Miscellaneous desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 10

BURTON ABBOTT

I just finished the fascinating 734 page book...TRAIL OF CORN by Keith Walker. This was about the Stephanie Bryan/Burton Abbott case. I was disturbed to see that you included a San Quentin's doctor HEARSAY account what Burton may or may not have said to him. Wikipedia at the end of Abbott's Wiki bio has the San Quentin doctor statement that Burton said he couldn't confess because of what it would do to his mother.

My question to Wikipedia....I don't think Wikipedia should allow for inflammatory HEARSAY statements that can't be confirmed. After reading the book I wouldn't trust any law enforcement or anyone connected to law enforcement [prison doctor] involved with Burton Abbott and the Headline Case of the Century in Northern California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpico17 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page (Talk:Burton Abbott) or WP:RSN is the best place for this sort of discussion. Tevildo (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The hearsay rule excludes certain types of evidence, in certain cases, from court proceedings. The rationale is usually related to the difficulty of effective cross-examination, thought to violate the right of confrontation.

None of that applies to Wikipedia. There is no court proceeding involved, and Abbott is not going to cross-examine or confront anyone, in this life in any case. If it is established by reliable sources that the doctor made the claim, then I think there is no reason Wikipedia cannot report that, and leave it to readers to decide the importance of that fact.

However, if Trail of Corn is a reliable source that reaches opposing conclusions, that can also be reported. --Trovatore (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability in the public sector

People often speak of accountability in public sector organisations such as the National Health Service in the UK, but why are public organisations seen as less accountable than their private counterparts? 94.10.246.129 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're seen as less accountable than their private counterparts. Rather, there are established protocols by which public and private companies are accountable to their owners; and there is an ethos that public sector organisations should be accountable to their owners - the public - which calls for protocols by which that accountability can be delivered. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In particular public organisations must be seen to be "fair", but may thus be inefficient. Whilst private profit seeking organisations must be seen to be "profitable" and have no need to be equitable or fair. Private non-profit organisations will differ depending upon the desires of their funding source. (EG the UK's Royal mail has an obligation to deliver post to all parts of the UK for the same amount - central London or Outer Hebrides. Whilst courier firms might charge different rates, usually more for the Hebrides than London. -- SGBailey (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Mail is now a PLC and the Postal Services Act 2011 requires it to provide a universal service only until 2021 :(. Still, on present heading, that'll outlast the Union. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]