[WikiEN-l] Original research vs. Fact-checking (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)

[sydney poore]

The intent of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is noble. But it 
ignores the real problem. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No 
original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability have morphed into a 
dreadful guiding principle that sanctions inaccurate facts and avoids 
accountability. The Contacting the subjects of biographies section of 
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is bad policy because it 
sanctions erroneous data, stunts intellectual curiosity, and rewards 
laziness.

Contacting the subjects of biographies
There is no obligation to contact the subject of a biography to ask 
permission to write it, or to inform the subject that one is being written.
(100% agreement)

If contact with a subject is made, care must be taken not to reproduce 
details offered by the subject if these details have not been published 
elsewhere.
(100% agreement if primary sources are included.)

For example, if the New York Times says that John Doe was born in 1955, 
but John Doe himself tells you this was a mistake and that his year of 
birth is in fact 1965, the Wikipedia article must reflect the published 
record, and not what John Doe has told you privately.
(Complete disagreement).

To add unpublished details to a biography is an example of original 
research.
(100% disagreement. A person’s date of birth is not original research. 
DOB is a basic fact of society. It is verified daily by a wide spectrum 
of organizations.)

If the subject wants to correct the public record, he should do so by 
writing to the newspaper that made the mistake or to another credible 
publication. The Wikipedia article should then be changed to reflect any 
published correction or published letter to the editor.
(100% disagreement. Filtering out accurate information is totally 
unacceptable. Wikipedia policy [NPOV, Original research, Verifiability] 
should never be interpreted in a way that makes Wikipedia 100% depend on 
another media outlet being ethical or perfect.)

There are also legal concerns about adding details that have come 
directly from the subject. How can you be completely sure who you are 
talking to? What if he maliciously tells you something false and 
defamatory in order to cause trouble for Wikipedia? Could you afterwards 
prove that you had spoken to him, and that he had been the source of the 
claims you added to his article?
(100% disagreement. This is intellectually dishonest. Wikipedia is 
shifting accountability to other media outlets. This is a POV that 
Wikipedia has created from thin air. It ignores the fact that most other 
organizations collect information over the Internet. Banking, 
college/university applications, bookstores, retail shopping/swapping… 
are done on line everyday.)

Newspapers know how to deal with this kind of situation, but Wikipedia 
is not a newspaper. We do not have the resources to conduct this kind of 
original research, and if mishandled, it could lead to serious 
consequences for Wikipedia and for the subject of the biography.
(100% disagree. Maybe this was true in the beginning, but is not true 
now. Wikipedia has many editors that know how to deal with these 
situations. They are told NOT to address the problem.)

Honest discussion. Fact-checking. Mandatory quality improvement 
practices. These are the solutions.

Regards,
Sydney Poore