[duplicate, sorry]
On 13/03/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/13/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't see anything wrong with me footnoting a) as "was born in Such-and-Such<ref>Personal correspondence with the Wikimedia Foundation, June 17th, reference ABC1234567</ref>.
I disagree. There are lots of problems with this. 1) You're not the Wikimedia Foundation; 2) It's not a published source which can be easily accessed; and 3) it's not a reliable source even if it's true, as the person no doubt does not remember his own birth.
1) I forgot the minor detail that I was corresponding with the chap via OTRS...
2) Does it have to be easily accessed by a random passer-by if the Foundation can verify it? That is really the point of this discussion... stating it won't work because of this is kind of circular.
3) This is a bit silly. I can tell you all sorts of factual details about my own birth which I don't remember, but I still know to be true... am I an unreliable source because I got them from my mother or my medical records? It also doesn't help with cases which aren't "give a birthday"
Yes, we could ask them to issue a rather dull press release, or write a blog post, or (in one case I recall) update the details on their myspace page. But no reasonable academic or reporter objects to incorporating corrections of trivial, non-contentious details from those who know about the article; why should we?
Because we want to be better? If the detail is so trivial as to not matter if it's correct or not, why include it in the first place?
Okay, one we might have an interest in getting right... manner of death. We usually give this if known. Not at all unknown for obituaries to get it wrong, especially if published quickly; small details in obituaries are rarely corrected afterwards for various reasons (most often that the only people who know it's wrong are otherwise preoccupied with mourning), and all too often that's the last thing published on them before we come along.
Spouse's names, that's another one we get a good few corrections over. Little things, yes, and we can say "why should we include them?", but the fact is we *do* include them, and it really seems futile to insist on a method whereby if we include them we get them wrong.
Alternatively, if the truth might actually matter, then we should make sure to get it right.
Which this proposal is one means to achieve. Not everything someone quibbles with the article over is significant, it's just that when it is significant we're less happy to take their unadorned word for it...