David Gerard wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/1/05, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Why not? Requiring a 'references' section
for every article (thanking the
heavens that WP is not paper), and reminding every editor that *every* new
article should come with at least one reference, seems a responsible thing
to do. Can you offer a reason not to have such a section for any article?
I meant that more than that is hard to automate. You're right that
the bare minimals can be easily checked. However, I can't see that we
can automate much beyond that with ease.
On en:, even that will help a *great* deal.
For the article in question it would have accomplished nothing. A
malicious person could have added a totally fictious reference to the
"Atlantic Monthly" for December 1964, and no-one would have been wiser.
Marshall may have had easy access to that issue to verify the fact or
not, but unless he had occasion to look at the Seigenthaler article it
would never occur to him to check it out.
A precondition to fixing the article would be to read it critically in
the first place. The spelling error could have been caught by a bot,
and corrected by a person focused only on correcting spelling errors
without needing to read the article.
The statement in the article was certainly offensive, but not likely
libellous. It stated that there were claims that Seigenthaler was
involved in the assassinations, and that those claims were shown to be
wrong. It did not say that he was in fact involved. Early claims about
the Oklahoma City bombing were that it was the work of terrorists from
the Middle East. The simple fact that such claims were being made is a
credible one, just as much as the comment that they were soon shown to
be false.
What needed checking and referencing was the specific claim about his
involvement in the assassinations. A bibliographic note at the end
would not have sufficed. If it turns out that some reasonably reputable
publication did run these comments (including mention of exonoration) in
1964 where would that put us?
The media are not always kind to those whom they perceive to be guilty.
A dramatic takedown and arrest is good for the TV ratings. The
meticulous evidence that exculpates someone has the show stopping impact
of drying paint. (Now that golf is popular on television, and even has
its own channel, maybe times are changing. ;-) ) Unfortunately, even
false rumours become part of the historical weave.
Ec