The moment we start to take someones word "because they claim it" without a
source we can link or point to,we've gone wrong.
The argument "well what if it's a small uncontroversial fact" such as
"dobermans" and "poodles" (above in this thread) is irrelevant and not
for
us to judge - what seems small to one person may not be to another.
landmines ahead.
I did once suggest another approach that might help, and would certainly be
within usual norms too. I observed that in an article on a person, that
person's view is, and always should be considered "significant". Even if
they are the only perosn on the planet saying it, I'd say that always, their
claim about matters in their life is a "significant view". What's usually
missing is evidence of it in a reliable source. If we had one, we could cite
from it easily.
I once made a suggestion intended to address this. If the subject can either
post the view that they'd like us to take note of, on some site formally
connected to them (and where the poster's identity is not in doubt), then we
can treat that as any primary selfpub source, it's good for claims of the
form "X says Y". If they don't have one, but will post it on the wiki and
confirm via OTRS (eg by phone contact) it's their's, so that we can affirm
we know it's genuine, then ditto, it's also citable as them being directly
quoted. I'd explain it like this:
You want us to put your view on this in your biography, but there are no
sources we can rely upon where that is said. If you are willing to post that
on your website, or else, to contact our volunteer team in a manner that
allows them to verify that you really are who you say you are, and writethe
points you would like referenced about yourself, in a manner that does not
attack others but just discusses you, then we will cite it and use that as
material toensure your stance is represented in the article.
For matters where there really is genuine credible sources and NPOV does
require us to note the issue,this would provide a handy and useful solution,
since it's pretty much 100% within the spirit of existing norms -- represent
all significant views; require a verifiable source for "X says Y"
FT2
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
If they are not willing to type two sentences on
an official
site, but ARE willing to type a hundred in-project, than I submit it's
*highly* unlikely to be the person in question in the first place.
IF they write a blog where they complain about process, that is simply
more free publicity for us. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
This is exactly what's wrong with BLP. We care more about the process than
we do about the people.
If someone says that a relatively uncontroversial fact in an article about
themselves is wrong, we should fix it. If our process says we shouldn't
listen to them, then we need to fix both the process and the article.
If you really doubt that the person themselves is sending you a correction,
then fine. But that's only good if you really have some reason to doubt
it's
them. Saying "what if it isn't them" and then stretching it to cover all
situations whether you believe it's them or not is just elevating process
above people.
_______________________________________________
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