[WikiEN-l] Archives as sources proposal

[zero 0000]

> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:42:08 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Archives as sources proposal
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <444095C0.1040106 at telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Sean Barrett wrote:
> 
> >Oskar Sigvardsson stated for the record:
> >  
> >
> >>Honestly, the verifiability argument doesn't fly at all with me. If
> >>you pick information out of an archive, it's most certainly
> >>verifiable, someone else can check it out as well. I realise that
that
> >>is a hassle, but that doesn't change the fact that it is verfiable.
> >>    
> >>
> >I have a specific example: the Wikipedia article on a notable
historical
> >figure, like all other sources I have checked, states that he had
two
> >wives (in series, not parallel).  However, an official
government-issued
> >marriage certificate on file in a county clerk's office proves that
he
> >had another wife between those two.  What will I be permitted to add
to
> >this person's article?
> >
> It would make no sense not to include the mid-wife.  If you saw the 
> marriage certificate, and it is available for anyone who goes to that
> clerk's office to see it is verifiable.  Is it ethical to maintain 
> something which you know to be false just to be in complance with 
> technical regulations?

You can mention your dilemma on the talk page with a request that
everyone look out for a citable source for this information.  I think
that would cover the ethics of it without opening the verifiability
floodgates, and might eventually lead to the information being
inserted within the rules.

Zero.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com