I agree that we have to behave responsibly and script only such info that can be backed up with documents. But, how do we know for sure that the documents (themselves relied upon) are genuine?
Historians, especially revisionist historians and certain journalists, prosper in the unreasonable interpretation of "facts", that too, based on the partial availability of information recorded selectively. For instance, what do we actually know about the rule of Adil Shah in Goa? And How can we back it up? Same questions for the rule of the Vijayanagar chaps. Yes, sure, certain characteristics of the rule of all invaders and conquerors is common i.e. Loot, Kill the leaders and his men, Commandeer the women, Destroy the temples/mosques of the vanquished etc....But, on what basis do we make a judgment on the 'truth', that too, on the selective reading of what is available? That is why it behooves present and future readers of material to Read Widely and NOT blindly trust either the headlines or the material in the press or other media. Sebastian's "unsuspecting poster" is a first cousin of the "innocent googler". They give us no reason to trust what they script; the same is the case of what is posted on Wikipedia. jc. Sebastian Borges wrote: Dear FN, This means that an idler is free to upload any rubbish on Wikipedia. An unsuspecting poster can then cite this rubbish in support of his contention as you have done wrt Dacho Furtad. Please note that Wikipedia has no citation to back this insertion. Let us behave responsibly; and I think this is what is expected of every contributor and redactor of the articles posted on it. Let us upload only such info which we can back with documents. Untrue info, however innocuous it may appear, is of no use; but it is capable of doing a lot of avoidable harm.
