Wikipedia talk:Truth, not verifiability

There is a problem which I think has no easy solution. The problem is where the only source appears to be reliable but is factually incorrect. The source may well be considered normally reliable but in a particular instance is incorrect or has become incorrect because of events which have occurred which have made the source out of date. Two examples; a) I am a retired lawyer. A case I prosecuted in court was reported in the local newspaper. At that time the police sometimes prosecuted cases. Others were prosecuted by lawyers like me. The newspaper quoted something I said but instead of giving my name they gave a name which was not mine and said that I was a Police Inspector. The case is never likely to be mentioned in a wikipedia article but if it were it would be difficult for me to get it corrected.

             b) a Wikipedia article about a village might say that the village has a pub and a post office and general stores. If those premises were closed the reliable sources might not publish the fact for some time (or perhaps at all.) Even a later book about the village might not say that they had closed but simply ignore the fact that there ever was a shop or a pub there.  Any resident in the village would be able to say that Wikipedia was incorrect but none could correct the article.

Maybe the arbitration commitee could be called upon to judge such innacuracies.

Spinney Hill (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)