His account is
MesserKruseÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
. From his talk page:
QUOTE
verifiability
You wrote: As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?
As odd as it might seem, Wikipedia (along with many other kinds of tertiary reference works) can easily carry "wrong" or "untrue" content. In short, following Wikipedia's verifiability and weight policies, Wikipedia is not "truth," Wikipedia is "verifiability" of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that. In truth, flaws abound in some Wikipedia articles, not so much because of careless or PoV editing, but because these articles are only meant to echo the secondary sources, which may be flawed. Sometimes, "minority" (less often-cited or published) sources do make their ways into articles, but not always: Editors might not allow some minority sources at all, calling them unreliable. Sometimes this is ok, sometimes not. Happily, there haven't been too many worries like that at Haymarket affair. It crops up most often on high traffic articles in the humanities and history (lots of sources mean more likelihood of widely repeated flaws and skewed weight). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I see and I understand. I'm used to a different standard that relies on the citation and primary scholarship of source materials.MesserKruse (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]Haymarket
Thank you for your messages. I have ordered your book and look forward to reading it.
This weekend I will double-check what you've written about Avrich and his sources. If necessary, I will undo my change.
I look forward to collaborating with you in the future, but I hope you will familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:Verifiability and WP:Undue weight. If all historians save one say that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write "Most historians write that the sky was green, but one says the sky was blue" (as absurd as that seems). As individual editors, we're not in the business of weighing claims, just reporting what reliable sources write. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That is very fair and understandable. I understand the policy but also note that it is not currently consistently applied. For example, if Schaack is a reliable source for "friendly fire" why is he not also a reliable source for his observation that the "mob" exchanged gunfire with the police? Also, as far as verifiability goes, if it can be clearly shown that a source has misquoted or misrepresented another, we certainly should disqualify it on these grounds. Avrich especially has numerous quotations that in his book that are different from the sources he cites. Finally, I can work with the "majority" policy stated above, but will hope to see my "minority" view represented in the future. MesserKruse (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we probably need to take another look at Schaack as you suggest. I, too, hope we can incorporate your insights into the article. That's why I'm going to read your book. That, plus a life-long interest in the Haymarket affair. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That is great. I look forward to helping in any way I can. I look forward to a productive collaboration.MesserKruse (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't seem he contributed after that; the above comment seems to be the last edit he made to Wikipedia. Malik?
The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia, Chronicle of Higher Education
Newsfeed The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia 
