User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Salon.com as a Source

This page was created as part of the mediation process for the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The page is specifically devoted to discussion of the use of the writings of Basava Premanand as a source for Wikipedia articles.

Salon.com as a Reputable Source

Please answer the following questions regarding salon.com. Please discuss other issues elsewhere.

• Is it openly partisan?

• Andries: no, Andries 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: No. But Michelle Goldberg expressed bias to Glen Meloy [1] SSS108 ^talk-email 21:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Does it have a large or very small readership?

• Andries: large Andries 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: Large readership. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff?

• Andries: large staff Andries 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: Run by a large, permanent staff. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip?

• Andries: It was called the best online magazine in a Dutch newspaper. I do not get the feeling that it shoots from the hip. Andries 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: For the most part, no, it does not shoot from the hip. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes?

• Andries: I tend to trust on what I hear from reputable sources that speak highly about salon.com. See the awards [2] Salon.com is treated by almost all editors in Wikipedia as a reputable source. The list of editors is long there is an editor in chief, publisher, but no lawyer [3] I do not have the time to check extensively personally whether its articles are generally correct and whether they generally correct their mistakes. How am I supposed to find out whether they generally correct their mistakes? They may not even publish letters pointing out mistakes. I do not believe this, but I don't know how I can be sure. The article on SSB was open for letters and contained an apologist letter. Andries 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: I would (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes. I would not feel the same way if the article was an op-ed, which has not been ruled out. Michelle Goldberg's agenda was hidden from the public, but divulged on Anti-Sai Sites in her correspondence with Glen Meloy (which might not be applicable, even though it is true) [4]

• Given the answers to the above questions which speak in favor of salon.com being a reputable source, per Wikipedia policy, do you consider that set of favorable answers to meet the threshold required for a source to be considered reputable.

• Andries: reputable. Salon.com is treated by almost all editors in Wikipedia as a reputable source. If this is not a reputable source then I wonder what is left as a reputable source. Andries 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: Salon.com is a reputable source. I dissent with Michelle Goldberg for the hidden bias she admitted to engaging in (which may not be applicable, even though it is true), in which she told Glen Meloy that she hoped her article would much attention to their cause [5]