Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/V FS Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth

This text is in bold and on the lead of this page. I am very surprised to see that truth is not important. Why do we weigh verifiablity higher than truth? Also forgive me for using this page as 'talk' but I couldn't find an appropriate place to post this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averagejoedev (talk • contribs) 08:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it is, in general, impossible to figure out truth, and very hard to even approximate it. Wikipedia editors are only very rarely experts in all fields they edit in. So we leave the figuring to the experts, and only report their results. We don't do original research (or at least not in the confines of Wikipedia - many editors are indeed experts in some field, and publish their original research elsewhere). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it's not that we don't care about truth, it's that it's not a useful way to settle arguments. If two people have different ideas about what's true (which happens very very often here), "write what's true" gets us nowhere. But if the criterion is "can you cite a reliable source for that claim?", that usually helps us get past the impasse. --GenericBob (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
As can be probably be guessed I am not a fan of this blind faith in reliable sources. I don't believe it is necessarily impossible to find the truth, we find empirical truths all the time. To use a fictional example. Person A might find 2 sources(however unlikely) stating that the moon is made of cheese, while Person B, has closely examined a piece of ground from the moon, brought back during an Apollo mission. Wikipedia would favour Person A over Person B. Regardless of whether or not Person A's postulate is true?.. I know this is very exagerrated but there is a valid point here. This leaves room for many errors, I don't think truth is a popoularity contest, which is what Wikipedia in a way has made it to be. Is there any wikipedia forum for debate about this?Averagejoedev (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia would favour Person A over Person B. Only if A referenced more reliable sources than B. In the case of the composition of the moon, we would favor scientific sources over say random web pages, blogs, newspaper interviews, or books published by general presses. And you're in an appropriate venue to discuss this, so fire away. To me, the fundamental issue is this: we have disagreements about what is true, and to decide whether A or B has the truth in hand, we'd have to turn to reliable sources. We must avoid the trap of "this source is more reliable because it tells the truth". I've never been to the moon, so I have to base my decision about it's composition on the work of others, so we pick what we as a community feel are the best kinds of sources for the topic, and report what those say. Works pretty well, but we're not perfect. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Also note that most editors are anonymous and even if they make claims about themselves, we don't have a system to check their identity or trustworthiness. Anybody can claim to be a subject expert or have personal knowledge that something is the absolute truth while all the published sources got it wrong. Experience indicates that the claims by such editors often sound rather unlikely to be true. See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, Wikipedia actually has an article called The Moon is made of green cheese. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll grant that there may occasionally be truths which are hard to cite and yet generally accepted. In theory, somebody could challenge that content if it appeared in a WP article. In practice, most editors have better things to do with their time, and people who make jerks of themselves by abusing process don't get a warm welcome here. Against that, we most definitely do have plenty of crackpots who are utterly convinced of false "truths", and some outright liars; I'm yet to see any suggestions for how we'd deal with the resulting content disputes, other than by calling for sources.
One thing that sometimes confuses these discussions is a misunderstanding about what qualifies as a RS. Our guidelines state that a source should have certain characteristics to qualify as reliable (editorial oversight, etc etc); from this, some folk assume that any source having those characteristics is reliable. This is a fallacy - "All dogs are mammals, therefore all mammals are dogs." When a "reliable source" makes a claim that's demonstrably false, that's a pretty good sign that maybe it's not reliable on this topic, even if it has editorial oversight yada yada. --GenericBob (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's important to note that the views expressed so confidently by Nuujinn, PrimeHunter and GenericBob represent about 50% of Wikipedians, according to the last poll. The other 50% would like that first sentence changed.—S Marshall T/C 12:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Many editors would like the sentence changed but don't agree what it should be changed to. And it doesn't imply they disagree with the basic views expressed here. I think nearly all regular editors (who have experienced what unsourced nonsense is often added to articles) basically agree that Wikipedia content should be based on published reliable sources and not what editors claim to be The Truth. Some editors would like to add their own alleged knowledge without sources (even I have been tempted to do that), but that doesn't mean they think all other editors should be allowed to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I'm actually not a big fan of that first sentence; I see what it's trying to communicate but I don't think it does so very well. I would prefer something along the lines of "we strive for truth, and we use reliable sources as the best available arbiter of truth". My response above was an attempt to clarify the intent, not an endorsement of the wording. --GenericBob (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Averagejoe, you might like to read WP:Verifiability, not truth. I think it will address your concerns.
In the meantime, if you find a real editor at a real article who thinks that this policy actually says that they should include information that is verifiably false as if it were verifiably accurate—rather than saying what it does, which is that you may only include information that is verifiable, no matter what, and that this verifiable-information-only rule applies even if you personally are 100% certain that the unverifiable information is True™—then please let me know. S Marshall and others have repeatedly asserted that editors might make bad choices in articles because of this, but they've yet to show me one single diff of anyone actually doing so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
What actually happens is that the persons who want to keep false sourced information in say that it is illegitimate to discuss accuracy. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Which is when you should stop arguing about accuracy, and shift the discussion to Due Weight ... saying that even if the information were accurate, it should not be included because mentioning it gives undue weight to an extreme minority opinion. (My experience is, if you can not justify exclusion on due weight grounds, it probably means that the "falseness" of the information is not be as clear cut as you think, and the material should be included in some form anyway.) Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If I show you such a diff, WhatamIdoing, will you then change your position and support my proposed changes to policy?—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It would certainly help.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
A pattern of such comments, especially if they were not easily resolved through a short discussion, would convince me that we had a real problem. It might not convince me that changing this phrase was a proportionate or appropriate response to the problem. I've not seen any data to support the assertion that the phrase is actually being misunderstood by real editors working on real articles. Even a single example at a real article would convince me that the problem doesn't exist entirely between the ears of a couple of editors who believe they somehow know the Truth™ about the phrase's effect on Wikipedia, and that nobody else's positive experience with the phrase is valid.
However, I buy no pigs in pokes: I will not make any firm commitment to support any past or future proposal on the basis of data that is as yet unseen, and for all I have been able to tell, actually non-existent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I understand from what you say that if I produced such a diff, your response would be to quibble the diff, or argue for a change that didn't involve altering the "not truth" wording; it would be another five thousand words without anyone changing their position, so I'm not anxious to go down that road.—S Marshall T/C 23:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, if that's the attitude, then I'm just completely opposed to any changes. My suspicion all along has been what WhatamIdoing said above, that this "exist[s] entirely between the ears of a couple of editors who believe they somehow know the Truth™ about the phrase's effect on Wikipedia", and you're giving that suspicion credence with that reply.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a terrible insult to people who are investing their time in a good faith effort to try to make things better, even if you disagree. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"The attitude" is that chasing down diffs is work, and I'm not willing to do it without some evidence that there could be a payoff in terms of a change of position from some of you. Particularly when editors keep producing this sardonic "The Truth™" business, with capital letter and trademark sign: doesn't imply that you're engaging in serious dialogue, does it?—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That's fine with me: Wikipedia is a WP:VOLUNTEER project. If you don't want to do this, then I'm not going to force you.
It happens that there are some consequences to your choice: I will believe what I've actually seen over what someone alleges to possibly exist. My data set right now gives me no reason to worry about this phrase harming Wikipedia, and significant reasons to believe it is helpful. If you want to change my data set, then you're free to do so. If you want me to make choices based on my current data set, then that's okay with me, too. It's entirely your choice.
BTW, the fact that you expect finding a single example of a real problem to require a significant amount of bother is now part of my data set: you apparently haven't seen this alleged problem often enough or recently enough to be able to easily lay your hands on a single example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that S Marshall was looking for some sign that the diff would be looked at with an open mind regarding whether it supported their assertion and that it was not just this: User:North8000/Page2. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It's obvious that the assumption of a lack of faith starts with your own side. This (to provide some evidence) has been asked repeatedly. I'm certainly willing to consider changing my view, but as WhatamI is saying above, there's basically no evidence being offered to show that there is a significant issue. Call it "a terrible insult" if you'd like, but the offer to provide a diff was obviously never a serious, good faith offer to move the debate forward to begin with. If all that yourself and Marshall are willing to do is continue to spin the wheels on this discussion, then my own position is going to simply be that there's nothing substantive being said here and as a consequence I'm simply going to continue to oppose any changes to the policy. Either we actually debate the issue or we don't. It's up to you guys.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Open mind, yes. So open that my brains fall out, no.
I would be happy to have more data, especially if that new information is different from what I already know. However, the production of more data (no matter which "side" that information might support) will not completely erase the previous data. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's one that I think you will stipulate that we could each find thousands of, (I'll go find some if you say not) where some persons are saying the statement is false/inaccurate, and the other(s) is/ are saying:

  • "Revert deletion of sourced material"
  • "Please stop your behavior of deleting sourced material"
  • "Please do not delete sourced material"
  • "Please do not revert my addition of sourced material"
  • "It is not our job to decide what goes in, our job is to just put in what sources say"

Each of these are in essence (in this context) saying that being sourced (let's stipulate wp:rs'd) is a sufficient condition to force the material to go in. And that the purported falseness of the statement can't be discussed and is irrelevant in that question at hand. And keep in mind that the question is whether or not to include the statement.

