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(a)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