[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of l...

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> > If you really doubt that the person themselves is sending you a 
> > correction,
> > then fine.  But that's only good if you really have some reason to doubt 
> > it's
> > them.  Saying "what if it isn't them" and then stretching it to cover all
> > situations whether you believe it's them or not is just elevating process
> > above people.>>
> -----------------------------
> Or it's the correct approach.
> Not believing random strangers is very good for Wikipedia and children as 
> well.

The fact that we tell it to children should be a sign that it's wrong.  We
often give children broad rules because children can't make judgment calls.

The fact that rules are used as a substitute for judgment calls is one of
the big problems with Wikipedia, both in BLP and outside it.

Someone who claims to be a person who isn't Newsweek-level famous, and corrects
a fact about themselves that's noncontroversial, probably is them.  Even if
you doubt it's them, there are other factors which make it more likely;
for instance, if the person is known to be on the Internet already.  Or if he
corrects the fact in some online location that Wikipedia doesn't accept as a
source.