On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 [email protected] wrote: > > If you really doubt that the person themselves is sending you a > > correction, > > then fine. But that's only good if you really have some reason to doubt > > it's > > them. Saying "what if it isn't them" and then stretching it to cover all > > situations whether you believe it's them or not is just elevating process > > above people.>> > ----------------------------- > Or it's the correct approach. > Not believing random strangers is very good for Wikipedia and children as > well.
The fact that we tell it to children should be a sign that it's wrong. We often give children broad rules because children can't make judgment calls. The fact that rules are used as a substitute for judgment calls is one of the big problems with Wikipedia, both in BLP and outside it. Someone who claims to be a person who isn't Newsweek-level famous, and corrects a fact about themselves that's noncontroversial, probably is them. Even if you doubt it's them, there are other factors which make it more likely; for instance, if the person is known to be on the Internet already. Or if he corrects the fact in some online location that Wikipedia doesn't accept as a source. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