For simplicity, let's use the cases where the material is not weighing in on one side of a debate (in which case wp:npov would kick in and complicate the examples)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more:
These archives are sprinkled with examples of the problem(s), including as I recall the case of one man whose career was destroyed, but there are no examples of the need to keep the first sentence unchanged.  In addition, here is a case in which WP:V was unusable for the purpose for which it is touted.  The problem here was that the other two editors understood that the editor knew perfectly well that the publication schedule had changed from three to two times per year, so quoting "not truth" to him would have been unconstructive.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Haha, User:North8000/Page2 is brilliant. That's exactly what I meant.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    Ah, OK, I see what you guys are trying to say now. Sorry, but I don't think that trying to preemptively prevent people with a POV from editing is a good idea, and I certainly don't think that the function of this policy is to prevent what you're bringing up here. You're complaint is more about neutrality than anything to do with verifiability. In my opinion this criticism has very little to do with this policy (WP:V does overlap slightly with WP:NPOV, but no policy stands completely on it's own). Anyway, considering that North's view is that "An effective and common way to win a battle in Wikipedia is get it to where the person with the opposing viewpoint has to spend so much time that they throw up their hands and leave.", I'm now wondering if a topic ban is in order here. I was willing to assume good faith, but all of this is beginning to strike me as being disruptive.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If you'd like to open up the conduct of all concerned to scrutiny over who's being disruptive, be my guest. In fact, please do, I'd like you to put your money where your mouth is. I'm tired of being called "disruptive" for continuing a discussion on a policy talk page where there's genuinely no consensus about the wording.—S Marshall T/C 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • IMO S Marshall put it too mildly. In an extensive RFC, about half of everybody said they want to totally remove "not truth". Now a few folks from the "we need a change" camp are investing their time trying to work out a compromise in this situation that would not otherwise be resolved. And you say: "I'm now wondering if a topic ban is in order here". What a terrible and out of line thing to say ! ! ! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Not Truth" has caused big problems on Wikipeida, but they are a bit hidden from view. Things go wrong when there exists a faction that has a "Not Truth" mentalitity in the real world and they come to Wikipedia to edit according to their POV. This is a problem in the case of climate change. In the CC arbCom case things went wrong, because ArbCom did not want to accept as a relevant fact that a real world problem exists (they only foucus on editor behavior). A topic like climate change is not comparable to some politics topic, where the truth doesn't matter that much anyway. Considering how the US media works, you have to take serious that for some people, Wikipedia is just another media outlet which they use for their own ends.

Addressing this sort of a problem with the present rules would lead to the chronic use of WP:UNDUE to revert. But doing that led to a topic ban for User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, because that very chronic use of WP:UNDO was seen to be rather aggressive. ArbCom did not want to consider the content issues, not even the fact that the real world media is perverted by detractors.

Now, climate change is not the only example of such problems. In case of BLPs, the reason why we have the BLP policy, is partially due to this problem with Not Truth. Without the BLP policy, there wouldn't be enough emphasis on the truth on what many Wikipedians feel is an important issue. So a new policy was made that now explicitely says that truth does matter there. So, perhaps another way to address the Not Truth issue would be for a Science analogue of BLP, with its own noticeboard... Count Iblis (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"A figure of speech is the use of a word or words diverging from its usual meaning."  "...clarity may also suffer from their use, as any figure of speech introduces an ambiguity between literal and figurative interpretation."  My point in repeating this text from Figure of speech is that I find the previous post to be unclear in its references to the phrase "not truth", which phrase is an ambiguous figure of speech.  It is not clear to me how it relates to WT:V.  If this is supposed to be an example of where the phrase "not truth" was used to push back against POV pushers, please provide diffs.  Alternately, was this intended to be an example of adding gobbledygook based on verifiable sources and defending such additions on the grounds that they need not be "truth"?  If so, please provide diffs.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I do not think anyone is required to justify leaving a policy statement as it has been for a very long time. People have said that there's no consensus for leaving "not truth" in place, and while that may be true, I don't believe it's relevant. Where there is no consensus, we leave things as they are. If you want to remove "not truth", I believe that you have to achieve consensus that it needs to be removed. So far, that hasn't happened. Now some of us have done our level best to try to address the concerns of people who want to make accuracy a clearer priority, and it seems to me that a small number of editors are refusing to work in that direction, insisting that the problem is "not truth", and that is causing problems. The discussions I have looked at thus far seem to be mostly POV issues, which are admittedly difficult to deal with, but I don't think changing V will help those issues. And insisting on a tack for which there is no consensus is not helpful. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you were referring to my post, but it essentially said that the large amount of folks (about 1/2)from the RFC who want complete removal of "not truth" validates efforts to seek a compromise change that does not remove those two words. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec)WP:Consensus states, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  And, "When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
@North8000, I did not mean you, as you are engaged in seeking exactly the kind of compromise we need on this issue, and I welcome your input on this issue, as it represents forward movement greatly needed at this junction. BTW, I'm still thinking about the issue in the email you sent, I'm not sure what the solution is to that kind of mess.
@Unscintillating, that policy links to an essay containing a section you might consider reading. We've been going over the "not truth" issues for months now, and I can't even remember what the horse looked like. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The previous post (PP) seems pretty much off-topic, there were no horses, we are moving forward in our compromise discussion to clarify the phrase "not truth", and the previous poster has no text proposals to add to the discussion.  We have seen recent edits called "humor" continue after I indicated that the material was sarcastic and inappropriate.  The PP here seems to be in specific defiance of WP:Consensus policy.  The editorial source of this conflict may be that some of us have had to repeatedly explain that there is no consensus to keep the first sentence unchanged.  I actually thought that this discussion would take a break, so I was not a part of keeping this discussion alive after the RfCs.  This does not mean that I don't appreciate the efforts of those who continued to work, I do appreciate those efforts.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of Wikipedia editors who don't fully understand the intended meaning of the WP:V policy (for example, the original poster in this thread). I also think when editors do learn the intended meaning behind the WP:V policy, they are a little surprised.. maybe it's more natural to assume that Wikipedia ultimately favours "Truth" above all else. I think the quicker we teach editors the real meaning (i.e. verifiability is "more important" than Truth, whatever that is), the better.

So I'm concerned that this discussion occassionally (often?) veers away from a discussion about clarifying the policy, and instead appears to focus on the actual meaning of the policy. To me, the "not truth" phrase is a wake up call to editors who don't have a complete understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It occassionally ellicits a surprised reaction, such as the one by the original poster of this thread; and to me, this is evidence that the opening sentence is doing its job well. The intended meaning of the policy is a little unexpected - and that's not a reason to change it! Mlm42 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Blueboar (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Hear hear! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the main point of the "leave as-is" folks is the goal and intended effect of "not truth" which is to reinforce the core tenet of wp:ver. Including/especially that "truth" is never a substitute for verifiability. And I think that the "change needed" folks fully understand that and fully understand with and agree with the importance of that goal. and are 100% in favor of unequivocal enforcement verifiability as a requirement for inclusion.

I think that the main point of the "change needed" folks is that there are substantial negative unintended consequences from that wording as-is, consequences that are unrelated to the core tenet of wp:ver. I believe that the "leave as is" folks do not understand what the "change needed" folks have been trying to communicate. Not what these unintended effects are, not their prevalence, and not that we are 100% in agreement with the second half of the previous paragraph. Am I right or wrong on this? North8000 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)It's certainly easy to mistake the intended meaning of the policy. For it to mean what you think it means, it ought to say: "You can't add things you can't source, regardless of whether or not you think they're true." That needs clarifying, because it isn't precisely what it says. But there's another issue as well, which is that significant numbers of editors think the encyclopaedia does aim to tell the truth. (This is spelt "The Truth™" by those who wish to ridicule us, in quite a successful trolling tactic because it does seriously get on my nerves.)

    The basic problem here is that the policy thinks truth is a democracy—that you have to be inclusive and tolerant of other people's views, which might also be "the truth". So you're supposed to let them put their sourced theories into the article, as if fringe theories merit equal time, or as if you could vote to change the truth. This is the Indiana Pi Bill mentality, or Teach the Controversy. (Read them.)

    Any mathematician or logician will tell you, there's nothing democratic about truth. In those fields where truth has a clear and simple meaning, any compromise between the right answer and a wrong answer is a different kind of wrong answer. And in those fields where truth has multiple values or meanings, it's unhelpful to exclude it. Editors here have struggled even to define truth in a way that (a) isn't circular and (b) doesn't make the policy meaningless. A "reliable source" is chosen based on criteria that make it likely to be true. Every definition of "reliable" that we have is selected to make the contents more accurate, more trustworthy, and other synonyms for "true".

