Can you explain more clearly which parts of what you posted you consider to be issues? **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Can you explain more clearly which parts of what you posted you consider to be issues?
If our policy demands that someone corrects errors about themselves by getting the correct information published in a secondary source first, that policy is broken.
It is doubly broken if the justification for this policy is that a secondary source would do fact-checking, when most secondary sources in this situation wouldn't.
Having conflict of interest rules prevent someone from correcting errors about himself is another broken policy.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
If our policy demands that someone corrects errors about themselves by getting the correct information published in a secondary source first, that policy is broken.
So I guess the question is, does "Verifiability, not Truth" apply to BLP?
Unfortunately in most cases, the status of a truth that's non-verifiable, is known as "hearsay".
It's customary in most decisions, whether it be "evidence based research" in science, through to the courts, that a basis of evidence (that independent others can verify) is required, not just hearsay, and the more authoritative the better. Plausibility ("he/she sounds honest") seems to be a lesser standard. To that extent, BLP is mainstream in seeking evidence.
FT2
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
If our policy demands that someone corrects errors about themselves by getting the correct information published in a secondary source first, that policy is broken.
So I guess the question is, does "Verifiability, not Truth" apply to BLP?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/10/22 FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com:
Unfortunately in most cases, the status of a truth that's non-verifiable, is known as "hearsay".
It's customary in most decisions, whether it be "evidence based research" in science, through to the courts, that a basis of evidence (that independent others can verify) is required, not just hearsay, and the more authoritative the better. Plausibility ("he/she sounds honest") seems to be a lesser standard. To that extent, BLP is mainstream in seeking evidence.
Indeed. Requiring some kind of evidence of claims that contradict a claim which already has evidence to support it seems like common sense to me. Of course, in cases where it's completely implausible for the subject to be lying (how to spell their child's name, say), it might be worth taking a primary source over a secondary source. That primary source needs to be reliable, though - there needs to be a way to make sure they are the person they claim to be. Posting it on their blog, for instance, would be good, posting it on the Wikipedia talk page usually wouldn't.
2008/10/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Indeed. Requiring some kind of evidence of claims that contradict a claim which already has evidence to support it seems like common sense to me. Of course, in cases where it's completely implausible for the subject to be lying (how to spell their child's name, say), it might be worth taking a primary source over a secondary source. That primary source needs to be reliable, though - there needs to be a way to make sure they are the person they claim to be. Posting it on their blog, for instance, would be good, posting it on the Wikipedia talk page usually wouldn't.
It does require some common sense. I recall Kim Bruning noting with amusement that a comment from Patrick Nielsen-Hayden on an AFD discussion on a science fiction author probably counted as a reliable source in that field ;-)
- d.
It does require some common sense. I recall Kim Bruning noting with amusement that a comment from Patrick Nielsen-Hayden on an AFD discussion on a science fiction author probably counted as a reliable source in that field ;-)
If it was verifiably him, then it probably was. Far from an ideal source, though. IAR applies to the main namespace just as it applies everywhere else - the including an AFD discussion as a source makes the encyclopaedia better, go for it.
2008/10/22 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Can you explain more clearly which parts of what you posted you consider to be issues?
If our policy demands that someone corrects errors about themselves by getting the correct information published in a secondary source first, that policy is broken.
Except the information in this case isn't actually correct. The person may not consider themselves a director any more but if you were writing their oblitory it would be legitimate to state that they had been a director.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, geni wrote:
If our policy demands that someone corrects errors about themselves by getting the correct information published in a secondary source first, that policy is broken.
Except the information in this case isn't actually correct. The person may not consider themselves a director any more but if you were writing their oblitory it would be legitimate to state that they had been a director.
He directed one minor thing. Calling him a director for this violates common sense.
If you really need me to quote a rule, referring to him as a director would be putting Undue Weight on his film relative to other things he did.
And for BLP subjects, it's our job to figure this out. If the subject says I"m not a director", the correct response is *not* to say "you directed something, so you're a director until you give me an opposing source". The correct response is to not interpret that literally, and instead to figure out that he's really saying "you're putting undue weight on this film", even though he doesn't know enough about Wikipedia to phrase it that way.
And at any rate this doesn't justify requiring him to publish the correction before we'll fix the article.