User talk:FormerIP/So you think a source is wrong?

Suggest clarification on the "Fact and Opinion" section[edit]

One suggestion. I would include examples of where such is recommended. For instance, there are various topics, where a full understanding cannot be gained without the previous erroneous example/cite. Various scientific topics come to mind. Topics where claims resulted in notable actions are another. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking for exactly, Robert. Are you saying that there should be examples to illustrate the difference between fact and opinion?--FormerIP (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also requires examples that concern not just trivial information. E.g. What do I do if I know my grandfateher was not really a Nazi but several historical books describe him as such?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But I don't think there's a categorical difference between trivial and serious errors. Ignoring the complicating issue of COI, whether you want to correct grandpa's date of birth or defend him from allegations of being a Nazi, the same thing is recommended: try to get consensus to change the content. Maybe the idea that the way we deal with false information is the same no matter how "bad" the false information is could be made explicit. Or are you suggesting it is not the same? --FormerIP (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability and Veracity[edit]

Good essay. The threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, the threshold for the continued keeping of information is Veracity. Citations and references to published falsehood must ultimately be replaced with published objective truth. Carrite (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good effort. We might consider mentioning OTRS as well, as this is a potential avenue for aggrieved BLP subjects. There are a bunch of related advice pages like

Up to you though whether you want to take the essay in that direction. --J N 466 06:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]