Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Group 3/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1
Old discussion
statement by Unscintillating
  • Here is my statement from the Main talk page before I joined this group:


So, I'm looking to be a part of a "change-camp continuity" draft.  I think that Vnt is holy writ, a figure of speech, ambiguous, and compound technical writing; but given that these are points that remain in contention, they are not my top priority.  I think that Wikipedians need WP:V to refute the claims of those that require that all sources of information come from reliable sources.  For example, "it doesn't matter that it isn't true, WP:V says that the threshold for inclusion is not truth." 
information vs. material

The "true believers" believe that only reliable sources have information.  There was a recent policy-change creep that changed the long-standing word "material" to have the higher bar of "information".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

continuity alternatives for "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth"
  1. footnote the sentence
  2. attribute the phrase as being a long-standing version, an example exists on my draft
  3. footnote the sentence itself, and in the draft, break down the compound language, i.e., separate the "not truth" off into its own sentence.
Footnoting idea
Unscintillating, I'm not very familiar with the expression "change-camp continuity". But, anyway, I think that yes, a draft which puts the words "verification, not truth" into a footnote does fit in with the overall idea of Group 3. Even if the consensus turns out to be that those words are not the best way of saying what has to be said, they will remain part of WP history and should probably be acknowledged as such! Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, putting it in a footnote could work, and is within the spirit of group three as Kalidasa says. My view on the matter is that as long as the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is not actually in the text itself then it will be fine. Unscintillating, I think the other two examples you came up with would work well too. I want to give you all the freedom to be creative here, so if you think of something really good but you're not sure whether it should go in, go ahead and make a draft and discuss it with the other work group members. If they like it, then the chances are pretty good that I'll like it too. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The footnote is a good idea: as #1. Be——Critical 17:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, I didn't mean anything complicated by saying "change-camp continuity", politically, I've been a part of the "change camp" trying to convince SlimVirgin to change WP:V without success.  "continuity" refers to the 13-3 polling result that favored continuity.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Next step

We've got 6 drafts and now we're supposed to decide which is best. (By tomorrow, according to the schedule.) How can we go about deciding?—S Marshall T/C 11:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on individual drafts

Comments on draft 0

Draft 0 rationale

It is a draft prepared by Becritical earlier in this mediation. I put it here, as a starting point, because it expresses clearly and concisely the difference between perceived truth and verifiability, without using the words VNT. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 0

Things that could be improved with draft 0

Comments on draft 1

Draft 1 rationale

I've just added in a draft, numbered as Draft 1, which includes a footnote with "verification, not truth". This one also doesn't use the word "information" as much as Draft 0, it uses "material" and "content" as alternatives. Plus one or two other tweaks...Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 1

Things that could be improved with draft 1

  • One thing which is missing is the statement that all quotations must be cited but 1) that should be obvious and 2) we don't need to go into detail in the lead. But I'm not sure about this. What do the rest of you think about this omission? If you feel it should be changed, I suggest modifying draft 1 to read
"All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Be——Critical 20:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 2

Draft 2 rationale

  1. To begin by defining "verifiability", since we're not using it with its natural meaning
  2. To remove the contested word "threshold"
  3. To show a contrast between verifiability and what editors believe is true, but without using the problem phrase
  4. To retain the longstanding phrasing concerning "challenged or likely to be challenged", since there seems no justification to change it
  5. To insert the "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" aspect of Blueboar's compromise, because this was widely applauded
  6. To move away from abstract musing towards direct, clear instructions to editors (hence "unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed at once" becomes "please remove unsourced contentious material about living people at once"—note also the preference for plain English, so "persons" becomes "people")

I developed this version over the course of very long discussions, and almost every aspect of it has a detailed rationale, so the above is just a summary.—S Marshall T/C 22:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 2

Things that could be improved with draft 2

  • It is not enough that the information is true.
  • It also introduces the undefined words "information", "published", "reliable", "source", and while we're at it, "the" and "not". In all cases where I use an undefined word in this draft, it carries its natural meaning. In this case, wikt:true, item 1. I accept that this will be unclear to epistemologists, philosophers and high-end experts in information theory or cognitive science, but I submit that virtually everyone else knows what I mean by "true".—S Marshall T/C 07:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those words have been important too; "source", for example, has many sentences of explanation.  Is there matching explanation for "true"?  Do you have some guidelines and/or examples so that editors can know how to tell "true" information from information that is not "true"?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Where do you stand on Dewey Defeats Truman.  I believe by draft 2 policy we would need to remove that article, because it depends on material that is not true (wikt:true Item 1).  And yet I hope and expect that you will argue that we should not remove that article.  How do we avoid the apparent ambiguity that this sentence in draft 2 does not say what it means?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought for sure that "Dewey Defeats Truman" was an example of something we could agree was inaccurate, but please review the following exchange from Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_35:

