[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as a primary source

[Jeff Raymond]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> It is increasingly common that subjects of articles wish to interact
> directly with us and tell us that their article is wrong in some way.
> It is, in my opinion, silly for us to reject even harmless corrections
> on the grounds that they cannot be traced to a reliable source. If
> Wikipedia itself becomes a primary source in the process of someone
> commenting on "their" article, what is the problem with that from a
> purely factual point of view? Depending on the nature of the
> statement, such comments could be either incorporated as corrections
> (date of birth) or attributed statements (".. denies that he ever had
> sexual relations with that woman").

Because WP:V requires that challenged statements have sources.  You 
can't replace one unsourced statement with anohter like that, nor would 
it be acceptable to replace a sourced statement with an unsourced one.

-Jeff

-- 
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
	because you kind of get the impression she
	sang every song either about or to her cats.
	They seem to be the driving force in most of
	her creative process."     - Chuck Klosterman