On Oct 22, 2008, at 3:09 PM, WJhonson(a)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