[WikiEN-l] Slashdot article

[Matt Jacobs]

> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Slashdot article
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0810221514390.19535-100000 at green.rahul.net>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>>We do
>>not require someone to publish in a secondary  source in order to quote them.
>
> That doesn't seem to be how it actually went, according to the article.
>
> And it's not about quoting them, anyway, it's about correcting an error.
> An error can be corrected by removing the erroneous information as well as
> by adding a quote saying that the error is an error.
>
>>Secondly, we do not assume that a secondary source "would do  fact-checking".
>>Rather our policy clearly (or should clearly) state that  we *use* those
>>secondary sources who *are known for* doing fact-checking.
>
> That doesn't seem to be how it actually went, according to the article.
>
>>Thirdly our COI rules do not prevent a person from changing their own
>>biography.
>
> That doesn't seem to be how it actually went, according to the article.
> Seeing a pattern here?
>

I'm in agreement.  The way our COI rules are used does not jive with
what they actually say.  One of the things I found most discouraging
in the original article is that someone slapped one of those stupid
COI templates on the WP article.  I hate those, as they serve no
reasonable purpose.  They only seek to embarrass and discredit the
subject of a BLP when they attempt to do what will often seem
perfectly natural: set the record straight.