* Some editors have questioned at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_56#Replacement_phrasing_for_Verifiability_not_truth as to whether Dewey defeats Truman is an example of something that is untrue.  The confusion is not a trivial issue, but the case here is even more clear: "Dewey defeats Truman" is an inaccurate title. Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

          I don't think it is an inaccurate title (it accurately describes the topic of the article: a famous headline consisting of those words) ... I suppose one could argue that it is an imprecise title. If you changed it to ""Dewey Defeats Truman" Chicago Tribune headline" the title would be more precise. An inaccurate title would be "Dewey's defeat of Truman (1948 Presidential Election)". Blueboar (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
As I read your text, you require material to be true before it can be considered for verification, a two-step sequence.  Or do you mean that we cannot verify material that is not true?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • With the word "true", I don't think sentences of explanation are necessary. "Source" and "reliable" have specific meanings on Wikipedia. "True" doesn't. It simply has its naked, natural meaning. Now, "true" is a very simple, common word (it comes between 300 and 400 on most word frequency lists, and Wiktionary have it listed as word #291). And like most simple, common words, defining it is a major task. The classic example is "God" (short, simple, common, and beyond all possibility of definition) but my favourite example is actually "set". In frequency lists it's around word #200 (Wiktionary have it as word #195), and it takes the Oxford English Dictionary 60,000 words to define it in full. That's the length of a short novel. But it's unnecessary to define it outside a dictionary because nobody needs to look up "set". Same with "true". We all know what it means.

    As for what to do with Dewey Defeats Truman, I would see that as analogous to Bigfoot:- something false, but it's true that people believed it. If the belief is notable and there are sources about it, then we can have an article on that belief. This question highlights something new, though: the way it's possible to confuse the criteria for having an article at all (essentially WP:N and the various permutations of WP:BLP) with the criteria for including certain content in that article (essentially WP:V, but combined with WP:DUE etc.)—S Marshall T/C 06:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 3

Draft 3 rationale

I shamelessly either plagiarised or closely-paraphrased the bits I liked best, tweaked the ordering of things around a bit, and maybe re-worded a bit. Y'never know, I may even have included some original thinking (can't remember, but then I have had 20mg of morphine this morning, lol!) I really like the idea of that footnote, so I've included it in my draft. Pesky (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The rationale is really exactly the same as for S Marshall's draft. Pesky (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Adding: the explanation I was trying to give down below (under the influence of morphine, lol!) is actually saying that it covers Bruce's "Verifiability is Truth" problem. Pesky (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 3

Things that could be improved with draft 3

  • It seems complicated with too many links, words in quotation marks, etc. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Digresses from explaining the Verifiability requirement by discussing inaccuracy of sources and brings up the unclear concept of truth, which is denoted as unclear by quotation marks in the following.
Published sources can (and often do) conflict with each other, and therefore may be inaccurate. Therefore, "verifiability" does not guarantee "truth".
I presume verifiability is in quotation marks because "verifiability" doesn't mean verifiability. I tried to get away from this problem at Group 4 Draft 0 and Draft 3 by using the common meaning of verifiable that one can look up in the dictionary. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Other commentary about draft 3

  • Pesky, where are you going with "verifiability does not guarantee truth"? It doesn't seem to address any of the concerns raised by editors during the RFCs, and I don't yet see what we gain by it. Could you elaborate on your thought processes please?—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    Errk, please bear with me! I had major surgery on my neck on Tuesday, and am still very much in recovery and post-anaesthesia brain-fog. I'm sort of addressing the thing (I think) where we still have to be careful not to include stuff just because it's been published, regardless of whether it's been superseded by more up to date knowledge and has been de-bunked. No good just putting in stuff because it can be "verified" when it's been proven false by later publications, kind of thing. It covers some of the stuff that people kept annoying Ealdgyth and people with – debunked wild theories which used to be considered valid. Adding: it kinda leads into the the bit about what to do with conflicting sources, and how that stuff should be handled. I know there are loads of people who just don;t know that their pet theoiry has now been comprehensively debunked, and still want to include it as though it was the "truest" thing. Pesky (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 4

