And how
precisely do you propose to simultaneously take care of both of
these things? Wikipedia is not in a position to determine truth, only
to report on what others have said. It's possible that some parts of
physics may be incorrect, and you may be absolutely sure of it, but
Wikipedia isn't the place to publish that research. I don't think it's
the place to publish novel historical, biographical, mathematical, or
any other research either, regardless of how sure you are that you have
"the truth" that every published source is missing.
I think I'm capable of determining the difference between a
complicated new physics theory that I've just come up with, and which
hasn't been peer reviewed, and a blatant falsity propagated by a
misquote or other misinformation in a newspaper which can be trivially
misproven by the subject of the article. At the very least I think an
encyclopedia article should note the fact that the subject disputes
the claim. Perhaps I could interview the person and stick the
interview in Wikinews, would that qualify as a published source
outside of Wikipedia? Alternatively, the claim shouldn't be there in
the first place. If neither of those two are legitimate under the
rules, then I'd say it's time to break the rules.
I don't recall having said anything about a "complicated" theory.
Even
if your change to physics is simple, and you think it's blatantly
obvious that it's true, Wikipedia isn't the place to publish it.
I do think people are reliable sources for their own views, but editors
personally interviewing them is problematic because it's not well
documented. A Wikinews article or a reference to their own personal
website or something like that would be fine with me, though.
-Mark