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

[FT2]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:39 AM, <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:

> 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



In effect, this is suggesting an amendment a bit like this:


"Corrections to published information presented by the subject and not found
in third party sources may be incorporated in the article or its footnotes
to improve the quality of the article, subject to 1/ the correction must be
carefully checked and confirmed to be from the subject or their appointed
representative, 2/ such a statement corrects but does not replace the
published information; it must be clear that this is a correction of cited
and otherwise verified information as stated by the subject, and 3/ this
does not override NPOV or the requirement to avoid undue weight, advocacy or
use as a battleground."

Ft2