Wikispooks talk:Document Editing Rules

The Document:The Octopus has the following part:

"Theodore Shackley, one of the key CIA figures involved in covert operation since Vietnam described in his book The Third Way that low intensity conflicts are not really fought to be won but to bleed both sides so as to maximise black market commerce and to secretly field test new weapons and techniques on a “training battlefield.” "

The book however does have the name: "The third option: An American view of counterinsurgency operations" - is there a good way, to bring in a correction or should we leave it at that?

Just the general question if one sees a mistake in the Doc, if a note (below) is in order, or just ignore. -- Sunvalley (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You raise a very good point. On the one hand, just to ignore it leaves verifiable falsehood unremarked upon, which can't be good. But just to fix it would hide that mistake from the reader, which is also potentially valuable information. I think current practice has been to correct simple typos and manually add a <ref> to note the mistake. A clearer policy on this would be good. How about a template, which makes both the correct version and the original version visible? e.g. "The Third WayOption"

Thanks. Was thinking about it as well and the reference seems to be the best solution to me. Like .. is simpler and not everybody knows that this way, the cancelled word, is meant to represent the initial version which was updated, but both kept visible to represent the originality of the text. I dont think all Internet users know that, me neither until very recently. So rather keep it with the ref. - 02:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Simple is good. I'll adjust the main page to clarify this. Do sign such references (use 4 tildes: "~~~~" ) -- Robin (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)