Jeff Raymond wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
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").
Because WP:V requires that challenged statements have sources. You
can't replace one unsourced statement with anohter like that, nor would
it be acceptable to replace a sourced statement with an unsourced one.
-Jeff
Can't we discuss these sort of ideas without resorting to quoting
policy? Ok, yes, we can state what the current policy *is*, but
sometimes it's worth considering what the policy *should be*, or what
the actual practice should be. Or, why the current policy is the correct
policy. But, in this kind of a conversation, just simply quoting policy
is not particularly useful (IMHO).
-Rich