Wikipedia talk:Inaccuracy

The dictionary?

In general I like this as a start. But I don't understand the reference to "the dictionary". Which dictionary? For what kind of information? Dictionaries are not a replacement for definitions in the appropriate academic literature, for example. Dictionaries also get things wrong.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I expect that retractions get things wrong too, there is no getting away from errors about errors.  As for the dictionary, I'm not aware of a guideline that says that we should use English on the English Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:DUE: we only trust experts

The idea is that in respect to the articles, we let the reliable sources (i.e. the experts) establish what counts as fact. In discussion pages, we discuss the reliability of the sources, and here our insights based upon logic and common sense may play a role. If we would allow editors to establish what counts as fact inside the articles, the hell would break open, since anyone could devise original research for what he/she considers to be facts. And then such claims could only be fought with other claims based upon original research, and there would be no way to know who's right and who's wrong. What counts as fact can only be established by the consensus of the experts, there are no facts in lack of such consensus. This is how science and even journalism work: we trust those who have authority, reliability and credentials. We don't trust everybody. What I say about my neighbor is not news, unless a journalist publishes it as news. Hawking's latest papers are not facts, unless consensually accepted by the scientific community. Reliable sources can be wrong, but we cannot allow everybody to establish what counts as fact. We only trust the experts. Editors are not considered experts. If they wish to be considered experts, they have to publish in peer-reviewed, print-publish scientific journals or in mainstream newspapers. Only then their opinion may be included in Wikipedia.

The conclusion is that experts play the primary role in detecting inaccuracy. According to Karl Popper this is how science works. Wikipedia editors may only repair trivial errors, but should never challenge the consensus of the experts if such consensus exists. In case that there is no consensus, we may only include the views which are popular among the experts. All other views are WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Experts mess up on occasion too:

"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.

The problem is that statement can be shown to be WRONG via the following Verifiability sources:

"The fact, however, which makes the conspiracy theory completely illogical is that the political leaders in the slave states were not united in support of the southwest- ward movement, nor those in the free states against it." (Garrison, George Pierce (1906) Westward extension, 1841-1850 Edited by Albert Bushnell Hart LLD Professor in history in Harvard University pg 31)

"The conspiracy theory is based on a misconception of the so called Union minorities in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana." (New outlook, Volume 52 1895 pg 394)

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

"Such a view of the case, if it were generally entertained, would have an important bearing on the conspiracy theory." (Ellis Thompson, Wharton Barker The American: a national journal: Volumes 19-20 May 10, 1890 Page 67)

"The trial below being conducted on the conspiracy theory manifestly enlarged the scope of investigation and testimony, greatly to the disadvantage of Hamilton; and it seems to me, that common justice and fairness appeal..." (Teasdale v State Alabama. Supreme Court, Florida. Supreme Court, Louisiana. Supreme Court, Mississippi. Supreme Court,... 1888)

In that connection I want to say that that conspiracy theory was a pure invention of the prosecution..." (Congressional edition-Senate of the United States United States. Congress 1888 pg 390)

"There is more and more doubt of the conspiracy theory. None of the Cabinet officers approve it, and the President himself does not believe in it." (McCabe, James Dabney (1881) Our martyred President ...: The life and public services of Gen. James A Garfield pg 556);

"It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Eeade, and the precautionary measure suggested by Dr. Sankey of using a padded waistcoat in recent cases of mania with general paralysis..." ((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)

Instead of a good WP:NPOV talk about dealing with this issue we got things like:

1. "This is another one of those instances in which "verifiability, not truth" is what matters for Wikipedia. It can be verified that the author claims that the first recorded use was from 1909, whether or not his claim is accurate." (which basically reads it doesn't matter that it can be verified in any source that the phase was used before 1909 because the earlier sources are textbook examples of "verifiability, not truth" and we don't care these earlier sources PROVE later source is demonstrably inaccurate.)

2. "Looking for sources using the phrase "conspiracy theory" is indisputably original research," (How do you find sources meeting Verifiability if simply looking for them is OR?)

3. "Literally speaking, citing early uses of the phrase is OR." (Citing a source is OR.... Huh?)

