This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BruceGrubb (talk | contribs) at 10:09, 12 September 2011 (→Examples of verifiable and inaccurate material). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:09, 12 September 2011 by BruceGrubb (talk | contribs) (→Examples of verifiable and inaccurate material)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Essay on editing Misplaced Pages | This is an essay on the Misplaced Pages:DUE policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This essay is purposed as a guideline to be linked from WP:NPOV and WP:V.
WP:Editing policy states, "on Misplaced Pages a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". To this end, inaccuracy is a consideration for each and every source brought to an article.
The general problem addressed in this document is what editors should do with concerns about inaccurate source material. The first rule comes from WP:V, "verifiability". If the material is not verifiable, we don't use it. If it is verifiable, it has crossed the threshold of verifiability for inclusion. At this point, all material competes on a basis of having a due weight; so inaccurate material may be attributed, reduced to footnote status, or excluded; in a behind-the-scenes editorial process.
Editors often think that verifiable material should be accurate, but this is incorrect. Verifiable material may or may not be accurate. A famous example of verifiable material that is inaccurate is the front page of the Chicago Tribune on November 3, 1948—we have an article about this headline at Dewey defeats Truman. In this case, we have a retraction from the newspaper which provides strong evidence that the material was inaccurate. But many published errors have not resulted in retractions.
As listed below, there are three main editoral approaches to reporting potentially inaccurate material: inline attribution, footnotes, and too insignificant to mention.
As with other editorial decisions, editors must consider the forms of evidence that are available, as listed below.
Levels of exclusion regarding potentially inaccurate material
- We don't use Misplaced Pages's voice to say it, instead we use inline attribution.
- We mention the anomaly in a footnote.
- The potentially inaccurate material has so little prominence (WP:DUE), that we don't mention it at all.
Forms of evidence regarding inaccurate material
- (1) Editor's opinions are one form of evidence, because as long as there is a consensus that such evidence is enough, that is ok. "Obviousness" such as when editors agree there was a typo in an otherwise reliable source, fits here.
- (2) Proof in the form of reliable source statements. However, we are not a part of the scientific process, such proof should only require a high school education.
- (3) Older source material tends to be more inaccurate than newer source material.
- (4) The dictionary.
- (5) Retractions by the publisher are strong evidence of inaccuracy.
Examples of verifiable and inaccurate material
- Dewey defeats Truman All editors agree that the retraction by the publisher is sufficient to conclude that this headline was inaccurate.
- 1930 Palm Island tragedy We have two spellings, "Prior" and "Pryor". (1) Only the earliest newspaper articles used the spelling Pryor. (2) Someone claiming to be the nephew of Prior reports that Prior is the correct spelling. Most editors agree that only one of the two spellings can be correct.
- 1930 Palm Island tragedy Sources geographically distant from the event use the spellings Patterson and Paterson. Most sources use Pattison. Most editors agree that only one of the three spellings can be correct.
- "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909." (Knight, Peter. "Plots, paranoia and blame". BBC News 7 December 2006) A Senior lecturer in American Studies from the University of Manchester being quoted in a well respected paper--RS through and through. However the statement is demonstrably factually wrong as the phrase "conspiracy theory" occurs in Garrison, George Pierce (1906) Westward extension, 1841-1850 Edited by Albert Bushnell Hart LLD Professor in history in Harvard University pg 31; Rhodes, James Ford, (1895) History of the United States from the compromise of 1850 New York, Harper; (1891) The Economic review: Volume 1 Christian Social Union (Great Britain) Oxford University Branch Page 540; Ellis Thompson, Wharton Barker The American: a national journal: Volumes 19-20 May 10, 1890 Page 67; McCabe, James Dabney (1881) Our martyred President ...: The life and public services of Gen. James A Garfield pg 556; and (1871) The Journal of mental science: Volume 16 Association of Medical Officers of Asylums and Hospitals for the Insane (London, England), Medico-psychological Association of Great Britain and Ireland, Royal Medico-psychological Association pg 141 all before 1909.