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

Wed Dec 21 21:42:50 UTC 2005

Sam Fentress (Asbestos) 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.
>>Steve
>>    
>>
        If it's a personal email to the Wikipedia Foundation, or to our
        lawyers orsomething, then that's a different matter. The problem
        is that the WikimediaFoundation aren't the ones putting the
        facts in the articles. It's ifUser: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, andthere's no one to
        turn to if the article's subject starts demandingcorrections and
        accountability.

Sam

                Sam
                You said ''There's no way we can check if that's true,
                andthere's no one to turn to if the article's subject
                starts demandingcorrections and accountability.''

                This seems to be where we see thing differently. I know
                birth, marriage, divorce, hometown, college, and
                employment are verifiable. If you have the _correct
                _information it is pretty easy. If someone provides
                valid ID (a mixture of distant and current) and gives
                Wikipedia the correct information, then we should be
                able to confirm it from outside sources. This is
                fact-checking not original research.
                -- Sydney Poore
                Go Bengals!