Wikipedia:À la carte



There is a frequently cited Wikipedia essay, WP:COATRACK, which argues that people should not add random facts to articles that are irrelevant to the topic. At times, this is cited correctly, but far too frequently, the objection is raised despite the presentation of these facts by reliable sources discussing the topic of the article. However bad it may be to clutter an article with information that has no connection to it except in one editor's mind, it is worse to suppress information based on an editor's own opinion, so-called "editorial judgment". People often feel like this is POV editing, and it is a source of frustration to those who want to lay out all the relevant facts.

While sometimes sensitivity under WP:BLP is a factor, we must not forget the WP:WELLKNOWN portion of that policy - in the end, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it needs to cover the well established facts. This is especially true in contentious cases, where "sensitivity" to one party usually means presenting another in a worse light.

Contradictions are good
It is common, especially in coverage of historical events involving a limited number of witnesses, for eyewitness reports to disagree. Press reports likewise disagree, sometimes for this reason, sometimes out of simple carelessness. Unless one source is so clearly in error that WP:FRINGE applies, the best thing to do is to note the inconsistency and detail the different versions of the event. (Though in trivial cases, a footnote may suffice) We should not try to present a single, consistent version of events when there is a wider range of opinion. We are not telling a story, but trying to summarize the known range of perspectives.

This is not a trial and we are not a jury
A fallacy that comes up in articles regarding criminal cases, especially ongoing cases, is that Wikipedia should follow judicial rules of evidence. Editors may argue sagely about "rules of evidence", "hearsay", "prior bad acts" and so forth. All that is irrelevant. When covering a criminal case, Wikipedia seeks to cover all that is known about the case. We are not seeking to come to a fair verdict based on legally obtained evidence, taking into account a balanced adversarial presentation by prosecutor and defender. That's the jury's job. All we are doing is saying what the prosecution and defense said, what the media said, what commentators said, what politicians said, eventually what the jury and judge said. We don't make verdicts, we import them from reliable sources. And so we need not fear importing all the other data, even evidence that is illegally obtained or ruled prejudicial, if the sources report it. Of course, there is no reason at all for us not to say it is illegally obtained or prejudicial, if the sources say that.