    But the key point here is that the purpose of an encyclopaedia—the whole point of what we're doing on Wikipedia—is to inform and educate. To help intelligent and curious people to learn about fields outside their normal area of knowledge. Which means we need to tell them, yes, the truth. Which means presenting them with the mainstream academic consensus in simple declarative sentences. This policy ought to help editors exclude the lunatic fringe except from articles about the fringe view, but it doesn't: as written, it gives the lunatic fringe a voice and a platform on Wikipedia. What the policy ought to do is define "verifiability", without reference to truth at all, and then define the language that's to be used. The mainstream academic or scientific consensus in the simple declarative ("species form by means of evolution") and fringe views in arms-length reportative language ("some creationists believe that species are best explained in terms of baraminology").

    Unfortunately, we're stuck. There are roughly equal numbers of editors active in the debate on both sides, but the side with the current wording enjoys a first-mover advantage here. This phrase "not truth" was added by Slimvirgin in what seems to have been an undiscussed stealth edit in 2005, and now can't be changed because editors are relying heavily on the point that on Wikipedia, a lack of consensus leads to stagnation.—S Marshall T/C 01:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I smiled when you mentioned mathematicians, because I am one. And I am very happy that Wikipedia's policies de-emphasize the notion of "Truth" (sorry if capitalizing annoys you), because in the real world (unlike the mathematical one), the concept of truth is slippery. And contrary to what you said, I think there is an element of democracy to it. This is a reason to avoid talking about truth in our policies.
Also, kudos to SlimVirgin for making such an iconic "undiscussed stealth edit"! do you have the diff? Mlm42 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can track it down, the original diff was this one (made to a draft of WP:NOR, subsequently moved to WP:NOR by SL Rubenstein and then to WP:V by Uncle G). The phrase was moved to the lede by SlimVirgin in August 2005, again without any prior discussion that I could locate. Subsequent edits have stripped it of its original context and placed it as the first sentence of the policy. In its original context the phrase is much less objectionable, although I still don't like it at all.

I agree with you when you say "this is a reason to avoid talking about truth in our policies", and this has always been my intention. I want to take out the mentions of truth. I want the first sentence of this policy to read, very simply, "A minimum criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability".—S Marshall T/C 09:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request that folks read my post above and answer my question. And keep in mind that "do not understand" could be a communication fault of the "change needed" folks, so it is not a loaded question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

North8000, your comments (except for the last sentence that starts, 'Not what...') make perfect sense, nothing has changed here, the only puzzle is why this is not easily accepted by all.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


@S Marshall, would you care to explain WTF "an undiscussed stealth edit" is? And I simply reject your assertion that our mission should be "presenting [the public] with the mainstream academic consensus in simple declarative sentences" as that is simply too narrow. We're an encyclopedia, so we are not limited to academic sources.
@North8000, hard to say, as it is difficult to ascertain what others are thinking. We won't complete WP today, either in article space or in policy, and I'm a fan of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. But I would also suggest that sometime well meaning, intelligent, informed people disagree, and in those cases, compromise is the best path. Iterative improvement are a fine goal, and so long as we're moving forward, I'm in. See you all tomorrow, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@Mlm42 What would help is if you could translate phrases like "iconic" and "not truth whatever it is" into an operational definition or paraphrase of the phrase "not truth" as intended by the first sentence of WP:V.  Here is my own attempt: "The phrase 'not truth' refers to material that is not verifiable."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujinn: An "undiscussed edit" is an edit that takes place without discussion; a "stealth edit" is an edit that makes a significant change to the wording with a misleading or nonexistent edit summary. I provided what I think was the original diff to Mlm42 above. But let's be clear about what I said: the phrase "what seems to have been" is an important qualifier. What I said was that I have been unable to locate any discussion taking place about that edit before it was made.—S Marshall T/C 09:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I have a sentence that crystallizes things in an area where we may not have successfully communicated. Because of the "not truth" wording, wp:ver is pervasively mis-quoted as weighing in on the INCLUSION side for false & questionable information. That is one (and a big one) of the unintended consequences that we seek to reduce. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that the "not truth" wording is indeed very often quoted as weighing in on the inclusion side in debates about whether to include potentially false or questionable information. Where we disagree is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. I think it is a good thing. Per WP:NPOV, when there is debate over whether to include verifiable information or not, we should err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. This is not an unintended consequence ... It think the prhase was absolutely INTENDED to be interpreted this way.
That said, what we need to make clearer is that this interpretation does not guarantee or require inclusion (because there are a lot of other policies and guidelines, in addition to wp:v, that have to be met)... And this interpretation does not address HOW we include (for example, it does not address the question of whether to include the information as a statement of fact or as an attributed statement of opinion). Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Where does that come from? It is not anywhere in wp:ver except hinted at by those two words which were added by one person without discussion; certainly that can't be taken as a process to change wp:ver to weigh in on the inclusion side of false/questionable/challenged sourced information? North8000 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It comes from understanding how wp:v, wp:nor, wp:npov, wp:fringe, wp:rs and a host of other policies and guidelines all work together, and from countless discussions here on this talk page. There is no need to change wp:ver to weigh in on the inclusion side... it already does that (indeed the fact that it does is supported by the fact that you are complaining about it). And this interpretation is expressly supported by both wp:npov, and wp:fringe... both of which also tell how and and under what circumstances verifiable (but arguably inaccurate) minority concepts, theories, ideas, statements etc. should be included. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Blueboar, respectfully, that sounds like a vague barrage which does not answer my question, not that you have any obligation to do so. You basically asserted that it is the INTENTION of wp:ver to weigh in on the side of INCLUSION of material which is alleged to be false but which is sourced. I believe that that is a minority interpretation, but wither way, where (except the 2 disputed words) in wp:ver does it say or imply that?
With respect to this, wp:npov and wp;fringe become operative when there is material which specifically weighs in on one or the other side of such a question. Those are special cases which I am not talking about; I am talking about the other very common situations which are neither of those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I think there's a point of agreement between Blueboar and me, at least: how to report differing viewpoints. I think that what Blueboar and I are coming to is that the mainstream academic or scientific view gets the simple indicative, and alternatives get reported speech: thus History of the Earth, giving the mainstream view, uses the simple indicative, saying "[the Earth was formed] by accretion from the solar nebula 4.54 billion years ago", but Young Earth creationism, giving a fringe view, uses reported speech, saying "Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old." That's right, and I do think it's a relevant aspect of verifiability.

We'll make further progress when we've agreed how to document our current practice on whether to include the fringe view at all. Mainstream articles, such as History of the Earth, do not mention the fringe view at all, and my position is that this is correct. Editors should not be permitted to introduce creationist ideas into History of the Earth. Their views belong in articles such as Young Earth creationism, and should be mentioned only to explain why they are wrong. Pleasingly, Young Earth creationism does that admirably.

