[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of l...

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:00 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:39 AM, <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 4/22/2009 5:27:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> andrewrturvey at googlemail.com writes:
>>
>> What do  we do about well-sourced information which turns out to be
>> incorrect? I don't  think policies cover this area particularly well, but
>> the
>> commonsense view is  to word it something along the lines of:
>>
>> "A national newspaper in 2007  reported that celebrity x had been arrested
>> for taking drugs<ref>  </ref>; however this was later shown to be untrue
>> <ref>  </ref>"
>>
>> If it's not that important you can always include the  details in a
>> footnote:
>>
>> "Joe Blow (b. 15.1.74) <ref>Note the New  York Times stated he was born on
>> January 14 - (ref). However, this source  shows the actual date to be 14
>> Jan
>> </ref>
>>
>> The added advantage is  it means editors don't add the incorrect
>> information in again at a later date.  >>
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> I agree completely with the above.
>>
>>
>> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> In effect, this is suggesting an amendment a bit like this:
>
>
> "Corrections to published information presented by the subject and not found
> in third party sources may be incorporated in the article or its footnotes
> to improve the quality of the article, subject to 1/ the correction must be
> carefully checked and confirmed to be from the subject or their appointed
> representative, 2/ such a statement corrects but does not replace the
> published information; it must be clear that this is a correction of cited
> and otherwise verified information as stated by the subject, and 3/ this
> does not override NPOV or the requirement to avoid undue weight, advocacy or
> use as a battleground."

You still need a way for later editors to verify things. OTRS ticket?

Carcharoth