[WikiEN-l] Include both, with sources?

[Bryan Derksen]

SPUI wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> I suppose that in some ways this is related to NPOV issues, but where 
>> there is no real dispute.  This kind of innocent error tends to be 
>> perpetrated until they are widely pointed out, and that needs to be done 
>> for as long as the error keeps recurring.  In another area the term 
>> "brontosaurus" was deprecated 95 years after it was introduced, but we 
>> can't avoid the fact that this creature is still ubiquitous in 
>> children's literature.  Much of this is written by people with no 
>> understanding of paleontology.  We'll probably need to keep pointing out 
>> this error much longer than the one about the Nassau County roads.
> 
> So you'd like to fill up road articles with reports of maps that show 
> them still existing, or not existing, or going incorrectly? Talk about 
> "cruft"...

There are probably a not insignificant number of editors who would
consider articles about roads to be _entirely_ "cruft". I don't agree
with that myself, but it's an indication of how cruft is in the eye of
the beholder.

Maybe if the article was about Florida as a whole, or roads in general,
then mentioning specific roads being mislabelled on certain maps would
be too niggling a bit of minutiae to justify including. But in an
article that's specifically about that one particular road, it seems to
me that within that context it's not necessarily trivial. Especially not
when the source-in-error is one that's commonly used.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061021/e11ec185/attachment.pgp