Fred Bauder wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- From: Ilario Valdelli [mailto:valdelli@gmail.com]

Sorry... I don't understand this thread.

I live in Europe. This thread is concerning the foundation... I don't understand Indians... tribes... I don't understand.

Is this the correct ML?

He's raised a legitimate question. An problem could occur in rare circumstances. For example we could permit an article about a "Navajo" rug weaver who makes great rugs, but is simply not a Navajo. People could view her beautiful rugs and rely on our article and lay out thousands of dollars. Whether we would actually be liable is questionable, but both genuine Navajo weavers and purchasers of fake rugs would have a legitimate grievance. One assumes these things would get caught, but considering the case of Ward Churchill, perhaps not. Being in Europe would not change this, one rug is genuine, the other not and they have value which reflects their status,

So when did we become rug merchants? Assuming that that weaver passed the usual verifiability standards there's no reason for us to do the original research to establish whether she really is Navajo. I at least assume that her patterns are consistent with traditional Navajo patterns. If someone is putting out thousands for this kind of thing it comes down to a question of "buyer beware". We agree with teachers who tell their students not to rely on Wikipedia as a sole source of information. Why should rug buyers be treated any differently.

A blurb I saw a couple of years ago in "Utne Reader" spoke of a painting that was bought for $5.00 in a flea market. It bore a remarkable similarity to a typical Jackson Pollock painting, but was unsigned. A genuine Pollock would sell for more than $5.00. If a person pays big money to buy such a painting on speculation they need to accept the risks instead of trying to blame someone else for their own stupidity.

Ec