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

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/22/2009 5:27:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
andrewrturvey at googlemail.com writes:

What do  we do about well-sourced information which turns out to be 
incorrect? I don't  think policies cover this area particularly well, but the 
commonsense view is  to word it something along the lines of: 

"A national newspaper in 2007  reported that celebrity x had been arrested 
for taking drugs<ref>  </ref>; however this was later shown to be untrue 
<ref>  </ref>" 

If it's not that important you can always include the  details in a 
footnote: 

"Joe Blow (b. 15.1.74) <ref>Note the New  York Times stated he was born on 
January 14 - (ref). However, this source  shows the actual date to be 14 Jan 
</ref> 

The added advantage is  it means editors don't add the incorrect 
information in again at a later date.  >>
-----------------------------
 
I agree completely with the above.
 
 
Will Johnson
 
 

 
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433404x1201394533/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubl
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133109%3B36002181%3Bk)