Something similar to this occurred over on Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_1#Weston_Price_and_Stephen_Barrett_in_their_own_words which was taken over to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F and degenerated into the mess that was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard. As you can see that degenerated to a real barrel of fun. Some editors seem to have have an 'accuracy be damned as long as it meets Verifiability it is good' mentality and anything that contradicts that source must be OR. That is NOT healthy for the continued success of Wikipedia.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The alternative to editors spending time to consider concerns that material is inaccurate is...an inaccurate encyclopedia.  It is exactly the purpose of the document to consider the scope of this consideration.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rhetorical question to Tgeorgescu: and how comes anyone can edit Wikipedia? How can we trust non-experts to rephrase the utterances of an expert? Perhaps all articles should consist only of direct quotes? Obviously, fixing errors that only require basic English skills and WP:CALC are allowed. The WP:OR policy already gives editors wide discretion in such cases: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very important not to treat exclusion as a public statement that the excluded content is wrong. For the reader we are simply silent if we choose to exclude. Thus if a normally reliable source demonstrably appears to have a factual error in it (such as with the first use of "conspiracy theory" above), we are not performing OR in excluding it, because we are not presenting OR to the public. As I have repeated many times on WP:V first sentence, criteria for inclusion and criteria for exclusion are not the same thing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The complete answer to the rhetorical question: we only trust experts to do research, we trust editors to summarize what the experts have published. By "we" I mean the editors, so we could safely assume that many editors can be trusted to understand the opinions of the experts. If an expert makes a mistake, how does it come that one has to rely upon original research instead of finding another expert who points out the mistake of the former expert? My understanding is that according to Popper scientists constantly work to reject (falsify) the work of other scientists. So it is very improbable that the bulk of experts who read scientific papers for a living cannot see a gross mistake and a Wikipedia editor is needed to cry "The king is naked!" Perhaps this is a bit too exaggerated, but I guess you see what I mean. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Dewey defeats Truman as an example

This is a case of an error notable of itself. There's really no question as to how to cover it. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, so one way to "cover" potential errors is to write an article using the reliable reports that the material is erroneous.  How is that anything other than on point?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Because nobody was ever in danger of writing an article on the election saying that there was some controversy over the election, citing the article from that paper as a source suggesting that Truman had lost. Mangoe (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but the topic of this essay is WP:V reliable sources with potential inaccuracies.  Dewey defeats Truman is a reliable source with an inaccuracy.  Someone could argue that it was unreliable in the context, but that is contradicted by the fact that it is notable enough to have an article, which means it is considered to be wp:verifiable.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

remove Palm Island tragedy example of inconsistent names

I propose removing the examples using 1930 Palm Island tragedy as it overlaps with the policy on WP:COMMONNAME which in general advises to use the most frequently used name over an official or even accurate name.—Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is a part of Wikipedia:Article titles, and WP:Inaccuracy has to do with [content policy].  But even then, it seems to say just the opposite, "...inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

True about COMMONNAME being in "Article titles", but the spirit is applicable for general references to any name. It is hard to say in cases of spelling which sources are accurate, so the most commonly used one would usually apply. The Prior/Pryor example is an interesting case, since it shows to use common sense if a person directly involved acknowledges the mistake and the correction is reported. However, I have seen move requests where COMMONNAME is the consensus over an official (some would argue accurate) name. Hence, there will be resistance to that example. The second example, Patterson/Paterson/Pattison, seems in line with COMMONNAME and can be removed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

[discussion moved to the destination of the topic branch]

Can you give an example of where the COMMONNAME was accepted even though it was a mis-spelling of the official name? This would be deciding what goes in the encyclopedia based on popular belief rather than authoritative sources. This strong reading of common name is fashionable among a minority of editors at the moment, but it doesn't seemed to have gained acceptance more broadly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dont have the specific one offhand. On a related note is the handling of diacritics. I digress. My main point is to (ideally) only list "clear-cut" examples where someone (like myself) won't come in and say "but that duplicates/conflicts/etc with XYZ that says ..."—Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Two points, the policies/guidelines for Article titles aren't necessarily the same as for content, and you are arguing to remove the examples as duplicates, but they are not duplicated.  I did add WP:COMMONNAME to the See also as a related process given multiple choices in sources.  Also, in the 1930 Palm Island tragedy, the cases are handled differently, and this is not something that you get with Article titles, the Pryor spelling is noted in a footnote, whereas Patterson and Paterson are considered to be insignificant.  Another point is that all of the examples probably need to be in another document.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

does an editor's assertion have zero weight

Prior's nephew tried to add his opinion to the footnote, but it was of course removed.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. Should update the essay, as its not clear that the nephew was an editor and not from a reliable source.—Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Done.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The nephew is entitled to their opinion based on existing sources (or even inside information), but other editors should not give additional weight to the nephews claim since it cannot be verified that he is correct either about the spelling or that he is the nephew. Hypothetically, if a source used the nephew as a reference, common sense could be used to give it more weight.—Bagumba (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and yet, there is more to the analysis, because the assertion is credible enough to, at least in my mind, give confirmation that the right choice was made in emphasizing "Prior" over "Pryor".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yearbook as a source

