[WikiEN-l] Original research vs. Fact-checking(Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)

Wed Dec 21 21:15:35 UTC 2005

On 21/12/05, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) <asbestos999 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/05, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It occurs to me that in academia, one occasionally sees "personal
> > correspondance" or "publication forthcoming" cited.  Is there something
> > wrong with stating "The New York times gives Jim Smith's birthday as 24
> > May 1964, although Jim has stated that it's 24 May 1965[1]" where [1] is
> > Personal email to Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Nov 2005.  It's verifiable in
> > the sense that you could always email Wikimedia and ask them if that's
> > true.
>
> If it's a personal email to the Wikipedia Foundation, or to our lawyers or
> something, then that's a different matter. The problem is that the Wikimedia
> Foundation aren't the ones putting the facts in the articles. It's if
> User:RandomName puts in a new date of birth and cites at the bottom
> "Personal Correspondence". There's no way we can check if that's true, and
> there's no one to turn to if the article's subject starts demanding
> corrections and accountability.

Okay, so how would "allow personal correspondence where evidence is
copied to the Foundation" sound?

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk