[WikiEN-l] "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

[Ray Saintonge]

Rich Holton wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008 10:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 2/6/08, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote
>>> Right, we accept verifiability, not truth. But we work pretty damn hard not
>>>       
>>> to educate people with things that we know *not* to be true.
>>>       
>> Actually, we attempt to cover most significant errors made by humanity.
>>
>> I was trying to be snappy and clever. Obviously I failed.
>>     
> My point is that we don't intentionally include erroneous information. We do
> include information about errors. We do include controversial claims with
> references.
>
> But we also include depictions of historical figures that we *know* are
> false, that we *know* cannot possibly be true. But we include them on the
> article about the person they erroneously depict, as though they accurately
> depict them. And at least some people find this "useful".
If some people find them "useful" what is the nature of that 
usefulness?  If we know that a depiction is erroneous, we need to 
express our doubts.  Those doubts are as important to NPOV as the 
depiction itself.

Ec