On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
However, if several sources -have- corroborated the story, and it is major enough to be of encyclopedic interest, we should refer the person to those who reported it if an error has been made. That person's interests will ultimately be better served by having the original source of erroneous information correct it.
Isn't it a little arrogant to tell someone "we're not going to correct this BLP because we think it's better for you"?
Of course it's a fake "better for you". You're just saying that it's better for them because you're trying to justify interpreting the policy to do it that way. Personally I think their interests would be better served by having the erroneous information immediately removed from Wikipedia, even if the original source is stubborn about it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Your argument ignores that that is a -supporting- reason for not doing so, certainly not the full one, and knocks down a [[straw man]] as it ignores the bulk of the argument. If the subject can -prove- that the information is erroneous, I'd say we've got a case for removing it. On the other hand, if they just deny it, a lot of people deny things which are nonetheless true. We run into the latter a lot more than the former, where the subject says "Not so", but a lot of other reliable sources say otherwise. We would rarely run into a case where the subject has conclusive proof that the source is wrong, but the source refuses to correct and no other source reports on the new findings. If the subject denies something, it is important to incorporate that into the article (and surely some of the sources would report on the subject's denial), but that in itself is not grounds for -removing- the information. BLP calls for removal of unsourced or poorly sourced controversial information, and well that it should, but we should not extend that to well-sourced controversial information.