This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am in doubt, do I need to expand the article. Being a local I encounter a problem with references to sources that are not very correct. For example damaged area is primarily to the east of town, while article says "south of the town" referencing Moscow Times (also link is broken). I know better, than Moscow Times does, but you won't believe me. In the situation when sources are scarse, what me to do? How do you overcome this problem "sources vs local knowledge" in wikipedia? Pasvikdalen (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Per policy, local knowledge is neither a substitute nor alternative for using reliable sources (and note that "reliable" does not necessarily mean "accurate"). This does not, of course, mean that mistakes should not be corrected. If multiple reliable sources contradict one another, the situation should be addressed in the article (something like "according to Source A, the situation is foo, but according to Source B, the situation is bar"). Unsourced statements which you are sure are incorrect can be removed, with a brief explanation in the edit summary; alternatively you can replace one unsourced statement with another, if you believe yours is more accurate, but it, too, might later be removed by someone else for lack of sources. Statements sourced to a broken reference can, depending on the situation, be removed, especially if they are grossly inaccurate, but one must be careful there (just because a link is broken does not mean the source cannot be verified offline). You may note your local knowledge in the edit summary in such situations, but your addition is going to be treated as unsourced anyway. All in all, keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are about verifiability, even if it is sometimes at the expense of truth.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2014; 13:11 (UTC)
