In a message dated 4/9/2008 10:01:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dger ard@gmail.com writes:
I'm talking about the case where something simply incorrect makes it into a newspaper and never goes away, and the subject can't correct it because robotic idiots claiming to be editors read in WP:RS that a newspaper is always a Reliable Source>>
---------------------------- Depends David. When The Guardian reports that Scary Spice was arrested for cocaine possession yesterday, and she says "Oh No I wasn't".... What are we supposed to write?
I think you'll find the majority of people would think that you write "... According to the Guardian Scary Spice was arrested for cocaine possession although she has subsequently denied the report..."
Right?
Will Johnson
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/9/2008 10:01:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dger
ard@gmail.com writes:
I'm talking about the case where something simply incorrect makes it into a newspaper and never goes away, and the subject can't correct it because robotic idiots claiming to be editors read in WP:RS that a newspaper is always a Reliable Source>>
Depends David. When The Guardian reports that Scary Spice was arrested for cocaine possession yesterday, and she says "Oh No I wasn't".... What are we supposed to write?
I think you'll find the majority of people would think that you write "... According to the Guardian Scary Spice was arrested for cocaine possession although she has subsequently denied the report..."
Right?
Will Johnson
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016) _______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Absolutely correct, especially if the newspaper has in itself reported on why such is accurate, such as interviewing the arresting officer or prosecutor, and such reports are corroborated by other sources. If the person denies the allegations, it is critical that we note that in the article, and if they are later found not guilty or the charges are dropped, it is critical that we note that as well, but for many biographies (see [[O.J. Simpson]]), an arrest and trial for a crime is a noteworthy and verifiable part of a person's life, even if the person was later acquitted or the charges dropped, and even if they deny that they committed the crime.
As to things only one newspaper reported on in passing, and nothing else has even commented on it, I would agree we should be very wary of including such things in BLPs. Such cases are often more of tabloid than encyclopedic interest, and we may well be placing undue weight on such minor events by their inclusion. However, if several sources -have- corroborated the story, and it is major enough to be of encyclopedic interest, we should refer the person to those who reported it if an error has been made. That person's interests will ultimately be better served by having the original source of erroneous information correct it. Until then, the same applies-"Source X, Y, and Z report that John Example.... Example denies this, stating that..."
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
However, if several sources -have- corroborated the story, and it is major enough to be of encyclopedic interest, we should refer the person to those who reported it if an error has been made. That person's interests will ultimately be better served by having the original source of erroneous information correct it.
Isn't it a little arrogant to tell someone "we're not going to correct this BLP because we think it's better for you"?
Of course it's a fake "better for you". You're just saying that it's better for them because you're trying to justify interpreting the policy to do it that way. Personally I think their interests would be better served by having the erroneous information immediately removed from Wikipedia, even if the original source is stubborn about it.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
However, if several sources -have- corroborated the story, and it is major enough to be of encyclopedic interest, we should refer the person to those who reported it if an error has been made. That person's interests will ultimately be better served by having the original source of erroneous information correct it.
Isn't it a little arrogant to tell someone "we're not going to correct this BLP because we think it's better for you"?
Of course it's a fake "better for you". You're just saying that it's better for them because you're trying to justify interpreting the policy to do it that way. Personally I think their interests would be better served by having the erroneous information immediately removed from Wikipedia, even if the original source is stubborn about it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Your argument ignores that that is a -supporting- reason for not doing so, certainly not the full one, and knocks down a [[straw man]] as it ignores the bulk of the argument. If the subject can -prove- that the information is erroneous, I'd say we've got a case for removing it. On the other hand, if they just deny it, a lot of people deny things which are nonetheless true. We run into the latter a lot more than the former, where the subject says "Not so", but a lot of other reliable sources say otherwise. We would rarely run into a case where the subject has conclusive proof that the source is wrong, but the source refuses to correct and no other source reports on the new findings. If the subject denies something, it is important to incorporate that into the article (and surely some of the sources would report on the subject's denial), but that in itself is not grounds for -removing- the information. BLP calls for removal of unsourced or poorly sourced controversial information, and well that it should, but we should not extend that to well-sourced controversial information.
On 4/9/08, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Depends David. When The Guardian reports that Scary Spice was arrested for cocaine possession yesterday, and she says "Oh No I wasn't".... What are we supposed to write?
Wouldn't this be a case where a primary source (ie an arrest record) could be used to confirm a secondary source?
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/08, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Depends David. When The Guardian reports that Scary Spice was arrested for cocaine possession yesterday, and she says "Oh No I wasn't".... What are we
supposed to write?
Wouldn't this be a case where a primary source (ie an arrest record) could be used to confirm a secondary source?
Or we keep it out till there are enough independent sources. That's been known to happen, for example about Spitzer's 'Kristen' recently,
RR