[WikiEN-l] History of "Verifiability, not truth"

[Todd Allen]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM,  <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  In a message dated 4/9/2008 10:01:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  dger
>
> ard at gmail.com writes:
>
>  I'm  talking about the case where something simply incorrect makes it
>  into a  newspaper and never goes away, and the subject can't correct it
>  because  robotic idiots claiming to be editors read in WP:RS that a
>  newspaper is  always a Reliable Source>>
>
>
>  ----------------------------
>  Depends David.
>  When The Guardian reports that Scary Spice was arrested for cocaine
>  possession yesterday, and she says "Oh No I wasn't".... What are we supposed to  write?
>
>  I think you'll find the majority of people would think that you write "...
>  According to the Guardian Scary Spice was arrested for cocaine possession
>  although she has subsequently denied the report..."
>
>  Right?
>
>
>  Will Johnson
>
>
>
>  **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
>   (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
>  _______________________________________________
>
>
> WikiEN-l mailing list
>  WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Absolutely correct, especially if the newspaper has in itself reported
on why such is accurate, such as interviewing the arresting officer or
prosecutor, and such reports are corroborated by other sources. If the
person denies the allegations, it is critical that we note that in the
article, and if they are later found not guilty or the charges are
dropped, it is critical that we note that as well, but for many
biographies (see [[O.J. Simpson]]), an arrest and trial for a crime is
a noteworthy and verifiable part of a person's life, even if the
person was later acquitted or the charges dropped, and even if they
deny that they committed the crime.

As to things only one newspaper reported on in passing, and nothing
else has even commented on it, I would agree we should be very wary of
including such things in BLPs. Such cases are often more of tabloid
than encyclopedic interest, and we may well be placing undue weight on
such minor events by their inclusion. However, if several sources
-have- corroborated the story, and it is major enough to be of
encyclopedic interest, we should refer the person to those who
reported it if an error has been made. That person's interests will
ultimately be better served by having the original source of erroneous
information correct it. Until then, the same applies-"Source X, Y, and
Z report that John Example.... Example denies this, stating that..."

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.