Methods
Reporting source conflicts
Preserve competing values and their grounds until a scoped decision can be defended.
Problem
Two sources can disagree because they refer to different dates, entities, definitions or revisions. They can also genuinely conflict. Averaging categorical values or silently choosing the latest page conceals the reason for a decision. A conflict report preserves each candidate assertion, source passage and scope. It distinguishes a resolved difference in meaning from an unresolved disagreement about the same question, so downstream readers can judge a chosen value and its limits.
Steps
Normalize the question
Write the precise subject, property, date and jurisdiction under dispute. Preserve the original terms used by each source, then state any mapping needed to compare them. Before declaring a conflict, check whether the sources describe different entities, units, periods or definitions. An apparent disagreement may turn into two compatible claims with different scopes.
Capture every candidate
Record each competing value with its supporting passage, locator, source version and observation date. Include a declared absence where a source addresses the question but supplies no value. Do not discard a minority value merely because several pages repeat one source. Copied claims are not independent confirmation, and their shared origin matters when weighing evidence.
Assess grounds separately
For each candidate, describe authority for this property, temporal fit, directness of evidence and known dependence on other sources. Separate source quality from agreement with the majority. If a register and a news article answer different questions, say so. If evidence remains comparable and contradictory, retain both values as a live conflict.
Record the decision
If a value is selected for a specific use, state the rule and evidence that make it preferable, including why alternatives were not selected. Keep rejected candidates inspectable. Set a review condition, such as a new filing or correction. A decision can be operationally useful while the underlying conflict remains historically visible.
Checks
- All material candidates and passages are inspectable.
- Entity, date, definition and unit were checked.
- Selection grounds and alternatives are visible.
- Copied claims are not counted as independent sources.
Pitfalls
- Averaging incompatible values.
- Calling differently scoped claims contradictory.
- Removing the losing value after a decision.
A worked example
Three fictional sources give the founding year of Halden Therapeutics AG as 1998, 1999 and 1998. The register shows a registration date in 1999. A company history page says the firm was founded in 1998 as a partnership, and the registered company succeeded the partnership. A news article repeats the history page.
A flat conflict report would list the numbers. The method asks first whether the sources answer the same question. Here they do not: one gives the date of the legal entity, the others the date of a predecessor business. The record therefore holds two compatible claims with different scopes, each with its passage, and notes that the news article copies the company page. If a reader needs the legal entity's date, the register decides. If a reader needs the origin of the business, the company history does. Nothing is deleted, and nobody has to pretend there was a single year.
Variations and edge cases
True conflicts exist too. Two registers may give different addresses for one legal entity on the same date. The record keeps both, notes the authority of each for the property, and applies the stated rule or leaves the conflict open. A declared absence in one source and a value in another is also a conflict when the first source covers the question. Differences in format, such as abbreviations or units, are normalized before comparison, and the normalization is shown.
Time complicates conflicts. A newer source does not automatically beat an older one: it may describe a later state, in which case both are right for their dates, or it may repeat an old error. Revision notes in the source, if any, help. Where a source was later corrected, the correction is a separate source with its own date.
Using conflict reports
A conflict report is useful to the reader who has to decide and to the team that maintains the sources. Readers see the alternatives and the reason for the chosen value. Maintainers see where sources repeatedly disagree and can contact the publisher or change the source's weight. In truth-discovery research, conflicts are the raw material from which source reliability is estimated, and the research cautions that agreement among dependent sources is weak evidence. A report that identifies copying lets later analysis avoid counting one origin several times.
How the method is checked
Test the report with an independent reader. Give them the candidates and passages and ask which value they would use and why. If they cannot reconstruct the stated choice from the evidence, the report is incomplete. Check also that a closed conflict still shows the alternatives, and that a reopened conflict keeps its history.
Found an error on this page? See corrections for what counts as one, how to report it and the dated log.
Enquiry
Test this method on one entity.
Name an entity where "Reporting source conflicts" would be checked in practice, with its sources and its readers. We reply with what a first record would cover and what it would need from you.
Or write to [email protected] in your own words.