I presume from the preceding conversation that editors subscribing to the inclusionist view of WP:V would say that History of the Earth should give a platform to the creationists. Is that right?—S Marshall T/C 00:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)But North8000, this policy must obtain traction in all areas of WP. You have brought up an example with me of a very controversially subject in which individuals were clearly using "not truth" to push a POV. My feeling is that our NPOV policy is the best defense against that kind of issue, not V. I think what Blueboar is getting at is that V is just concerned with the verification issues, and we rely on NPOV, NOR, and other policies and guideline to help inform discussion of what can be included and with what weight even is it is verifiable, regardless of a statement's truth value.
And in regard to the "stealth edit" without discussion, please take a look at this. It appears to me that the phrase was inserted into a draft discussion that involved a good number of editors over some months, and indeed stood in the draft as a named section for quite some time. Shortly after Slim Virgin added the phrase to V, brenneman asked about it on the talk page, and not a single editor responded until that section was archived (in the first archive for the page. That pattern does not seem stealthy to me, fwiw, but rather a reflection of a long process of achieving consensus. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Nuujin, on the NPOV side you are leading me to a second subject which would be another big NPOV discussion. Basically, there is a gaping hole in wp:npov where the inserted material is put in for impression and leaves an impression but not specifically weighing in on a debated topic, it slips in under the NPOV radar. That's not for here. But the case that I sent you was special (unusual) case where the inserted material was clearly in error.
Now back to the main point. Wp:ver is widely mis-interpreted and mis-quoted as weighing in on the side of INCLUSION of false but sourced material. My point was that that shows it has wording problems, and Bluboar parried that by saying "that's what WP:ver says and is intended to say" but faded away on that when I asked them say where it says that. So I guess all of that wording used to bolster verifiability "better to have no info than wrong info" gets thrown in the trash when defending two words that get mis-interpreted as saying that wp:ver weighs in for INCLUSION of arguably inaccurate sourced information. 03:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs)
If lots of reliable sources are putting forward this "false" information, then how do you know that it's really false? (If only a couple of them are putting it forward, then it's UNDUE, regardless of whether it is true or false.)
I've had a problem editor at a medical article removing information sourced to high-quality journal articles because she believes it all to be lies generated by surgeons trying to make a fast buck by mutilating patients. She knows it's all false... and she knows that her sources (some 'minority view' sources, and a bunch of really lousy blogs and websites) are all true. If Wikipedia is only permitted to include information that is both "true" and "verifiable", then how do we decide whose information about the efficacy of the surgery is the true information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Your example has enough other angles that I think it is not one on the narrower question at hand. An example that better illustrates what I'm saying is where editors want to discuss exclusion of material because it is inaccurate, , and where no editor is claiming that the material is accurate, and folks mis-quote wp:ver as saying that such a conversation is not allowed / invalid. But the specific question is, should and does WP:VER weigh in in the INCLUSION side of questioned material, including via saying that accuracy can't be a part of the conversation. ? North8000 (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
There's only one angle that I'm concerned with: she says that she personally knows that verifiable information, backed by top-quality peer-reviewed sources, is entirely false and therefore she should get to delete or downplay anything vaguely positive, because Wikipedia should promote the Truth™. And you're actually (although inadvertantly) proposing to side with her, by saying that information must be both verifiable and True™ to be included as a plain old fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course accuracy/inaccuracy can be part of the conversation... after all, our content policies do not apply to talk pages. The same thing is true of material that is based on personal knowledge and OR. It is certainly appropriate to discuss it, and factor it into our thinking as background information. For one thing, the accuracy/inaccuracy of information is a very important consideration in determining how we phrase what policy says should be included (attributed opinion vs. unattributed fact). But that isn't a wp:ver issue. Blueboar (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, NOW I agree with you. Except that if wp:ver is pervasively mis-quoted to say the opposite of what you just said, figuring out and fixing "why is that?" is a wp:ver issue. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"Why is that?" is easy to answer... people are wikilawyering (probably on both sides of the debate) in order to include/exclude some bit of information. They are taking one sentence from one policy page and quoting it out of context (both in terms of the context of the rest of the wp:ver policy page, and in terms of how the wp:ver policy page interacts with other policies and guidelines.)
The way to deal with such wikilawyering is not to change the policy, but to change the conversation... point out to the wikilawyer who is quoting "Verifiability, not truth" that there are other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially how to include), and shift the conversation to discussing those policies and guidelines. Concede to the wikilawyer the argument that since the material in question passes wp:ver, we should include it... and shift the conversation to one that centers on how much weight to give the material (which would include giving it no weight at all), and how to phrase the material in the article. Point out to them that a discussion of the accuracy/inaccuracy (or, more correctly, the mainstream acceptance/non-acceptance) of what the source says is both important and appropriate when trying to figure out those questions. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


"I do not think anyone is required to justify leaving a policy statement as it has been for a very long time." In practice you are still more or less forced to do this when the fraction of the people who want change is of the oder of 50%. The closer their view constitutes a new consensus, the more important it is for the people arguing for the status quo to actually show up and participate in the discussion. So, another sign that the consensus for the status quo is eroding is what we see on this talk page: very lengthy discussions every day.

To avoid people getting sick and tired of all these discussions, it's best to agree to fixed dates for important RFCs, so that people who don't have time can just watch the discussions from a distance. Count Iblis (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  • @Blueboar: If we agree that "The way to deal with such wikilawyering is not to change the policy, but to change the conversation", then the policy could say absolutely anything and it wouldn't matter. The policy could say "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!", or "Your God is a ham sandwich", or... well, it doesn't matter, because instead of interrogating the policy for its real meaning, we're changing the conversation and using a different policy instead. It seems like a counsel of despair to me.—S Marshall T/C 15:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's a counsel of despair. I think it's an acknowledgement that inclusion requires compliance with many policies, not just one—and that (all?) the problems North's claiming are about problems other than verifiability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the specific problem is the common misquoting of wp:ver doing damage to a situation. North8000 (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
But is it actually a common misquoting? I don't ever remember seeing a problem with this, and I have edited more than 20,000 unique pages (35 times as many as you). Now perhaps it happens (it's a big encyclopedia) and perhaps it happens on a couple of pages that you've been editing (clusters happen) but I have zero evidence that it is a "common" problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It is pervasive. Every time someone utters one of those chants (which I gave numerous examples of) which implies that wp:ver weighs in on the side of INCLUSION of false, sourced material, or those chants which essentially say that accuracy can't be allowed in a conversation about excluding false, sourced material. To me it is instructive that those advocating zero change could go to such a "parry all arguments" extreme as to claim that all unintended consequences of "not truth" are not only intended, but are actually implementations of wp:ver, presumably of a second version of wp:ver which the wp commoners do not have access to.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
North8000, who would you say is advocating zero change? I see some of us saying that we oppose losing "verifiability, not truth", and some of us wanting to lose "truth". I see some editors, including yourself, who are willing to pursue alternate wording, and some who always return the conversation to removing "truth". The latter is, I think, at this point clearly disruptive, given the length of time the discussions have gone on and the various polls and rfcs. But I see no one who is pushing for no changes at all. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
To answer your question I must first clarify by drawing from the extensive conversations on this, and define the middle-ground-near-term-realistic-possibility change as some additional wording which mitigates the unintended effects of "not truth", specifically any effect other than reinforcing verifiability as a condition for inclusion. I can't say that I know of everybody who has recently weighed in flatly opposing to such a compromise change, but, respectfully the two folks that come to mind are Blueboar and WhatamIdoing. (SlimVirgin also likely if she were active here at the moment) And, of those folks, the one who consistently works to actively parry every point, argument and example supporting such a compromise change is Blueboar. This is said respectfully about folks who I have a lot of respect for who just happen to be firmly in the "opponent" camp on this particular issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that I have actually proposed several potential changes in an attempt to resolve this issue, and have expressed actual support for some of the changes others have suggested, I don't think it is fair or accurate to put me in the "no changes at all" category. Yes, I have flatly opposed certain specific proposals... these are proposals that I think significantly change the meaning and intent of this policy. From the start, I have said that I have no problem adding language to clarify the meaning and intent of the policy... but I am not going to accept language that alters the meaning and intent of the policy. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess the core structural question is whether you consider "not truth" to be merely a reinforcement of what is is stated elsewhere in wp:ver, or is it something more than that? If you could give a careful and straight answer to that question, I think it would actually clarify your position regarding this. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Its more than "merely" a reinforcement. I think the concept of "verifiability, not truth" lies at the very heart of the WP:V policy, and the rest of the policy is essentially a reinforcement and explanation of that phrase ... Furthermore, I also think the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" is both reinforced by and modified by what is stated in several other policies and guidelines (especially NPOV and NOR). To understand one, you must also understand the others. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that our thread here has descended into vagueness. People could interpret zillions of things out of "verifiability not truth", most of them not listed in wp:ver, and this is a discussion about wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You asked me for my views as to where the phrase stood in relation to the core structure of the policy... I gave you my view. It is my view that the phrase is the central concept of the policy. If we can explain it better... fine... but you seem to want to remove it rather than explain it. That isn't fine. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for answering me. My comment wasn't a complaint, just a structural analysis of the response. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
North, you have repeatedly stated that the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" is being "pervasively misquoted". This contention is not born out by the facts... I did a search of all the article talk pages where this phrase has been quoted in discussions (see here). If we look through these talk page discussions we find that, time after time, the phrase has actually been quoted appropriately and correctly (and not misquoted at all).
I am not saying that there are no situations where it has been misquoted... but I am saying that the misquotes are few and far between, and overwhelmingly outnumbered by situations where it has been quoted appropriately and correctly. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, except with "outnumber" which is true but irrelevant. IMHO the huge use of wp:ver for it's intended purpose is not a valid argument against efforts to fix a problematic area in it. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It goes to the question of whether there really is a problematic area or not. If 999 out of 1000 discussions quote the phrase appropriately, I don't think there is a problem with the phrase. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
My wild-ass guess would be that wp:ver gets properly invoked hundreds of thousands times per year and that the damaging mis-guided non-policy chants that are derived from or aided by "not truth" get invoked tens of thousands of times per year. And the "tens of thousands" could get fixed without hurting the "hundreds of thousands" North8000 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
We should not change core policy based on wild-ass guesses... The reality is that, when we look at the actual discussions that invoke the "Verifiability, not truth" mantra, we don't see any evidence that it is being misquoted "tens of thousands of time per year"... in fact it is hardly ever misquoted. At most it happens perhaps ten times in a year. In most of those cases, the reality is that the editor is deliberately mis-stating the policy. That is called "wikilayering", and is a behavioral issue, not a policy content issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, IMHO my wild--assed guess might be off by a factor of 10, and yours might be off by a factor of 10,000. Looks like we disagree on even that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The difference is that, unlike you, I am not making a wild-assed guess... I am instead looking at the actual discussions where someone quoted the phrase "Verifiability, not truth". Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

TLDR (apologies) but I have had a problem with "verifiability not truth" for a long time. The implication is that truth is not important to us when really it is, it's just harder to find. I think that we fall into the trap of living up to some people's idea about Wikipedia - it's unreliable. It should simply say something like "Content in Wikipedia should always be verifiable, allowing readers to use other reliable sources that support what has been written." violet/riga [talk] 15:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the discussions have been going on for literally months, and we've held rfcs and polls, with no consensus forming to remove the phrase "not truth", so a number of us regard it as a dead horse that's been beaten to death, buried, and returned to the dust whence it came. Please check the archives to get a feel for this. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm very familiar with the length of time that this has gone on for. Doesn't that tell you how many people consider it to be a problem? violet/riga [talk] 15:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
With respect, no, because I see wide participation in each of the polls and RFCs, here and at the pump, and afterward each, a steady decline in involvement as the discussion drifts back to a few of the same people pushing against "not truth" despite the lack of consensus to remove it. Some of us are still hanging around, trying to address some of the legitimate concerns regarding wording and the issue of accuracy, but despite the efforts to address those concerns, the discussion keeps getting pulled back into the same loop, and this cycle has been repeating for many months now. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that with some genuine middle ground this could get somewhat resolved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it can't. The people who don't like "not truth" have made it clear that they aren't happy with any phrasing that includes it. Since there's no consensus to remove the language that you don't like, all you can do is filibuster in the hopes of exhausting the patience of everyone who disagrees with you. Enough is enough. Put this to bed for a while. Revisit it again in 6 months if you like. Quale (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:Consensus states, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  And, "When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages."  The previous poster might review the current status of the discussion—this is not a discussion about changing the first sentence, we are considering adding a new one or two sentences after the first sentence.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Can I make it clear that my objection to "not truth" is nothing to do with the intention of this policy merely the particular choice of wording. The actual meaning can remain but "not truth" sends to wrong message. Perhaps it would be better to simply have it as verifiability, not "truth". violet/riga [talk] 15:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I think your point is taken by at least some of us that have worked to correct the misuse/misunderstandings in the policy.  As a talk page we are currently working under an informal paradigm to work for correction without changing the text of the first sentence, which your proposal does.  The paradigm is to see if we can clarify the first sentence with additional sentences.  Please see North8000's "Part A" proposal below, which I believe is almost identical to your proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Then is a first change just to point to relevant policies?

What has emerged is that there is no agreement about the intended purpose of the two-word phrase "not truth" even by those who want to retain it in the policy.  This means that, and continuing to accept for the moment that we aren't changing or removing it, that we are currently unable to document what it means.  Several of us agree that "truth" and TruthTM need not be discussed in this policy, and as per a discussion above, there is consensus that verifiable material may or may not be accurate.  There has been little or no opposition to providing references to related policies in the lede.  Thus I propose:

  Unscintillating (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, what has emerged is that there is no consensus to change the current wording. Yet a small group of dissenters are trying to get their way by engaging in siege warfare to wear down and exhaust the patience of everyone else for whom this is not the single most important current issue on wikipedia. Leave it alone for now, and let everyone take a break. Quale (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
At this point, I pretty much agree with Quale. I kind of regret having gotten into this discussion at all. It seems to me that all of the endless talk is going nowhere very slowly. The existing policy works well. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I am of the same mind, a break of 3-4 months is what I recommend. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 The way I see it is that there's fundamentally no consensus to keep the current wording, and the pro-change party are not "a small group of dissenters", but either a significant minority or actually a small majority. On Wikipedia, where there's no consensus about something, the status quo remains, which enables the tactical filibustering that we've seen on this page for the last several months. Other, similar discussions regularly appear, although not necessarily on this talk page. (See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, and it will never become one unless, which comes at the same point, although from a slightly different angle; the nominator finds himself saying in despair: "nobody in this Village pump section appears to really share my real concern: NO INFORMATION IS BETTER THAN FALSE INFORMATION." He is, by and large, talking to the same people we are, and I sympathise with his frustration.)

I'm pretty sure that we'll never convince people like Blueboar or WhatamIdoing, because they've invested too much effort in defending the current policy: there's no prospect that they will climb down. But we might just convince their audience.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

With apologies for what is about to sound snarky, I appreciate that you and others have a legitimate concern about accuracy, but what you and others convinced me is that this talk page is just a club for endless and pointless talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Nobody's forcing you to participate, of course. You and Nuujinn are welcome to take a 3-4 month break if you wish.—S Marshall T/C 22:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and that's exactly what you want—For all the editors who disagree with you to get tired of your endless complaints and go away in the hopes that you'll get your way. That's why it's long past the point where you should just give it a rest. You don't demonstrate consensus by making it a test of endurance. Quale (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
S Marshall is investing time trying to represent the view of about 1/2 of the folks at the RFC. A few folks on the "zero change" side have been just as persistent, so your one-sided implication is not correct. North8000 (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Those of us in the US just got finished with an explanation of consensus building by the US Congress, where it is said that a typical measure of a compromise is that nobody gets what they wanted.  As for the current proposal, it is based on a consensus that verifiable material may or may not be accurate, and three references previously suggested as relevant.  There is already wide disagreement here about what these other policies mean, but it is part of the point to move that part of the discussion away from WT:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

While each phrase is technically true, I don't think that this proposals is one of the better ones that have been put forward. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A genuine compromise to resolve this, or at least calm it for a while?

A genuine compromise to resolve this, or at least calm it for a while? Part A

[new subsection inserted above] Unscintillating (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I figure that the sign of an actual compromise is something that that Blueboar opposes as too radical of a change and which S Marshall says is an insufficient change. How's this for one of those?:

Add a second sentence which says: "Not truth" means that no other consideration, such as "truth" may be substituted for meeting the verifiability requirement.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merit of the proposal, I already tried starting a sentence in a recent proposal with "Not truth" and people found multiple reasonable ways to misread it, so I suggest considering instead:
Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


I think that that is better. So, my revised proposal is to add the following as a second sentence:
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we can shorten the proposal to, "The phrase "not truth" means that "truth" is not a substitute for verifiability."  Unscintillating (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's even better. So now my proposal is to add a second sentence which says:


North8000 (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would re-phrase this slightly as "The phrase "not truth" means that "truth" your belief that something is true is not a substitute for verifiability." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. We could go even further and say, "your belief or knowledge that something is true is not a substitute for verifiability." --JN466 21:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A genuine compromise to resolve this, or at least calm it for a while? Part B

Adding just the phrase " 'truth' " is looking at the issue of unsourced material from the viewpoint of those wishing to block the addition of material they believe to be inaccurate.  In cases where editors agrees that the material is accurate, but some still think verifiability is a first priority, WP:V could be more helpful.  What would have a broader viewpoint is:

  • from: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
  • to:      The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. The phrase "not truth" means that "truth" is not a substitute for verifiability. Accuracy is not a substitute for verifiability.

Unscintillating (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


Alternate proposal X

Let's see if this dog can hunt:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The phrase "verifiability, not truth" is intended to convey the principle that accuracy is never a substitute for verifiability—readers must be able to check that any material in Wikipedia has been published by a reliable source.

Incorporating SV's comments and the wording I prefer, hurls rocks and stones as desired. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the proposals

With B dropped, these are proposal A.