Draft 4 rationale

This is address the relatively new "Verifiability is truth" situation I am seeing more and more often. The logic goes 'since this meets Verifiability it is the Truth and anything that challenges it (even if it is itself meets Verifiability) is OR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a seriously lame argument which is specifically addressed by NPOV [1], and doesn't need to be covered by V. Be——Critical 02:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 4

Things that could be improved with draft 4

WP:Inaccuracy is purposed to be a guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 5

Draft 5 rationale

Draft 5 addresses the point that info from a verifiable source may be contradicted by info from another verifiable source – the issue which Bruce calls "Verifiability is truth". Yes, it happens all the time. Then again, as Becritical points out, this question is dealt with by WP:NPOV. Still, we can't assume that everyone who looks at WP:V will look at what NPOV says about conflicting sources, unless WP:V directs them there. That is the simple but helpful thing which draft 5 does.

Apart from that point, Draft 5 is largely the same as Draft 1. Although the first sentence is taken from Draft 2. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 5

Things that could be improved with draft 5

Comments on draft 6

Draft 6 rationale

Draft 6 started out with the current lede, replacing "threshold" et. al. with "constraint", also picking up discussion from the talk page to mention "perceived truth" and "personal experience".

The material about how to handle burden doesn't need to be in the lede, nor does the list of core content policies, and we received complaints at the last RfC regarding excess length.  The core content policies need a subsection, and one that doesn't hide the common names.  Attention is given to WP:DUE.  The VnT subsection acknowledges the more than 500 unique pages found with the Google search [site:en.wikipedia.org "verifiability not truth"].  Polling at WP:V/First sentence/Polls shows 13 out of 16 respondents favoring at least some mention of VnT on WP:V.  A footnote was tried at the 2nd RfC with only getting 50% agreement, so this tries something stronger than the footnote.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 6

  • Concise, and I like the way it highlights the three core policies. This is much better than telling readers "other policies apply" without saying which other policies apply! Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 6

Other commentary on draft 6

Discussion on creating a new work group
  • Owing to the inclusion of VNT, this clearly belongs in group 2, not group 3.—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Where, ironically, I've just argued that it does not belong in Group 2! Please don't anyone conclude from that, that we cannot propose a draft of this nature. I'm thinking, instead, that we might want to consider a fifth draft to place before the community, a "Group 2.5", if you will. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
When I originally proposed a "change-camp continuity" page, Tryptofish encouraged me to work within the current structure, and I agreed.  When I again raised the question, Mr. Stradivarius did not respond.  Again I agreed.  Whether or not each of you has a point, I am following the current process.  The draft here identifies VnT with the word "was", which is within the spirit of Group 3.  The otherwise identical draft in Group 2 identifies VnT with the word "is", which is squarely in the scope of Group 2 "VnT compromise".  In either case the ambiguity and confusion that stem from VnT are proposed as bounded by being a "description of the verifiability constraint" so that any conflict between the two gets resolved by the constraint.  The point is that we are trying to build community consensus.  For whatever reason, 13 out of 16 people agree with the continuity idea, so we can either question the poll, or we can provide drafts with continuity.  A weakness in the poll would be that just because people say they want camels with three humps, doesn't mean that they would actually like the entire camel when they saw a specific camel with three humps.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the addition of a "2.5" group, while the draft 6 from Group 3 would move to Group 2.5, I believe that the Draft 6 at Group 2 would remain a Group 2 draft.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree that you have been trying very hard and in good faith to work with conflicting advice (some of it from me, alas). Thanks! Rather than have the same discussion in two places, please let me point to my comments about these issues at the Group 2 talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This seemed sufficiently important that I've moved the discussion to the main mediation page. Let's continue discussing it there. Unscintillating, sorry for my delay in dealing with this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 7

Draft 7 rationale

Draft 7 is an attempt to simplify the policy without changing it. Short, straightforward texts are more likely to be read and understood. It tries to leave issues covered by other policies up to those policies without restating them. Doing this cuts it by almost half from most of the other drafts, while avoiding potential policy conflicts. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 7

Things that could be improved with draft 7

I'm aware and I agree that Jimbo wants this.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 8

There's a comment that Draft 3 was about incorporating balance, but that's not quite right / quite all. I added Wikilinks to Wikipedia:NOTOR#Caveats_about_expert_material, inaccurate (but "verifiable") material, and Wikipedia:NOTOR#Conflict_between_sources which (particularly when taken together) address much more than just balance / due weight, etc. And I'm not quite sure what was meant by the "artifact" thing, as there's been a reasonable amount of discussion about verifiability not guaranteeing inclusion, along the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPeskyCommoner (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC

I mean that the explanation about how verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion: I'm under the impression that this was originally intended as a way of explaining the "threshold" part of VnT. Be——Critical 17:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 8 rationale

General observations

I've included some of the other ideas from the drafts in footnotes, so as not to interrupt the flow of the text. This draft already combines most of the features of the others in this group, with the exception of the admonition from Wikipedia:Npov#Balance that we need to describe conflicts between RS. I would suggest that if this is necessary, it be incorporated into the body of the policy, but that it is not notable enough for the lead- except as a footnote, as shown.

