Yup. But my point is celebrity stories in newspapers, if they use unnamed or unattributable sources, are not reliable and should never amount to verification.
We might as well source things from random internet blogs and claim: "but this is verification (it may be true or not, but we don't care about truth)". "Verification not truth" must not be a suicide pact and certainly not an excuse for sloppy publishing of gossip on BLPS. Scott -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ian Woollard Sent: 13 May 2011 01:30 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale) On 13/05/2011, Scott MacDonald <doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > 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). We're never going to avoid untrue things being in the Wikipedia. Sometimes, the sources make mistakes. (And yes, it's much more likely to be a mistake with The Daily Mail). But I don't in any way agree that that impacts on verifiability over truth. We have no way to know the real truth about anything for certain, but verifiability of sources is at least possible. That's one part of the Wikipedia that has to remain as bedrock. We have to build the Wikipedia on rock. > Scott -- -Ian Woollard _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l