From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
      
   >>I have objected many many times on Usenet to citing Wikipedia for   
   >>death notices. It is NOT a source for anything. Looking at the page,   
   >>the source was not cited and he's no longer listed as dead.   
      
   >And now, the alternative view:   
      
   >As long as you cite the source honestly, go ahead and post whatever   
   >information you feel like posting.   
      
   Are you listening to me? WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE but fourth-hand   
   information at best. Information added to a Wikipedia page is required   
   to cite reliable third-hand information. That didn't happen here which is   
   why it was very quickly taken down.   
      
   An obituary posted in which the writer got the information from a close   
   relative is acceptable and what we would expect in the case of a celebrity.   
   Something posted by a close relative or publicist on what appears to   
   be an official social media account is probably not a hoax, but we've   
   certainly seen social media accounts created just to spread malicious   
   gossip and hoaxes.   
      
   >If someone edited Wikipedia to indicate that Coleman had died -- and   
   >it's obvious now that it wasn't a "hoax" -- then just say that and let   
   >the reader weigh the credibility.   
      
   Oh, by all means cite "someone", that mysterious "someone" who edited a   
   page but DID NOT provide a source.   
      
   In this case, the "information" was on the Wikipedia page for just a few   
   minutes, then taken down and Dabney Coleman's status reverted to   
   "alive". I found a Web page with no citations on a site that   
   automatically generates "news". Extra had supposedly reported the death   
   but 404'ed their own Web page.   
      
   Crap like that is a huge red flag that the death notice was a hoax.   
      
   >I once posted a death notice that I heard from a friend   
   >who was loosely connected to the family of the celebrity, and a.o.   
   >scooped the world because of it.  Not that that's particularly   
   >important in the scheme of things, but it's less unimportant than a   
   >lot of things that get posted in a lot of forums.   
      
   It's a death notice. It's absolutely pretty damn not unimportant that it   
   comes from a close family relative and not rumour.   
      
   >Sometimes the lack of corroboration just means you got there first.   
      
   There have been hundreds of celebrity death hoaxes over the years.   
   Usenet has no business participating. We have no need to be first. We   
   absolutely have a need to be accurate.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)