Rich Holton wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 10:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/6/08, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote
Right, we accept verifiability, not truth. But we work pretty damn hard not
to educate people with things that we know *not* to be true.
Actually, we attempt to cover most significant errors made by humanity.
I was trying to be snappy and clever. Obviously I failed.
My point is that we don't intentionally include erroneous information. We do include information about errors. We do include controversial claims with references.
But we also include depictions of historical figures that we *know* are false, that we *know* cannot possibly be true. But we include them on the article about the person they erroneously depict, as though they accurately depict them. And at least some people find this "useful".
If some people find them "useful" what is the nature of that usefulness? If we know that a depiction is erroneous, we need to express our doubts. Those doubts are as important to NPOV as the depiction itself.
Ec