[WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)

[Scott MacDonald]

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ian Woollard
Sent: 12 May 2011 23:56
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)

>You see I would argue precisely the opposite; I think we *should* have
>an Otto Middleton article where we explain that there was once a
>belief that this dog existed, but it has since been disproven, and
>link to the various sources.

>That way if somebody believed in the dog, and searches for it later,
>the Wikipedia article would pop up and set the record straight; even
>if the various newspapers had deleted it from their sites out of
>embarassment or whatever.

>And I think this is part and parcel of verifiability, not truth thing.
>It's a *good* idea to include things that are actually *wrong* like
>Otto Middleton as it gives us a place to point this out.-Ian Woollard

Ian, you've slightly missed the point of the essay. Of course an article
could be written on "Otto Middleton (the hoax)". Because the story of the
hoax is true and verifiable from multiple "reliable" sources. Indeed, I
argued to keep it as such.

The point is that the story of "Otto the true earring-eating Dog of Kate
Middleton" was also verifiable from multiple reliable sources, despite being
a crock of shit. (Indeed you can find articles published as late as last
week referring to 
"Kate's dog Otto" - despite the hoax being identified a year ago).

The points are:
*stories verified from multiple newspaper sources are not always true
*More importantly, the existence of "quality newspapers" reporting a story
means little. Quality newspaper are often simply repeating tabloid claims
under "it is reported" weasel.
*The fact that an article has apparently many sources, does not preclude it
being untrue in substance.
*Many sources != independently reported in many sources

We tend to associate "reliable source" with the quality of the publication.
So "the NYT has it, it must be reliable". We need also to look at the genre
of the story within the publication itself: 

*an interview with the subject, even in a tabloid, is likely to be reliable
and even journalistic commentary associated with such is liable to be
reliable, if story have the subject's cooperation.  
*statements by an expert commentator, with a reputation, in a newspaper are
most likely to be reliable
*gossip columns and celebrity stories on page 27 are not. Even if they are
in "quality papers" - they are likely to be written by people filling column
inches with little time for fact checking. Quality papers are so often going
to be using material they've found elsewhere - tabloids, internet, or even
Wikipedia. Watch out for "it is being said" "according to some reports" "I
have been told" - or really anything written by a general journalist who is
not citing a source.

Scott





_______________________________________________
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