The footnote has been expanded a bit to include the full VnT phrase, and an explanation of Wikipedia:Npov#Balance.

Compared to draft 2

The "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." is from draft 2, mostly.

This draft uses links instead of lengthy explanations: For example, it has a link to WP:MAINSPACE instead of "This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living people."

The main difference is that it does not include the "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion..." sentence. V never says it is the only necessary qualification. This explanation is a leftover from people trying to explain VnT. If you don't have VnT, then there is no reason for people to believe that V is the only requirement. However, it is included as a footnote.

Compared to draft 3

Draft three also includes the artifact about "not a guarantee that it will be included."

Draft three is about incorporating Wikipedia:Npov#Balance into WP:V, which I think is not necessary. The draft being proposed here already includes the admonition that NPOV has to be taken together with V in determining content. However, the info on Balance is included here as a footnote.

Compared to draft 4

The link to WP:NOR should substitute for the parenthesis "(See the discussion about sources in WP:NOR that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources.)" So that part of this draft is already incorporated.

As with draft 3, this draft is also attempting to put elements of WP:NPOV into WP:V, which is unnecessary as long as we note that NPOV needs to also be considered- or else should be part of the WP:V body but not the lead. But it's in the footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becritical (talk • contribs) 19:50, 31 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 8

  • After doing a fair bit of thinking, rather than writing another compromise draft, I'm just going to endorse draft 8. It looks so similar to any compromise draft that I would write, that it's not necessary for me to write it, if that makes sense.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 8

  • I think we do need something along the lines of what I included in Draft 3 to cover not wanting outdated / debunked / inaccurate material in our articles just because someone's found it somewhere and considers it "verifiable" (or simply doesn't know it's been superseded). It kinda also goes hand-in-hand with verifiability not being a guarantee of inclusion. Pesky (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Three things: would that be acceptable to have in a footnote? Would that be more appropriate as part of the body, not the lead? And either way, could you write it up for inclusion in this draft? Be——Critical 17:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a footnote on copyright for this draft? Be——Critical 17:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 9

Draft 9 rationale

This draft started with draft 8, which was a combined draft. I noticed that there were Wikilinks in the lede that linked to other than on the WP:V page, and re-factored these.

I added the sentence "Verifiable material may or may not be accurate." as being the path to consensus, and added a footnote saying "See, for example, Dewey Defeats Truman."

I don't actually think the comment about the copyright policy belongs on this page, but since it seems to be popular to mention it, I found a place for it.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 9

Things that could be improved with draft 9

  • Could we have two examples on verifiable material not necessarily being accurate? Dewey defeats Truman is a good one for "inaccurate when published", but I (still!) think it's important to cover out-of-date stuff, where (for example) more recently published research etc. has proved the old stuff wrong. If we could get that into the footnote there, I'd be quite happy to endorse this one; so (as S Marshall said about draft 8), no point in me writing up another. Pesky (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    Adding: maybe something like "impossible to go faster than the speed of sound", or "nothing smaller than an atom", or "bleeding is the best cure for infection", or whatever? Pesky (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 10

Draft 10 rationale

I've incorporated wording and ideas from drafts 8 and 9, and from earlier drafts as well.

  • Included the point about "Dewey defeats Truman", and placed it in the context of the long-standing core policy of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This is not my own idea -- a couple of weeks ago, in the talk page of WP:V, someone raised that the points in the essay WP:Inaccuracy can be viewed as an special case of WP:UNDUE.
  • Also included points about difference between perceived truth and verifiability, in the context of WP:NOR.

