[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as a primary source

[Andrew Gray]

[duplicate, sorry]

On 13/03/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 3/13/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I really don't see anything wrong with me footnoting a) as "was born
> > in Such-and-Such<ref>Personal correspondence with the Wikimedia
> > Foundation, June 17th, reference ABC1234567</ref>.
>
> I disagree.  There are lots of problems with this.  1) You're not the
> Wikimedia Foundation; 2) It's not a published source which can be
> easily accessed; and 3) it's not a reliable source even if it's true,
> as the person no doubt does not remember his own birth.

1) I forgot the minor detail that I was corresponding with the chap via OTRS...

2) Does it have to be easily accessed by a random passer-by if the
Foundation can verify it? That is really the point of this
discussion... stating it won't work because of this is kind of
circular.

3) This is a bit silly. I can tell you all sorts of factual details
about my own birth which I don't remember, but I still know to be
true... am I an unreliable source because I got them from my mother or
my medical records? It also doesn't help with cases which aren't "give
a birthday"

> > Yes, we could ask
> > them to issue a rather dull press release, or write a blog post, or
> > (in one case I recall) update the details on their myspace page. But
> > no reasonable academic or reporter objects to incorporating
> > corrections of trivial, non-contentious details from those who know
> > about the article; why should we?
> >
> Because we want to be better?  If the detail is so trivial as to not
> matter if it's correct or not, why include it in the first place?

Okay, one we might have an interest in getting right... manner of
death. We usually give this if known. Not at all unknown for
obituaries to get it wrong, especially if published quickly; small
details in obituaries are rarely corrected afterwards for various
reasons (most often that the only people who know it's wrong are
otherwise preoccupied with mourning), and all too often that's the
last thing published on them before we come along.

Spouse's names, that's another one we get a good few corrections over.
Little things, yes, and we can say "why should we include them?", but
the fact is we *do* include them, and it really seems futile to insist
on a method whereby if we include them we get them wrong.

> Alternatively, if the truth might actually matter, then we should make
> sure to get it right.

Which this proposal is one means to achieve. Not everything someone
quibbles with the article over is significant, it's just that when it
is significant we're less happy to take their unadorned word for it...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk