On Oct 22, 2008, at 3:09 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Firstly, our articles are not about "corrections" because they are not about "errors". Attribution isn't truth, so it can't be in error. The only way for an attribution to be in error is to mis-quote it. Making it a meta-error. The error being about the wording, not about the underlying meaning. We do not require someone to publish in a secondary source in order to quote them. We quote primary sources as well. However the essential point should be raised first in a secondary source, and then the primary source can be used to enlarge or clarify the secondary.
The problem here is that this line of reasoning, though consistent, is divorced from how people actually use an encyclopedia. We use attribution and verifiability because, in empirical fact, they are reasonably similar to truth. But in terms of actual use of Wikipedia as a resource, people depend on that isomorphism between accuracy and attribution. When that isomorphism breaks down, it poses a genuine problem.
Finally, as others have pointed out, we have no way of knowing whether an editor is who-they-claim-to-be. So they should, firstly, post their material to their own *official* website and then perhaps it can be quoted. This has happened in many cases. If they decline, then that is not our concern, apparently it's not important enough for them to do the obvious.
This ethic that people are responsible for our not fucking up their articles has rightly been considered offensive by numerous actual people.
-Phil