In a message dated 4/22/2009 5:27:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
What do we do about well-sourced information which turns out to be incorrect? I don't think policies cover this area particularly well, but the commonsense view is to word it something along the lines of: "A national newspaper in 2007 reported that celebrity x had been arrested for taking drugs<ref> </ref>; however this was later shown to be untrue <ref> </ref>" If it's not that important you can always include the details in a footnote: "Joe Blow (b. 15.1.74) <ref>Note the New York Times stated he was born on January 14 - (ref). However, this source shows the actual date to be 14 Jan </ref> The added advantage is it means editors don't add the incorrect information in again at a later date. >> ----------------------------- I agree completely with the above. Will Johnson **************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433404x1201394533/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubl eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133109%3B36002181%3Bk) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
