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

[Relata Refero]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:30 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/04/2008, WJhonson at aol.com <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>
> >  That was a little strong, let me rephrase.
> >  A BLP subject does not have the right to expunge any material that
> other
> >  editors deem has come from a reliable source.  If you show your boobs
> on  video
> >  while you were drunk once, guess what?  You did it, now face the
>  consequences
> >  :)
>
>
> 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. Never mind that anyone who's
> ever actually been in the press will laugh hollowly at the notion.
> Suability is not the same as accuracy.
>
>
> - d.



Its a good thing to remember that other, more organised institutions are
also dealing with this problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/opinion/26pubed.html
A bunch of proposed solutions:
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/letters-the-readers-speak/

Have fun considering their applicability to this discussion, though I think
its been mentioned here before. Incidentally, this means that if the NYT
hasn't withdrawn a story the subject thinks is inaccurate, they likely have
considered it and disagreed.

RR