Inaccuracy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Inaccuracy

Ken Arromdee
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=11381.30

The situation:
1) Wikipedia says game on PSP is emulated.
2) Person who looked at code himself says it's not emulated.
3) Since Wikipedia got its information from a "reliable source", wrong
information remains on Wikipedia.  (Actually, if you read the "reliable
source" carefully, the company representative didn't even say it was emulated;
the interviewer claimed that and the company representative just didn't
contradict him.  I am tempted to remove it on this basis, but someone might
argue that we must assume that the interviewer's statements, being part of a
published work, are fact-checked).

Your call as to whether this is verifiable-but-false, or a problem with
the reliable sources or original research rules.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Inaccuracy

Nathan Awrich
Looks like the talk page hasn't had any posts in years, and almost none of
any substance. Could probably just change it and move on.

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=11381.30
>
> The situation:
> 1) Wikipedia says game on PSP is emulated.
> 2) Person who looked at code himself says it's not emulated.
> 3) Since Wikipedia got its information from a "reliable source", wrong
> information remains on Wikipedia.  (Actually, if you read the "reliable
> source" carefully, the company representative didn't even say it was
> emulated;
> the interviewer claimed that and the company representative just didn't
> contradict him.  I am tempted to remove it on this basis, but someone might
> argue that we must assume that the interviewer's statements, being part of
> a
> published work, are fact-checked).
>
> Your call as to whether this is verifiable-but-false, or a problem with
> the reliable sources or original research rules.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Inaccuracy

Andrew Gray-3
In reply to this post by Ken Arromdee
On 19 March 2012 15:36, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=11381.30
>
> The situation:
> 1) Wikipedia says game on PSP is emulated.
> 2) Person who looked at code himself says it's not emulated.
> 3) Since Wikipedia got its information from a "reliable source", wrong
> information remains on Wikipedia.  (Actually, if you read the "reliable
> source" carefully, the company representative didn't even say it was emulated;
> the interviewer claimed that and the company representative just didn't
> contradict him.  I am tempted to remove it on this basis, but someone might
> argue that we must assume that the interviewer's statements, being part of a
> published work, are fact-checked).
>
> Your call as to whether this is verifiable-but-false, or a problem with
> the reliable sources or original research rules.

In cases like this, where a presumed-authoritative source appears to
be reporting something visibly not the case in the facts, the approach
you're looking at in #3 is best - re-examine the source, see if it is
actually saying the thing it seems to be saying, and if it's dubious,
either whip it out or include a brief digression in a footnote
explaining the ambiguity.

The onus is on supporting the *inclusion* of the claim, after all - if
we have other evidence which casts reasonable doubt on the source, we
should tend towards removing it until we find better support for the
claim. We do this all the time when judging sources to be reliable or
unreliable; if it seems problematic, and the claim is unusual, we
often remove it without further ado.

That said, I've seen many cases of this form - source claims X, third
party looks at the facts and reports not-X, Wikipedia insists on X -
where the third party turned out to be wrong in their interpretation
of the facts, for one reason or another. So it does require a certain
level of caution and common sense...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l