On 28 March 2011 15:43, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think you're going a bit overboard there, Doc. I
agree that the
claims of the subject shouldn't be ignored, particularly if they spend
$1000 to publish a correction on a startup site (as long as we can
confirm it is them). But should it count as a reliable reference to
trigger a chance in our articles? Not necessarily. Geni and I have
both worked over the years on a particular BLP where the subject has
enormous financial resources and the apparent desire to
distort/falsify his record. If we were to credit his public statements
as fact, we'd be allowing him to hijack our content to suit his own
needs.
However, noting what the subject says is surely apposite in the
general case, even if it's delusional - as long as it can be
reasonably cited in a source that is almost certainly said subject.
- d.