Ok, let's consider the "accuracy" sentence as an unrelated proposal, and one that is currently tabled.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Something along these lines would be OK with me too (and I'm happy to see people getting back to discussing concrete changes to wording). I also think that the "Accuracy..." sentence is not needed, because it seems repetitive to me. I think it would be more to the point to drop the words about "The phrase "not truth" means". Simply: ""Truth" is not a substitute for verifiability." But I also don't feel strongly about that point, so if people want to retain the part about "the phrase means", I don't particularly object. On the other hand, I also don't feel strongly that we need to do any of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
To me the "means" part is important and central.North8000 (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, I can live with it, but would much prefer 'The phrase "verifiability, not truth" is intended to convey the principle that accuracy is never a substitute for verifiability.' Strictly speaking "not truth" cannot mean 'that "truth" is not a substitute for verifiability', as it is too short. But if the proposed version can bring an end to this endless discussion, sign me up. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it implies explaining the intended meaning of saying "not truth" rather than a literal definition. But I think you allowed for this in your "strictly speaking" qualifier. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposals make a syntactical error. No one has suggested that the first part of the first sentence reads:
  • {the threshold for inclusion} = {not truth}
Rather, it is:
  • {the threshold for inclusion} ≠ {truth}
It's therefore a mistake to add a sentence explaining what the phrase "not truth" means, because it doesn't mean anything here. The key phrase is "verifiability, not truth," and the sentence explains what that means, namely "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
There is no need to keep adding sentences that explain the meaning of the previous sentence, especially not when the explanations introduce errors or lack of clarity. For example, what is the purported difference between a true sentence and an accurate one?
North8000 and S Marshall have said they aim to make tiny changes that they hope no one will see as significant, e.g. S Marshall in June: "As I've explained before, the only way to make significant changes to the first sentence is via a slow accretion of stealth edits ...". I'm concerned that adding "explanatory" sentences will only lead to the next step in their effort to remove "verifiability, not truth" entirely. So if any of the supporters are doing so in the hope that it will end the discussion, I think that could be a mistake. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Slim, please AGF, especially when your assuming bad faith is creative and erroneous in my case. Addressing the structural part, the sentence is implicitly about explaining the intent of saying "not truth" in the first sentence, not trying to define those two words. And the goal of the compromise is to bolster it's intended meaning (reinforcing wp:ver) and reduce all of the mis-meanings that have been derived from it. And, while I think that removing those two words would be the ideal solution, I certainly don't view this as a step towards that. In fact, as a practical matter, the compromise actually would (unfortunately, sorry S. Marshall!) serve to entrench those two words by significantly reducing the active opposition to them. My own goals were (ONLY) two: 1. Reduce the unintended, non-wp:ver effects of those two words. 2. Try to facilitate an end to the current painful situation which has arisen because there was no consensus to either keep or remove those two words. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, leaving aside the issue of intent, do you see the same problem in scope for 'The phrase "verifiability, not truth" is intended to convey the principle that accuracy is never a substitute for verifiability.'? I'd like to make sure whether I understand your comment. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the same problem there, no. But it's still problematic. We could add "the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' conveys the principle that accuracy is never a substitute for verifiability." But what does that mean over and above "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true"?
If people want to add something, we could say in a footnote: "Wikipedia articles aim only to offer an accurate and balanced overview of the relevant literature." But that takes us into the territory of NPOV/UNDUE, as others have pointed out. As I see it, the meaning of the first sentence is clear. I accept that a few editors don't like it, but the problem is not that it is unclear. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Briefly, the most common problem is that it causes pervasive mis-paraphrasing of wp:ver to say that that wp:ver weighs in for INCLUSION of inaccurate material, and that wp:ver excludes accuracy from conversations about possibly excluding false material. And I'm talking about situations that do not involve wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
But you've continued to say this for months without evidence. No one has argued that we should include material where everyone agrees that a source has made a simple error. All the policies must be applied with common sense.
The point of V is that we give an overview of the relevant literature, whether or not we agree with it. And the point of NPOV/UNDUE is to resolve how to present a balanced view of that literature, whether or not we agree with it. Editors argue about how to apply these principles, but there is no confusion about the principles themselves, no matter how often you say there is. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I submit that the last sentence of your first paragraph and that first 2 sentences of your second paragraph are correct but off-topic, and I disagree with the rest of your post and submit that wp:ver is pervasively mis-quoted / mis-paraphrased. Would be happy to discuss, give examples etc., but here is probably not the place for such a substantial discussion. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do give examples of it being "pervasively" misquoted. I've been editing for nearly seven years, with 115,000 edits to 13,000 unique pages, and I see it used and understood well. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
OK here's the first one. Between not knowing how to provide a diff / link to a block of text and not wanting to personalize this, I'm putting it in here: This issue is a group of editors wanting to leave out (or offset / qualify) one error that a medium quality source made, which nobody was arguing was accurate. And it was not in a wp:npov balancing situation:
  • Other experienced editor#1: Unfortunately, it seems that we still have Wikipedia editors who consider themselves to be more reliable sources than Walter Russell Mead writing in Foreign Affairs.
  • Other experienced editor#2 Academic books journals are the best sources because they are peer-reviewed and writers must clearly distinguish between facts and opinions and when they express opinions must explain their degree of acceptance. If Mead had written his article for an academic journal then we would be clear whether his description was generally accepted or merely his own opinion. We could then look at later papers to see the degree of acceptance his views had, whether they represented academic consensus, a majority view, a minority view, etc. Instead, Wikipedia editors must decide among themselves what weight to assign the views.
  • Me to experienced editor #1: I'm not sure whose comments you are responding to. If mine, you have characterized it. Wanting to leave out one obvious error the source made does not equate to what you describe. (North8000)
  • Experienced editor #1: I was referring to your comments, which display a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policy and mission. The role of a Wikipedia editor is to accurately summarize what reliable sources have written on a topic, not to weigh in with what he assumes is his expert opinion on matters of public policy. Mead is an expert, writing in Foreign Affairasc magazine. You are some random guy on the internet. You have no authority to "correct" a leading expert writing in a reliable source, or to inform us what is or is not obviously the case or what is right or wrong about anything. I am sorry that you find this difficult to understand
In other words, the fact that it was sourced is sufficient to force it to be in the article, any anyone who advocates leaving out an erroneous item has all of the above shortcomings. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, each of the zillions of times that that someone says something to the effect of "do not remove sourced material" followed (if they are challenged) by the "not truth" quote, and it is not in the context of a wp:npov balancing situation, they are arguing that wp:ver weighs in on the side of INCLUSION of any /all sourced material. Also, each time when an editors are arguing for exclusion of false sourced material (and again not in the context of a wp:npov balancing situation) and somebody says that the accuracy argument for EXCLUSION of material is not allowed because of "not truth". And, as before, if someone wishes me to, I'll go find lots of examples of these. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please provide examples of people failing to understand the first sentence of the policy, or interpreting it to mean that clearly mistaken material must be added to articles. As this has been requested many times it would make sense just to offer some. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly won't deny that I have every intention of seeking consensus to remove "verifiability, not truth" from the policy, and continuing to seek that until (a) I achieve my goal or (b) I see evidence of a genuine consensus that Wikipedians want to retain that phrase.—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've put up an alternate to North8000's suggestion, sticks and stones welcome. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I like yours better than mine, but fear that it will make things here really complicated. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
If you mean things here, I doubt that's possible, but thanks for the compliment ;) --Nuujinn (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
How about putting that second sentence (or something like it), instead, in a footnote, and leaving the main text alone? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That would be fine by me. What do other think, one way or another? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like the clarification to be prominent, per with "A" or "X". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

SV states, "No one has suggested that the first part of the first sentence reads..."  This has to do with the ambiguity in the word "threshold", which creates both a threshold for the inclusion of truth as well as a threshold for the inclusion of not truth, but this ambiguity is not an issue currently being discussed.  In the context of the current conversation this appears to be a [red herring] argument. 

SV's direct objection does not pass inspection, if you look at the proposal it says exactly

which compares algebraically with:

