User:FormerIP/So you think a source is wrong?
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia'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 page in a nutshell: If something on Wikipedia can be shown to be factually wrong, Wikipedia's processes allow for it to be removed. |
Among the chief criteria for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is its policy on verifiability. This stipulates that information whose veracity is "challenged or likely to be challenged" can be removed if it is not derived from a cited reliable source.
However, it would be a mistake to assume that this logic can be extended so that the inclusion of information in a reliable source mandates or even necessarily recommends its inclusion in Wikipedia. This essay gives guidance on the removal of cited material from Wikipedia in cases where it is believed to be factually incorrect.
Fact and opinion
[edit]It is important, in the first instance, to distinguish matters of fact and matters of opinion. Information can only be factually wrong if it pertains to fact. Moreover, even information pertaining to fact can be subject to opinion where the objective truth or falsehood of the information is not accessible. In cases where there exists real-world debate or uncertainty regarding information in Wikipedia, content should not be removed simply on the grounds of being factually "wrong". If it is to be removed, this should instead be done by following Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view.
Occasionally, you may see material in Wikipedia articles along the following lines:
| Acording to a 2008 article in The Guardian, Fred Bloggs was born on April 4 1960.[1] However, this appears to be inaccurate, since other sources say he was born on April 3.[2][3][4][5] |
This happens when editors mistakenly follow the neutral point of view policy in circumstances where it is not properly applicable. Fairly obviously, a view ought instead to be taken that the fact of a mistake having been made by The Guardian in 2008 is not of interest to our readers. The information should not have been attributed, but removed on the grounds of being factually wrong, leaving us with:
| Fred Bloggs was born on April 3 1960.[1] |
How to remove information which is sourced but incorrect
[edit]If you see information contained in Wikipedia which is sourced but which you have good reason to think is factually wrong, start a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard or on the talkpage of the relevant article, explaining your reasons for thinking this. You may then wish to wait for comments and see if a consensus emerges in favour of the removal. Alternatively, you can just go ahead and make the change. In the latter case, though, you should be tolerant if another editor reverts your change pending the outcome of a discussion.
Your rationale should be designed to be persuasive – if other editors are not convinced by it, then you may not achieve your objective. However, there are no specific restrictions on what forms or bases your arguments may take. Because they are being placed on a noticeboard or talkpage, and not in Wikipedia article mainspace, Wikipedia's core policies relating to content do not apply (except for WP:BLP). You may, therefore, refer to primary sources, sources which have low reliability or sources which it is not possible to verify. You may also appeal to a conclusion drawn from multiple sources without this constituting improper synthesis and you may reason on the basis of logic without this being original research or necessarily requiring sources to back it up.
On the other hand, other editors are entitled to take a sceptical approach to your arguments if they wish to. Reasonable requests for evidence supporting your arguments are therefore permitted. But this should not stand in the way of common sense. "The information is probably wrong but we should keep it" will never be a satisfactory conclusion to reach. "It does not matter if the information is wrong" could be seen as a worse conclusion still.
Incorrect information about living people
[edit]Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons states that material about people who are alive "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". Such material should be removed from Wikipedia if it is most probably untrue, even if this cannot be conclusively proven. The value of material to readers should always be weighed against the possible infringement of the privacy of a living person.
If you or someone you are connected to is the subject of material on Wikipedia which you believe to be false, you should consult our guide on how to handle such a situation. This may help you to decide whether to attempt to correct the material or whether to send a complaint.
The threshold for inclusion is verifiability
[edit]The above guidance is without prejudice to the general principle that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. If you wish to go further than removing material, by substituting material which is more accurate, it will usually be necessary to provide reliable sources to support your edits.