Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
In that case, the subject would do better by both himself and us by -having the sources correct themselves-. Reputable sources will be willing to publish corrections if you can show them they're wrong.
Really?
Does that mean that if the source refuses to publish a correction they aren't a reputable source any more and Wikipedia has to stop using it?
IIRC when Seigenthaler was maligned on Wikipedia the problem was fixed as soon as we were aware of it, but he had difficulty getting the attention of a site that had used the Wikipedia material.
When a "reputable" source receives information contrary to what they have already published fixing it is no easy task. They need to put someone to work investigating claims that may not have an easy answer. If the source is in a paper book publishing a new edition just to correct this error is not a practical soulution. But for the controversies, it's easier for us to make corrections than for the reputable sources to do it.
Ec