On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
Secondarily, I would suggest they *contact* the
publishers of the other
sources to ask them to clarify the position currently, on that particular bridge.
This has been done before, it's not a extreme position, many cases it's
quite simple to get a re-published retraction or correction, provided this comes
in the form of a public statement (website, newsletter) and not in the form
of a private email.
"Many cases" is what's known on Wikipedia as "weasel words".
There can be
many cases of something that's still pretty unlikely.
Asking that someone contact a source in this case 1) probably won't work and
2) isn't going to produce more accurate results than just believing the person
who said the bridge has traffic. It's purely a bureaucratic step which
produces no benefit other than that we can say that our rule has been followed.