  • {the threshold for inclusion} ≠ {truth}

Unscintillating (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't think that's quite right. Preventing that interpretation is, surely, the purpose of the comma before the word "not". To me, it's clear that the policy wants you to believe that the minimum criterion for inclusion is verifiability and the truth has nothing to do with whether something should be included on Wikipedia. I have no problem with the first limb of that, but I take issue with the second.—S Marshall T/C 09:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: the policy wants you to believe that the minimum criterion for inclusion is verifiability and the truth has nothing to do with whether something should be included on Wikipedia. I disagree... the policy wants readers to understand that 1) the minimum criteria for inclusion is verifiability, and that 2) truth is not the minimum criteria for inclusion. The reason for this is that truth has nothing to do with verifiability. Truth can (and should) play a part in inclusion... but the part it plays comesafter we have established verifiability. If a statement is not verifiable, it does not matter whether it is true or not... we can't add it. If a statement is verifiable, then we can look at other criteria for inclusion... such as how much weight to give it, should it be stated as fact or as opinion, etc. It is appropriate to discuss the accuracy/truth of the material once we get to this secondary stage. But before we get to such discussions we must first cross the Verifiability threshold. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That's not what it says.—S Marshall T/C 18:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Points 1 and 2 are exactly what the policy says, using other words. The rest comes from understanding what our other policies say. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The lead clearly says that the three content policies "jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three." Someone recently removed that the three work in harmony, which should probably be restored to underline the point that none of them can be understood or applied without reference to the others. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It's still not what this policy says. Find clearer language.—S Marshall T/C 07:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you suggest come clearer wording? I don't see a problem with the current wording myself, and if you're not willing to work with other editors, I see no point to continuing this discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest amending the first sentence to read:- "The minimum standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability." It's not necessary to talk about truth in WP:V at all.—S Marshall T/C 10:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, since that isn't going to happen (we have long since established that there is no consensus to change the first sentence), perhaps you could come up with another suggestion? Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure. "The phrase 'not truth' does not excuse introducing inaccuracies into the encyclopaedia." How's that?—S Marshall T/C 14:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Now, that's really good. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
No, that's really lousy. It will be widely understood as meaning that I get to delete anything that I personally believe is "inaccurate", e.g., that climate change is real, or that vaccines don't cause autism, or that Barack Obama was born in the US, or anything else you want to name. That sentence is nothing more than a gift to POV pushers and crackpots.
We could legitimately say that "The phrase 'not truth' does not excuse misrepresenting the contents of reliable sources", but the major point of this policy is that that your personal beliefs about what's true/accurate/real are irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
With respect, that's a serious misunderstanding of the policy. The major point of this policy, to the extent that it has a major point, is that before information can be included in Wikipedia it must be verifiable. The business about "not truth" is a fossil, a remnant of an edit originally made to a draft version of NOR, and now stripped of its context by multiple subsequent edits. The unsupported opinion statements that "it will be widely misunderstood" needs to be backed up by evidence of diffs that show where the phrase "not truth" has led to the resolution of a misunderstanding—or has, in any other sense, been unambiguously helpful—but the other wordings proposed could not have worked.—S Marshall T/C 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing is right. The point of the first sentence is that what editors believe is irrelevant. What we do is offer readers an overview of the relevant literature, period, including when we strongly disagree with it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree; the statement that you and WhatAmIDoing are making is so broad that it includes things that are and are not policy. The latter unless you count the roaming mis-guided chants derived solely from the infamous two words as policy. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
And thus we come to what lies at the heart of why we can not reach a consensus on language. We are never going to agree on wording if don't even agree on the basic principles that lay behind the wording. Personally, my understanding of the policy is a lot closer to that of WhatamIdoing and Slim Virgin than that of North and S Marshal. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The onus is on North8000 and S Marshall to show that their understanding of policy is one that is widely shared; not just state that, but show it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait, what? What I said was: The major point of this policy... is that before information can be included in Wikipedia it must be verifiable, and you lot are actually disagreeing? Is this some kind of surreal practical joke?—S Marshall T/C 21:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Um... you might want to read your comment again... you said a lot more than just that (the bit about "not truth" being a fossil for example). Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
S Marshall and I are saying is wp:ver means what it says (the 2 ambiguous infamous words aside) and, perhaps unknowingly, the statement that you three are supporting is saying that in addition to that it means something very different which it does not say. Specifically that it mandates INCLUSION of material if it is RS'd. So, S Marshall and I are saying that wp:ver means what it says, and you are saying it means something it doesn't say. And WHO did you say the onus is on? ! ? ! ? North8000 (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't mandate inclusion of everything that's sourced. It says verifiability is the threshold for inclusion, i.e. no inclusion unless a source exists. This discussion has reached the point where you're assuming people don't understand English, and I can't see the point of that. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Slim, roughly speaking, you just did a 180 from a few hours ago, and now are agreeing with us. If we wanted to really get to the bottom of this, we would logically analyze the statement that you were supporting a few hours ago. It may not be apparent that, roughly speaking, it included the "mandating inclusion". North8000 (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
North, with respect, it's just that you're taking what people say way too literally. No one is counting simple errors by sources. No one is saying that, when the Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge says two plus two equals five, we must include it, or even waste time discussing it. We ignore it, because all agree it's a mistake. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
If that was the problem, Slim, nobody would be wasting any time on it. But what about when an accredited university publishes a book on baraminology and someone wants to use it as a source? WP:V as presently written positively encourages them to do that. But, as we've exhaustively demonstrated above, our current practice, in writing articles, would be to exclude such a source on the grounds that it's pseudoscience. What North and I are looking for is wording that documents our current practice.

What we've discovered is that when we mention the existence of these technically-reliably-sourced pseudoscientific claims, is that Wikipedians frame their answers in terms of which source is more reliable. Can you see the logical problem there?—S Marshall T/C 07:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I sure can't. What's broken? Our current practice is governed by consensus, informed by policy, and it appears to be working fine. Otherwise, we'd be overrun by the mad hordes trying so desperately to add untrue material to WP. Also, we could use the work you cite as a source in some contexts, just not in scientific articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you accept that policy should document good practice? My position has always been that our current practice is working as intended, and that policy should record it. And if we can't use the work I cite as a source in scientific articles, then shouldn't WP:V say so? (My position is actually that the baraminology text would have a place only in articles about baraminology, creationism, or related fringe theories, but I'm running with your view for the moment.)

As for what the logical problem is, it's this: when we decide which source is "more reliable", what we're actually deciding is which source is more likely to be true. Aren't we? And doesn't that make a nonsense of "not truth"?—S Marshall T/C 10:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. Policies prescribe required practice, they do not and should not document good practice. And no, V should not be so specific as to say which sources are reliable for specific topic areas, that is more appropriate in my view for guidelines, which are informed by policies. I don't know if you have noticed, but we decide everything here--if we decided to change V to say that only squirrels were qualified to verify sources, that would be our policy. And I agree with you that the baraminology text you cited would have limited value as a source--you asked "But what about when an accredited university publishes a book on baraminology and someone wants to use it as a source?" My answer is, we would do what we do, come to consensus about the usage of the source and so long as we did not violate policy, we're fine. That's normal operations around here. Now, if you need some help fending off someone trying to use that book in an inappropriate context, I'm happy to weigh in, but the value of Gedankenexperimenten is limited here. And no, when we decide which source is more reliable, we are explicitly not deciding which source is more likely to be true, we're deciding which source is considered more likely to be considered more accurate by experts in the field, which is a much different matter. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(making more room for this) --Nuujinn (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I'll set aside the question of when policy should document the practice we already use, and when it should be used to effect a change of practice, for the moment. It's an interesting one, and central to my position, but even more crucial is the second point. I said, "when we decide which source is 'more reliable', what we're actually deciding is which source is more likely to be true", and you disagreed. You said it was more a question of which source would be "considered more accurate", by "experts". But I don't think this really does constitute disagreeing with my point. "Considered more accurate" is a synonym for "considered more likely to be true", and "expert" is a synonym for "one who has studied the subject and is likely to know what is true". I think that all you're doing is inserting a semantic layer between your position and the word "truth".—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It is may be a simple semantic layer, but it's an important one that affects what we can and cannot do. Everyone can edit here. Everyone can participate in discussions of content. I am reasonably well educated, but I am competent as an expert in only a small number of fields. Making a judgement about which source is more likely to be an accurate reflection of what experts hold to be true is fundamentally different than deciding which source is considered to be "true". For the former, I can use my knowledge about writing, research, journalism, academic sources, religion, and any number of indirectly related subjects. To do the latter requires that I have expertise in the subject area. That's a very important difference. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't think that position holds any water at all, because it's hiding behind the undefined term "expert". I can only think of two objective definitions of "expert" that would include a lecturer in evolutionary biology but exclude Dr Timothy R. Brophy of Liberty University. The first is by defining an expert as someone who knows the truth, which is unfortunately rather circular, and the second is by defining an expert in terms of the mainstream scientific consensus (or "most common academic view", or whatever), which is what Blueboar and I discussed at such length earlier.—S Marshall T/C 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
IMHO once you try to define the finish line and how to get there (regarding potential exclusion of false material) things get complicated. Right now the prevalent mis-interpretations of wp:ver basically say that any such conversation is illegitimate, and say that the falseness of a statement may not enter into any conversation which would be determining possible exclusion of the material. So the remedy is much simpler than trying to define the route and end result for excluding material based on falseness, we just need to essentially get wp:ver to neutral ground on that topic. And simply let the conversation occur, an dlet considerations enter into exclusion conversations. Which basically means mitigating the unintended (-by-most) consequences of "not truth". North8000 (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

yet another arbitrary break

(edit conflict) In its original context, VNT read: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer to claims that have become an accepted part of the public domain. In this sense, Wikipedia is about what is verifiable, not what is true." When first added to this policy, the VNT phrase was the fifth subsection of the page. Subsequent edits have emphasised the "not truth" aspect, stripped it of its original nuanced context, and placed it as the first sentence of the policy. The current version is, in this sense, a relic, or fossil, of the version in its original form. I really do think I'm writing quite plainly and simply here.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Status So it looks folks liked proposal "A" (which I served up) 6:1, notably with the folks with the strongest views on both ends of the spectrum weighing in. Nuujinn created proposal "X" which I like even better. Are we to the point where we should weigh in on proposal "X"? North8000 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

