In a message dated 4/22/2009 5:27:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrturvey@googlemail.com writes:
What do we do about well-sourced information which turns out to be incorrect? I don't think policies cover this area particularly well, but the commonsense view is to word it something along the lines of:
"A national newspaper in 2007 reported that celebrity x had been arrested for taking drugs<ref> </ref>; however this was later shown to be untrue <ref> </ref>"
If it's not that important you can always include the details in a footnote:
"Joe Blow (b. 15.1.74) <ref>Note the New York Times stated he was born on January 14 - (ref). However, this source shows the actual date to be 14 Jan </ref>
The added advantage is it means editors don't add the incorrect information in again at a later date. >> -----------------------------
I agree completely with the above.
Will Johnson
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433404x1201394533/aol?redir=http... eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133109%3B36002181%3Bk)