It's not a crazy train of thought though; people naturally feel they are the authority on their own opinions.
We usually don't do brilliantly in explaining why that doesn't work. Because we start with explaining reliable sources, and often glaze over the most important bit. I DO see these sorts of issues all the time. When I log into OTRS there is sure to be at least one. I've taken to explaining that Wikipedia only summarises other sources. So inaccuracy needs to be addressed either with a retraction from the source, or another source appearing to rebut it. This is much more palatable than "your word isn't a reliable source". If for no other reason than the phrasing sounds like your impugning the reliability of him/her as a person. Tom Morton On 8 Sep 2012, at 17:00, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton <morton.tho...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> No it doesn't. >> >> I'll give you good odds on me being right. >> >> Because I see the same thing week after week. >> >> > You mean leading author almost synonymous with "rare interview" assumes his > word is good enough for WP? Complaining that people make up stuff about > your inspiration is fair enough: bookchat, as Gore Vidal called it, has a > percentage of drivel. But The Human Stain was published 12 years ago. > Really, nothing on the record? > > (I know that isn't what you mean. But Wikipedians in this kind of situation > do have to explain policy to those who don't get it, and act on it, even if > dealing with someone famous.) > > Charles > _______________________________________________ > 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