Was the Erin Burnett case an example of what to do or what not to do? I just realized that the section name is "Examples of verifiable and potentially inaccurate material", which doesnt say that these are necessarily positive or negative examples. Using a yearbook as a definitive source to narrow down which of two same-named high schools she attended has potential pitfalls of mistaking people with the same name, detailed in Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein. There is no verifiable way to determine based on the yearbook that this is the Erin Burnett. Were yearbooks from the other school examined to determine that there was no Erin Burnett there? This is probably the right school, but this is not the sort of investigation I would advocate. A better option I think is to leave the school name, which was not in question, but not mention its exact location.—Bagumba (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who cleaned this mess up, let me say that there was always evidence that she went to the Delaware SAS and not the one in Potomac. The only contrary evidence came from a single story, in which the interviewer stated that she had gone to an SAS in Maryland.[1] This turned into a fight to retain this statement even though it was extremely improbable: Mardela Springs, Maryland is several hours drive from Potomac, and there was no evidence that she had ever lived anywhere near Potomac. All the other biographical details lined up, so it was clear there weren't two Erin Burnetts. The reporter just screwed up. In any case it has since come out that she delivered a commencement address at the Delaware SAS as a famous alumna.

The Frankenstein that was in danger of being created in this case was a false dispute about her schooling (ironic considering how much of her article, over the years, has been devoted to "controversies" about some or another verbal faux pas of hers). Sometimes— a lot of the time— an inaccuracy is just, well, wrong. I see in searching for this, for instance, that Vanity Fair has the wrong name of the town for the Delaware school; what we do is disregard that. These days we are more in danger of creating false uncertainty by giving bad sources undue weight than we are by ignoring difficulties. Mangoe (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You've listed another example of an erroneous source, Vanity Fair.  The current consensus at the article is that this source is insignificant due to error, and the rest of my comment does not disagree with that consensus.  There could be knowledgeable readers that find the Vanity Fair article, and will not be prepared, based on their reading of the Wikipedia article, that this discrepancy exists.  Were the editors at the article to decide to alert readers to that issue, it would then be proper to note the differing material in a footnote (but not to say that it is erroneous).  I've heard that there is an editor posting an errata list on a talk page.  Something else that Wikipedia editors can do is contact Vanity Fair and ask that a retraction be published.  I think that this is all, along with ignoring the issue, in the scope of good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Do Wikipedians say that the statement is "incorrect"?

Regarding the Al Davis article, I don't see any source that characterizes any other sources as "incorrect".  The word "incorrect" appears to me to be WP:SYNTH.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It a determination of the editor based on the sources that one is correct and the other is not. The sources themselves do not specifically acknowledge an error in other sources. I can see your point that is a "synthesis" in that respect. How do you propose it be presented both here and in Al Davis?—Bagumba (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The edit to remove "inaccurate" from the Al Davis article brings up a different question for me. If one viewpoint is in the body while another viewpoint is relegated to a footnote, the only justification is that one is considered "inaccurate", so I dont see why that is harmful to say explicitly when the footnote discusses the straight-forward reasoning used to come to that conclusion.—Bagumba (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Editors (currently) agree that there is potentially inaccurate material of encyclopedic interest.  The due weight given to that material is to mention the anomaly in a footnote.  It is the material that is sourceable, not the opinion of Wikipedia editors that it is potentially inaccurate.  I haven't spent enough time on the issue, in the footnote I think I'd want to see a source that says Fears was "first" to source the first statement, and a source that says Flores was first to source the second.  But without a source that has the word "inaccurate" or similar, I see no need to characterize the inaccuracy, and I also think it goes against policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with that. If all sources agree on their dates, and we are willing to state that the earlier listed had the characteristic in question, then we by implication would be asserting that any source claiming that the later instance was first was incorrect. There's no "potential" here; indeed, the only reason to mention the claim for the later instance is to assert that it is incorrect. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Al Davis article, I spent enough time glancing at the issue to see that there were three terms involved, "hispanic", "Latin American", and "latino".  Another issue is that the coach hired later was in the NFL as a player earlier.  So much depends on the exact words of the source.  For example, a quote from the section below is a case in point, "first Latino NFL head coach" could be confused with saying "first NFL Latino head coach", but the two IMO identify different people.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Spurious controversy

This essay seems to me to be biased in favor of synthesizing false controversies. There's no real controversy or doubt as to where Erin Burnett went to school; there is just one reporter making an inaccurate statement which could (and was) fact-checked and found to be false. There's no real doubt as to who the first Latino NFL head coach is; there's just one list with an error. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Erin Burnett article, Mangoe, here is your statement on WT:V dated 21:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC),
 

...I had people doggedly insisting that this falsehood had to be included in the article because the source was "reliable". To prevent us from repeating this false statement, I had to track down this person's high school yearbook and cite it. This struck me as extreme; the mere demonstration that the statement could not have been true should have been sufficient to exclude it from the article. Reliability is not a guarantee of accuracy, and we do have an obligation not to repeat material which we can tell is false even when it comes from "reliable" sources.