About "status": actually there is also the previous discussion, that got archived while people were engaging in discussion of meta-issues. Personally, I'm OK with leaving the page unchanged, or simply adding a footnote. But if the users who want to change the page actually want something to happen, as opposed to having a club for endless discussion with no endpoint, they should be prepared to compromise, and to focus on the actual wording of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course, plus about 30,000 words of other thoughts. I was more trying to address concrete compromise current proposals, and seeing what folks thought about methodically weighing in on Nuujinn's proposal X. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The ground rules here currently include that:
  1. There is no consensus to change the first sentence.
  2. There is no consensus to leave the first sentence unchanged, or at least the unintended meanings in the first sentence.
  3. We are working on an additional sentence or sentences after the first sentence to clarify the intended meaning and/or remove the unintended meaning of the first sentence.
  4. WP:Consensus is a policy that all editors should normally follow.
This having been said, Proposal X is outside the current scope of discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you are saying that Nuujinn's Proposal X is off the table now because it changes the first sentence. With support for "Proposal A" being 6 of 7 of the folks with the strongest opinions from both ends of the spectrum, I'm thinking of being semi-bold and putting it in. Comments? North8000 (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What's Proposal A? I see a Proposal X, but no Proposal A. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion from the sidelines. The version I would accept is the one posted by WhatamIdoing at 17:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC) - "The phrase "not truth" means that "truth" your belief that something is true is not a substitute for verifiability." I feel the "your belief that something is true" phrase is critically important. The core purpose of this policy is to exclude editors' opinions and beliefs from article content. Roger (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That's what the phrase "verifiability, not truth" means. And the first sentence of the policy already explains what it means: "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
Indeed you are correct SlimVirgin, the proposal seeks to add a statement which is in fact already there - phrased differently, but meaning the same. Consequently I withdraw my initial (conditional) support. Roger (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I think what's happening here is that editors opposed to change are making concessions in the hope of bringing the discussion to an end. I see that as a mistake, because it will lead to contradictions or repetition being added to the policy as a desperate measure. The best way to stop the discussion (if that's what people want) is to stop taking part in it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The best way to stop the discussion is, clearly, to reach consensus.—S Marshall T/C 19:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'm a bit guilty myself of what Slim called making concessions in the hope of bringing the discussion to a conclusion. I like the existing first sentence, but I was hopeful that a clarifying second sentence would be a constructive way to resolve the concerns about "not truth". I think I was right on the merits, but wrong on the dynamics of this talk page. I've actually come to the conclusion that some of the editors who say they want to change the page are unwilling to accept any change that could actually achieve consensus. They, some of them, want either to overturn the concept of verifiability, or, if they can't achieve that (and they can't), to discuss the issue endlessly without ever agreeing to anything. For the rest of us, there is no best way to stop the discussion, but there is the option of ignoring it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we already have it, we just lost track. North8000 (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm definitely in the camp that Slim refers to, not to bring discussion to an end, but to try to address some legitimate concerns brought up by North8000 and some others. At this point I believe very firmly that there are a couple of editors who are unwilling to work towards a consensus, and are in effect, if not by intentional, stonewalling discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I strongly concur with SlimVirgin's position on this issue in full, including the position that no compromise is possible on this issue. It appears S Marshall and North8000's position is not informed by a thorough understanding of social engineering and hacking (in which hackers boost their egos by attacking anything perceived to be important). The longstanding "verifiability not truth" language fits together with many other components of Wikipedia's core content policies to control Wikipedia's risk of getting hit with more embarrassing scandals like the Wikipedia biography controversy. Deleting that restriction will foreseeably lead to another Seigenthaler-like scandal which will critically if not fatally damage the encyclopedia's credibility. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
First to clarify, in a large RFC, about half of everybody wanted the "not truth" removed. Second, I'm assuming that you are discussing situations where bad material got in. EVERYBODY involved wants to keep wp:verifiability at full strength. The core argument is that the words "not truth" are not needed for that, and do more harm than good via. unintended consequences. Vs. folks who feel otherwise. North8000 (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Time to try to end it?

The version of Proposal A which received the 6 to 1 consensus, notably amongst the persons from the farthest ends of the spectrum on both sides was to add a second sentence which says: "The phrase "not truth" means that "truth" is not a substitute for verifiability" I am going to be semi-bold and try putting it in based on that consensus. Maybe that will put an end to this.

I thing that WhatAmIDoing's version farther down under "A" is even better which is to add a second sentence which says: The phrase "not truth" means that your belief that something is true is not a substitute for verifiability. However it did not go through that consensus process. We could change it to that later, and IMHO we should.

Finally, I think that Nuujinn's proposal "X" is the best of them all, but that it not on the table because it involves changing the first sentence.

So here goes!.....maybe this will settle it!  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I did it. Now I'd like to propose changing it to WhatAmIDoing's version. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well Slim, who was the "1" opposed in the above-described consensus took it out, saying "no consensus". Now what? North8000 (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You've basically got two choices:- dispute resolution (in an attempt to enforce consensus—good luck with that, but I think Slim will successfully argue that six people doesn't constitute sufficient consensus to change a policy)—or back to discussion.—S Marshall T/C 21:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Here we go again! If we're going back to the drawing board, I rather it be with Nuujinn's proposal "X". North8000 (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Third choice... accept that you are not going to be able to change things and move on. Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Why on earth would we accept that? I mean, we would if we were sure nobody's mind could be changed through rational discussion and nobody new would join the conversation. But surely neither of those conditions obtain.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you should be forced to accept it. Endlessly plowing the same ground can be considered disruptive on wikipedia, and I think that this could definitely be nearing that point. The discussion has remained civil, but really this was started in April or maybe even March. It would have been appropriate to table this all the way back in June since I don't think any progress is being made. Quale (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why it is necessary to repeat both that (1) there is no consensus to change the first sentence, and (2) there is no consensus to not change the first sentence.  However, given that it is necessary to do so, I agree with Blueboar.  I'd suggest a four-week hiatus, at which time it is up to the involved editors to show that they can move forward without the involvement of informal mediation.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Quale, if you believe it's disruptive to continue a very long discussion in the absence of any kind of consensus, please feel free to start a RFC/U on me. My position is that it is not my fault that no progress is being made. Unscintillating, how will your proposed hiatus help?—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
My position is that it is your fault that no progress is being made, along with North who shares a roughly equal amount of blame. I am content to let people draw their own conclusions based on the record, although you'd have to be a masochist to wade through the four months and counting of wheel-spinning this page has seen so far. Quale (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So, about half the folks at the large RFC want to completely remove "not truth" , half don't, so there is no consensus to keep or remove. The discussed middle ground is keeping "not truth" with an added sentence which says/clarifies/reinforces that the meaning of "not truth" in this policy is only to reinforce the verifiability requirement. So of the three possibilities, the one at the extreme end of the spectrum (keep "not truth" and add no wording) is the one that is currently in there by default. I am SICK AND TIRED of people who like that no-consensus-status-quo-from-one-end-of-the-spectrum villainizing even everybody seeking the middle ground as committing some type of misbehavior!! That's ridiculous, and certainly does not help develop any middle ground. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as a middle ground solution, we had one proposal that received a 6 out of 7 approval from the main combatants. And the "1" (Slim) did not claim it was a policy change, just that it was redundant or had wording problems or something like that. And the "1" reverted it saying "no consensus". Sounds like an ownership problem enacted through a massive double standard; the "double standard" has been a pattern here. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Should we try to

  1. Enforce the consensus
  2. Take the same idea out for broader comment
  3. Villianize and stonewall the people seeking the middle ground until they just give up
  4. Craft a new proposal which just adds a sentence
  5. Float Nuujinn's proposal "X" for broad input. (possibly with minor tweaks prior to that)
  6. Other "move forward" idea.

North8000 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments on ideas

Breaking the sentence up into its component parts

The sentence that is causing all the commotion reads: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." This sentence has four component parts:

  1. threshold for inclusion = Verifiability.
  2. threshold for inclusion ≠ Truth.
  3. threshold for inclusion = readers can check
  4. threshold for inclusion ≠ editors think it is true.

I strongly agree with all four component parts. Does someone disagree with them? (and if so, which)? Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not the target respondent, but I agree with all four too. I think the disagreement is, instead, with the way that #2 can be misconstrued to mean inclusion of untrue material is acceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
#1 seems to me to be the point of this policy. #2 is certainly the main problem for me—particularly, its interaction with WP:FRINGE and WP:HOAX. I have other concerns as well, but I appreciate that you're trying to simplify here.—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Among other things, #2 actually does mean that untrue material is acceptable, as long as it is verifiable. The issue is rather that, as we can't decide here whether something is true or not, we all hope that the share of untrue material is lower in the subset of verifiable information than its share in all information (including, among other things, information made up by Wikipedia editors).  Cs32en Talk to me  23:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
But that's not how it works in practice: untrue, but verifiable, information is typically relegated to articles about fringe theories or notable hoaxes. It's typically not included in the main articles for each topic. Thus, species doesn't mention baramin; pyramid doesn't mention ancient astronauts; and Apollo program doesn't mention moon landing conspiracy theories. Because in practice on Wikipedia, untrue material is only acceptable in quite specific circumstances. My position is that policy should document practice here.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the policy talks about "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia"... it does not talk about inclusion in specific article X (be it Species, Pyramid, Apollo program.) This has nothing to do with the Truth or non-Truth of the material. All verifiable information needs to be weighed in the context of the article topic... that is part of DUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
As usual when we have this conversation, my reply is that the policy doesn't say that. We could add a sentence to explain what you've just explained, though, if we can find a phrasing that won't give the Anti-Change Party a conniption.—S Marshall T/C 01:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree with the statements of all four parts. But that saying #2 is unneeded and does more harm than good because it is so prone to misinterpretations. North8000 (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree... I think it does far more good than harm. Perhaps you were not around before we added it, but I was... we used to have all sorts of unverifiable information being added on the basis that "it's true". Now we don't. (Or at least we now get a lot less of it... and we have a solid statement that allows us to remove it when it does happen). Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, if we could just keep that effect 100% while reducing the misuses. I think that that is doable. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Timestamp to prevent autoarchiving—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence/V_FS_Archive_50&oldid=1089112988"