Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Slashdot article
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0810221514390.19535-100000(a)green.rahul.net>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
We do
not require someone to publish in a secondary source in order to quote them.
That doesn't seem to be how it actually went, according to the article.
And it's not about quoting them, anyway, it's about correcting an error.
An error can be corrected by removing the erroneous information as well as
by adding a quote saying that the error is an error.
Secondly, we do not assume that a secondary source
"would do fact-checking".
Rather our policy clearly (or should clearly) state that we *use* those
secondary sources who *are known for* doing fact-checking.
That doesn't seem to be how it actually went, according to the article.
Thirdly our COI rules do not prevent a person from
changing their own
biography.
That doesn't seem to be how it actually went, according to the article.
Seeing a pattern here?
I'm in agreement. The way our COI rules are used does not jive with
what they actually say. One of the things I found most discouraging
in the original article is that someone slapped one of those stupid
COI templates on the WP article. I hate those, as they serve no
reasonable purpose. They only seek to embarrass and discredit the
subject of a BLP when they attempt to do what will often seem
perfectly natural: set the record straight.