>-----Original Message-----
>From: Erik Moeller [mailto:erik@wikimedia.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 07:28 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as a primary source
>
>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
We already do that for minor personal details. Attributed statements such as "I am not a crook" would seem Ok.
Fred