If it's worth saying that the three core policies V, NOR, and NPOV work together, isn't it worth saying a little about how they work together? Besides, if we don't do this, I fear that the idea of avoiding "verifiable inaccuracy" will be seen as at attempt to turn existing Wikipedia policies upside down. Is that the way to get consensus? I agree, though, that material about the other policies shouldn't be in the lead itself, so have followed draft 9 in creating a new section.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 10

Things that could be improved with draft 10

  • The business about NOR and V and NOT working in harmony and not being interpreted in isolation from one another is the last paragraph in the lede of NOR and NOT. As closely as possible, the exact same language should be the last paragraph in the lede of V, except that in the wake of the Rlevse incident it's also important that V should mention the copyright policy----we need to explain that while does V mean you have to follow the sources, it doesn't give you the right to copy them too closely!----so an addition about the copyright policy is also important.—S Marshall T/C 08:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
"Articles must also comply with the copyright policy." is what is in the current policy lede.  IMO it is a truism that does not communicate anything about the relationship between WP:V and WP:Copyright.  I take your point, but what is there now is dead weight in the lede, and nothing is lost by removing it.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Hypothesis: "Inaccuracy is determined by great weight of verifiable information." Counter-argument: In 1930 Palm Island tragedy, reliable sources provide three spellings, "Pattison", "Patterson", and "Paterson".  We have no reliable source that tells us that either "Patterson" or "Paterson" are incorrect, but the decision to use "Pattison" has never been contested.
Hypothesis: "Because it is inaccurate, the WP:DUE weight to be assigned to "Dewey defeats Truman" is zero weight. Counter-argument: If the material had zero due weight, it would not be in the article.
Conclusion: "Dewey defeats Truman" is verifiable, is inaccurate, and is more than WP:DUE insignificant.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you agree that the three words "Dewey defeats Truman" is wp:verifiable, inaccurate, and is more than WP:DUE insignficant?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Pattison/Patterson/Paterson at Palm Island... According to the essay WP:Inaccuracy, most sources do use the form "Pattison". If so, the WP article is simply following the prevalent usage. Why should anyone contest this? Regarding "Dewey defeats Truman", I agree -- if it had zero weight, WP would not mention it at all. It is mentioned, but not in a way that would cast any doubt on the historical question of who actually did win that election. The fact that Truman was the winner is supported by an overwhelming weight of verifiable info, from sources including later editions of the Chicago Tribune itself. Perhaps a better wording for us here would be "little or no weight" rather than "no weight at all"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you agree that the three words "Dewey defeats Truman" is wp:verifiable, inaccurate, and is more than WP:DUE insignficant?

The case is analagous to Bigfoot or various hoaxes: something that's notable because people believed it, false though it was. What's true is that it was believed. It's an appropriate article to have.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 11

Draft 11 rationale

A revision of Draft 10, continuing the effort "to bring together diametrically opposed concepts" as Unscintillating says, while taking in account points raised in discussion about Draft 10.

  • Paragraph about the 3 core policies restored to existing form which includes mention of copyright. Because of the copyright point, I used the word "information" rather than "material" in the first sentence. The word "material" there might be taken to mean that we try to use previously published wording.
  • Changed wording of the bit about "Dewey defeats Truman". Also I had another look at the existing body text of the article - there is already a section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality which does address question of what happens with sources disagree. Rather than adding in a new section (as in Draft 10), this one briefly mentions NPOV and WP:Due in the intro, and it adds the part about Dewey/Truman into the existing section .

Note to Mr Stradivarius... I changed the background color from the one you set, because (to me at least!) some of the links were hardly visible against the green. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 11

Things that could be improved with draft 11

Comments on draft 12

Draft 12 rationale

It's basically draft 11 with the sub-section re-instated for the core policies bit, reversed the order of the two points in that section, and added a suggested bit for insertion in the main body of the page. (I stupidly previously posted this as suggestions here on talk, instead of making the new draft! I apologise; my brain is still all fuzzy) Pesky (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 12

Things that could be improved with draft 12

  • I could not support any of the drafts that say, "Because Wikipedia does not publish original research, whether editors personally believe information to be true or false should never determine Wikipedia content."  This would be, IMO, a major policy change.  The following is copied from WP:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context.

The content guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources makes these statements:

  • The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.
  • Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.
  • Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.
  • Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis.
Unscintillating (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I see (kinda) what you mean, but it's immediately followed by "Neither perceived truth nor personal experience is a substitute for verifiability" and is intended to be linked to that bit. Maybe replacing the full stop with a semi-colon would be enough to make that more clear? The only bit of your comment I'm having real trouble "seeing" is the "major policy change" thing. I can't see that one at all, but we HFA-editors often don't see things the same way! Pesky (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't say why it would be a change of policy. Be——Critical 20:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Group_3/Archive_1&oldid=1090633312"