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

[charles matthews]

"sydney poore"  wrote

> To add unpublished details to a biography is an example of original 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.)

I have felt for a long time that OR _can_ be abused, as a stick to beat 
additions to articles.  The principle does seem to be well established, 
though.  This particular issue suggests to me that we haven't yet got the 
policy quite into focus.

We do want to stop people asserting they have important private sources, 
putting 2 and 2 together to make 5, and putting that on WP.  Which is a 
recipe for conspiracy theorists running amok.  It could be a real difficulty 
in some areas (e.g. coverage of espionage).  To say that simple 
fact-checking is out makes, however, for an unpleasant dilemma: keep 
something you know is wrong on the site, or take down a wrong fact like DoB 
and simply leave a gap.

Charles