On 13/05/2011, Scott MacDonald <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
The point is that the story of "Otto the true
earring-eating Dog of Kate
Middleton" was also verifiable from multiple reliable sources, despite being
a crock of shit. (Indeed you can find articles published as late as last
week referring to
"Kate's dog Otto" - despite the hoax being identified a year ago).
We're never going to avoid untrue things being in the Wikipedia.
Sometimes, the sources make mistakes. (And yes, it's much more likely
to be a mistake with The Daily Mail).
But I don't in any way agree that that impacts on verifiability over
truth. We have no way to know the real truth about anything for
certain, but verifiability of sources is at least possible.
That's one part of the Wikipedia that has to remain as bedrock. We
have to build the Wikipedia on rock.