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

[FT2]

OTRS volunteer confirmation that ticket 123456789 contains the required
confirmation (via note or otherwise), possibly with the relevant part of the
cited text, would be enough I think. This sort of thing is bread and butter
for OTRS, who have to confirm they are speaking with "a person or someone
authorized to speak for them" every time they deal with image permissions
(for example).



Ie, "I am John Doe, the copyright holder of this image and you may use it
under GFDL" is a claim that only has strength if you know you're speaking to
John Doe and not someone else, so OTRS volunteers regularly have to confirm
the third party is who is claimed, to a high standard.



FT2


On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:00 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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."
>
> You still need a way for later editors to verify things. OTRS ticket?
>
> Carcharoth
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>