On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 10/25/2008 11:28:10 AM Pacific
Daylight Time,
delirium(a)hackish.org writes:
than "some guy on Wikipedia has
investigated, and determined that all
the sources are in fact wrong".>>
---
This part is great. Made me smile.
Will Johnson
**************
Play online games for FREE at
Games.com! All of
your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(
http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And that part is exactly -why- we require sources, including to change
something at a subject's request. If reliable sources indicate
something, and the subject says "It isn't so" but we've got nothing to
verify that, we can't simply say "Oh, alright," and change the
article.
One thing we -can- do in such a case, as stated earlier, is to change
that particular part of the article to a quoted form, e.g. "The New
York Times reported in 2006 that foo did bar", rather than "Foo did
bar <ref name="nyt">". In that case, our statement -cannot- be
inaccurate, provided that the New York Times really did make such a
report-we're simply in that case asserting that such a report was
made.
If the subject -does- disagree, it's then his or her responsibility to
talk to the NYT and look at having a correction printed (in which
case, that correction is a reliable source to change what we've got!)
This is better for the subject anyway, as now the original source is
corrected and future inaccuracies from anything that relies on it (not
just us) can be prevented. And if there is no inaccuracy and the
subject is lying or genuinely mistaken, we don't end up removing or
changing information which is both verifiable -and- truthful.
It is just beyond our means to determine if, firstly, the person
claiming to be the subject really is, and secondly, even if that can
be confirmed (through OTRS or the subject posting to his/her own site,
for example), that the claims (s)he makes are true and the sources are
genuinely wrong. Of course, if the subject is willing to post their
side somewhere, such as on his or her own site, we can certainly add
that "Doe denies this and states that...", citing that source and
telling both sides of the story.
BLP is a good policy in general, in saying that "Potentially negative
or controversial information about a living person that is -unsourced
or badly sourced- should be removed posthaste, and such information
when well-sourced should not be given undue weight." That's really
just saying that our normal content policies (verifiability, NPOV,
NOR) should be enforced with exceptional speed and vigor when
concerning a BLP. Removing or sourcing questionable unsourced
information and properly weighting are things we should aspire to with
every article anyway. On the other hand, BLP shouldn't generally enter
into the equation when information is well-sourced and duly weighted.
That's an issue to be resolved through normal content mechanisms, not
the sledgehammer of BLP. It might be needed, but it's got to be kept
reined in.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.