OTRS volunteer confirmation that ticket 123456789 contains the required
confirmation (via note or otherwise), possibly with the relevant part of the
cited text, would be enough I think. This sort of thing is bread and butter
for OTRS, who have to confirm they are speaking with "a person or someone
authorized to speak for them" every time they deal with image permissions
(for example).
Ie, "I am John Doe, the copyright holder of this image and you may use it
under GFDL" is a claim that only has strength if you know you're speaking to
John Doe and not someone else, so OTRS volunteers regularly have to confirm
the third party is who is claimed, to a high standard.
FT2
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:00 AM, FT2
<ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:39 AM,
<WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 4/22/2009 5:27:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> andrewrturvey(a)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
In effect, this is suggesting an amendment a bit like this:
"Corrections to published information presented by the subject and not
found
in third party sources may be incorporated in the
article or its
footnotes
to improve the quality of the article, subject to
1/ the correction must
be
carefully checked and confirmed to be from the
subject or their appointed
representative, 2/ such a statement corrects but does not replace the
published information; it must be clear that this is a correction of
cited
and otherwise verified information as stated by
the subject, and 3/ this
does not override NPOV or the requirement to avoid undue weight, advocacy
or
use as a battleground."
You still need a way for later editors to verify things. OTRS ticket?
Carcharoth
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l