relatively minor and some are more significant. Maybe we can have two versions of each one - the original version presented as close to the original as possible and an annotated version with notes and corrections. Peter F. 03:46, 14 Sep 2005 (CDT)
- Sounds good to me.... and I see your point about rating. --WalkerJ 18:48, 13 Sep 2005 (CDT)
- I would prefer not to use a rating system, as its objectivity would be difficult to ensure. However, I have been planning to "factcheck" these articles and publications and suggest we do so. In cases where there are clear factual errors we should point them out. In cases where we believe academic standards are shoddy we should make that case, etc. --Craven de Kere 00:02, 13 Sep 2005 (CDT)
