It is increasingly common that subjects of articles wish to interact
directly with us and tell us that their article is wrong in some way.
It is, in my opinion, silly for us to reject even harmless corrections
on the grounds that they cannot be traced to a reliable source. If
Wikipedia itself becomes a primary source in the process of someone
commenting on "their" article, what is the problem with that from a
purely factual point of view? Depending on the nature of the
statement, such comments could be either incorporated as corrections
(date of birth) or attributed statements (".. denies that he ever had
sexual relations with that woman").
I wouldn't be surprised if such interactions are even common among
traditional encyclopedias, and corrections are simply quietly
incorporated (they don't have talk pages). The main problem with us
seems to be making the source "reliable", but there seem reasonable
ways to do so (OTRS, "update this website please", call a volunteer,
...). No, just like any credentials verification, WMF shouldn't be
involved directly. But while I generally fully support the need for
good sourcing in any article, I often find it absurd how people who
point out simple corrections are treated.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic