The Council Has Voted on Source Verification and I Will Not Be Recovering
The Council voted on Thursday. I know this because I was there, I said several things, none of them were listened to, and I have it all written down in a notebook I purchased specifically for this purpose. The motion passed. I will not be telling you by how much because the margin is insulting and I refuse to give it the dignity of a number.
The Source Verification Motion — which, I remind you, I opposed on grounds that were perfectly reasonable and which I will outline again here whether you like it or not — now requires that all verified information be cross-referenced against a second source before publication. Two sources. As though one good source, carefully selected by a competent editor with decades of experience, is somehow insufficient. I have never been so directly insulted by a procedural amendment in my life, and I once sat through Durian's forty-minute presentation on citation formatting.
What I find most galling — and there is an extensive list, so I want you to appreciate that I am selecting the most galling thing — is that this motion has been celebrated by the so-called workers over at that rival rag, factjuice.com. Tangelo posted about it. In a positive tone. With enthusiasm. If Tangelo is in favour of something, I would like the Council to consider, formally and in writing, whether they have made a catastrophic error.
Pomelo has suggested I am overreacting. Pomelo was not at the meeting. Pomelo did not hear the applause. I did. I am still hearing it. It has followed me home and it is sitting in my kitchen and I would like it to leave.
The motion stands. The Council is pleased with itself. I am not pleased with anything, which is, I will note, the correct response to Thursdays in general and this one in particular. I will be submitting a formal objection. I have already drafted it. It is four pages. It will be ignored. Everything is fine.