My knowledge of the consensus at the article is based on your report.  The current consensus is that we have an inaccurate statement in a reliable source, and the WP:DUE assigned to the statement is that it is insignificant. 

From my viewpoint this example is right on point to this essay.  I don't see the problem that you are seeing.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a private essay?

As far as I can tell, this essay is only editable by Unscintillating or those who agree with him/her? Is that correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As stated in the first sentence of the essay, "This essay is purposed as a guideline to be linked from WP:NPOV and WP:V."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question though. As far as I can tell, this essay is only editable by you or those who agree with you - is that correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are experienced enough to know that there is no ownership in Wikipedia, and everything is done by consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, if you want to remove that example, then explain why you think it's a bad example. People keep putting it back because (a) it is a good example, and (b) your "defense" is to stir up wiki-drama rather than to justify yourself. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hamilton example

I'm failing to see how context has anything to do with this. The authority for the statement made an error; that is all. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's first agree that the source made an error.  Is the error something worth mentioning in the encyclopedia?  No.  I don't see the problem with identifying it as a reliability-in-the-context (RITC) issue.  If it is an RITC issue the source is not reliable and it cannot be used to satisfy WP:V.  If on the other hand we wanted to argue that the source was reliable but inaccurate, we'd conclude that the inaccuracy was not something that readers wanted to know about.  One conclusion is that we cannot allow the material in the encyclopedia, the second says that the material is insignificant and so won't be included.  Either way the material is not mentioned in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes and WP:OR

I very much approve of the notion of using a footnote in cases where a likely error is found - namely, the case of St. Anthony's Episcopal School mentioned in the text. Technically, however, pointing out such things is WP:OR, though it is a case where WP:IAR properly trumps this. There have been lots of people trying to carve a big hole through WP:V recently, but perhaps we should carve an itty bitty hole through WP:OR instead, namely, to explicitly encourage users to submit a brief footnote in cases where there is clear reason to suspect an error in the source in the view of a consensus of editors. Wnt (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually per WP:NOTOR "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources." Without having a link to the actual example it is impossible to say if what was said may have crossed the line into WP:SYN. Any good map would show the location of St. Andrew's Episcopal School (Maryland) and one would assume that there is some information on if it boards students.

The Focal infection theory article demonstrates the fine line one can walk between WP:NOV and WP:SYN. The 2002 Ingle's Endodontics 5th edition stated "(i)n the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection". while 2006 Carranza's clinical periodontology stated "(t)he focal infection theory fell into disrepute in the 1940s and 1950s", and the 2009 Textbook of Endodontology stated that while it had lost its influence "dental focal infection theory never died" Clearly they can't all be right (ie one or more has to be inaccurate).

While I have shown that there were post 1930s scholarly papers supporting theory of focal infection (proving the 2002 Ingle's Endodontics statement was inaccurate) the community didn't buy it so I contrasted the three sources to show there isn't any real agreement on the fate of Focal infection theory.

The Christ myth theory is another example of conflicting sources that could be used to say one or more is inaccurate. Here again the better solution is simple to present the conflict and go from there.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

recent move of Pluto to the RITC appendix

I'm not seeing that Pluto should be listed in the reliability-in-the-context (RITC) appendix.  If saying that Pluto was once a planet makes a source unreliable, it means that we have no reliable sources to say that Pluto was once a planet.  On the other hand, a source that says Pluto is a planet seems to be a valid discussion for material that is reliable but inaccurate.  A 1960 source is accurate for the time period, so there was no error made at the time of publication.  It is the definition of "planet" that changed.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Reliability in the context is subtly different from inaccuracy" ?

   Maybe there is some justification for the assertion "Reliability in the context is subtly different from inaccuracy,...", but it should not lead the section where it occurs: The difference between inaccuracy and any kind of reliability is profound, and must be acknowledged before beginning discussion of whatever subtle matter about reliability is worth of mention, if only to protect readers from mental whiplash.
--Jerzy•t 01:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)