2008/10/22 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:
Indeed. Requiring some kind of evidence of claims that
contradict a
claim which already has evidence to support it seems like common sense
to me. Of course, in cases where it's completely implausible for the
subject to be lying (how to spell their child's name, say), it might
be worth taking a primary source over a secondary source. That primary
source needs to be reliable, though - there needs to be a way to make
sure they are the person they claim to be. Posting it on their blog,
for instance, would be good, posting it on the Wikipedia talk page
usually wouldn't.
It does require some common sense. I recall Kim Bruning noting with
amusement that a comment from Patrick Nielsen-Hayden on an AFD
discussion on a science fiction author probably counted as a reliable
source in that field ;-)
- d.