The true purpose of ITN is revealed in the fact that an aircrash that killed sixteen people (everybody aboard) two days ago was posted instantly, because it is a "significant death toll". They were so eager to post this rather insignificant news that plane crashes happen and tend not to be survivable, the item has had to be revised once it was realised that in fact one person has survived (less remarkable when you learn the crash was not 'fell out to the sky' but 'tried to perform an emergency landing on a runway that is too short'). None of this was discussed to inform significance. They merely saw SIXTEEN DEAD and got the rush of endorphins that death tolls always gives them.
Meanwhile, they can hardly get their heads around the fact that yesterday the British government suffered its worst defeat in the House of Commons in the history of British parliamentary politics, turning the already chaotic Brexit process into a total clusterfuck. Literally nobody has a clue where this is going, you can find commentators and participants predicting everything from no Brexit at all, to the narrow favourite, the infamous "no deal Brexit", which many people think will see our green and pleasant land rapidly turn into a post-apocalyptic hellscape. Every option is apparently still in play, from another general election to another referendum. All this, despite the EU and the UK having had nine months to negotiate an orderly Brexit.
Not for nothing is this defeat dominating the media in this country, far beyond even the largely blanket coverage Brexit has got for the last nine months. Such is the dominance of the coverage of the defeat, and the lead up to it, if it weren't for the Wikipedian's love of death and tragedy, I'd have not even realised this crash had occurred. Now that I know, I can say for certain that I did not really need to know (save for the benefit it had for sustaining my hobby of Wikipedia criticism).
They've registered something happened and are discussing its merits, but they have barely even noticed the newsworthy aspect, the historic nature of the defeat and the genuine lack of any clue what happens next, an observable step change in the level of uncertainty, in a process already characterised by uncertainty. These are the reasons why it would be wise to post this now. Right now. Yesterday even, if the goal is informing readers (putting aside the fact Wikipedia does not usefully inform readers, because it is shit). But no, it languishes in uncertainty. The irony.
There's no excuse, since at least a couple of people have said what makes this significant. If 'biggest ever government defeat ' isn't sufficient context, there have been numerous other attempts by reliable sources to contextualize it.......
Ms May’s defeat came close to breaking another record: the largest rebellion in modern British politics by MPs of a single party.
The 118 Conservatives who voted against Ms May’s deal was 21 short of the largest ever revolt, which took place in March 2003 when 139 Labour MPs defied prime minister Tony Blair and voted against war in Iraq.
This remains the greatest revolt by MPs of any party since the repeal of the Corn Laws in the 1840s.
Wherever the Wikipediots are getting their ideas about what is and is not 'significant ', it is not reliable sources like this. 'Twas ever thus.
Hilariously, it turns out there is something significant to say about the air crash to consumers of a world encylopedia whose watch word is neutrality .......
This is the latest in a series of Iranian plane crashes in recent years.
In February last year, Iran's Aseman Airlines was ordered to ground its fleet of ATR planes after one of them crashed into the Zagros mountains. All 66 people on board died.
And in August 2014, a Sepahan Airlines' Antonov plane crashed shortly after taking off from Tehran, killing 39 of the 40 people on board. It is believed engine failure was the cause
Years of tough US sanctions have prevented officials from purchasing new planes and critical spare parts.
A landmark 2015 deal between Tehran and Washington brought renewed hope that the situation would change - but this was dashed last May when the US pulled out, reinstating sanctions that had been lifted.
This escaped the notice of the Wikipediots, it didn't factor into their decision to post at all, and exposure of the article to the Main Page has done nothing to motivate anyone to add it to the article either, as useful contextual information. Almost as if Wikipedia's entire model does not work. But that can't be true, surely!