On Mon, 12 May 2003, Zoe wrote:
Please explain how posting speculation is "facts".
Easy. By attributing the speculation to its source.
Mr. [name omitted for privacy reasons] did, for a while, make the mistake of thinking that the IMDb was a reliable source of information, but I think this is understandable, since it is a common belief. When its unreliability was pointed out, he attributed the claims about the cause of death to its sources. His last attempt to work on the paragraph the other night was as follows:-
"She died, unexpectedly, in [[Los Angeles, California]]. Although, the [[cause of death]] has not been officially determined, several sources (not including the [[LA Times]]; but, including the [[IMDB]] and the [[Buffalo News]]) have reported that this was a [[heart attack]]."
That is not trying to force you to accept anything; it is merely reporting what other sources have said. Which is precisely what we are encouraged to do when there is disagreement about something. I would hardly call this "causing trouble" (in your words), and neither is it trying to "present speculation as fact to mask uncertainty" (in the words of Mr. Ehrenberg). I find it hard to see it as anything other than a genuine (albeit perhaps misguided) attempt to make the article more informative.
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+