Talk:Polar bear Knut's death linked to encephalitis

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Review of revision 1206294 [Passed]


Correction adds information not in the sources


Is that the way to go? It isn't a "snapshot of history" if you revise history with new information. I made a mistake by changing the article. I think it should be left as it is. The mistake template adds new information not in the sources. Is that correct procedure? Mattisse (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Any information should be sourced. There isn't really a set procedure dealing with incorrect articles, but in my experience adding a source to back up/clarify the error never hurts. However, in this case I'm not sure the mistake was big enough to warrant {{correction}}. Usually that's reserved for when the entire premise/topic is false, not a small detail. I'd have just made the correction (from what appears to have been a mis-reading of the sources by the author?) and moved on. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
The sources are not clear.

The nature of the infection is unclear, explained Claudia Szentiks, the pathologist who led Knut's examination, although it was probably caused by a virus. Other possible causes such as rabies, botulism and a prion infection (i.e., mad cow disease) were ruled outPeople
I read that to mean that rabies was not caused by a virus. It turns out I was I was wrong, but I don't think the source was clear. I researched the issue after the reader's comment. The information that rabies is a virus comes from the Wikipedia article on rabies. So much for the "snapshot of history" theory of wikinews. Mattisse (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The report shows that Knut was suffering from encephalitis, an irritation and swelling of the brain that was probably brought on by an undetermined infection, says pathologist Claudia Szentiks, according to the Associated Press. ... Experts ruled out rabies, botulism and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, aka mad cow disease, as causes of the encephalitis that led to the animal's spasm and collapse, Szentiks said. USA Today

The polar bear suffered from encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain, which caused him to collapse before he drowned, a necropsy indicated. Knut would have probably died from brain swelling if he had not drowned, officials said..Toronto Sun

Isn't this "revising the snapshot of history" to get into a discussion of the virual cause of rabies? Mattisse (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Having by now reread the source passage this comes from at least a dozen times, I'm satisfied that it really does represent rabies as non-viral.
Regarding what to do about the error, if a correction notice were not employed, perhaps one might simply delete the word "non-viral" from the article.
(BTW, best not to quote large blocks of copyrighted sources. We can all read the sources (at this time), and if they later disappear behind paywalls, that just makes it more problematic to be quoting large blocks of them here. It's easy enough to comment on what the sources say without making a verbatim copy of it on-wiki.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I get your point (although the sources are clearly given and credited.) Could you point out the wikinews policies the limit the size of the quote, as I have seen larger quotes accepted in articles? However, which source clearly states that rabies is caused by a viral source? Mattisse (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
The passage in People is what I'm talking about. Taking the words to mean exactly what they say, they put rabies in a list of non-viral causes. It's even possible the author of those words didn't realize quite what xe had written; but I think it fair to say the source "represents rabies as non-viral", the wording I'm proposing for a correction notice... supposing we want a correction notice.
Regarding copyright, I'm not referring to a policy, but simply to prudence. Our relation to the commercial news sites is not analogous to their relations to each other. Commercial sites are wont to indulge a commercial motive for aggressive suppression of non-commercial parties on the web copying their content, and it behooves us to be pointedly ultra conservative in that regard. --Pi zero (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply