NOT TRUTH, dammit! Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Someone wants to change the hallowed SlimVirgin dictum of "Verifiability, not truth", so that it reads "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." As one relatively rational commentator puts it, "it corrects the problem that the current wording disparages the concept of striving for accuracy, and the negative impacts that such has had." The nerve! The opponents of the change are a veritable rogue's gallery, lead by SlimVirgin, who modestly says of the wording she coined, "The phrase "Verifiability, not truth" is iconic as a representation of Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality standards."

[Gruntled]

Consider the follwing scenario:

An editor adds something SV doesn't like to an article, citing good, reliable sources. Clearly, SV must revert, in the interests of WP:SV-POV. She could rubbish the sources, or cite WP:UNDUE, or just edit with summary "Tightening up". Whatever. The editor then restores the material, citing WP:V. Would the proposed change:

* Help him?
* Hinder him?
* Not make a blind bit of difference?

Answers on a postcard please.

[melloden]

Consider the follwing scenario:

An editor adds something SV doesn't like to an article, citing good, reliable sources. Clearly, SV must revert, in the interests of WP:SV-POV. She could rubbish the sources, or cite WP:UNDUE, or just edit with summary "Tightening up". Whatever. The editor then restores the material, citing WP:V. Would the proposed change:

* Help him?
* Hinder him?
* Not make a blind bit of difference?

Answers on a postcard please.

Buy me a postcard.

[Milton Roe]

Someone wants to change the hallowed SlimVirgin dictum of "Verifiability, not truth", so that it reads "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." As one relatively rational commentator puts it, "it corrects the problem that the current wording disparages the concept of striving for accuracy, and the negative impacts that such has had." The nerve! The opponents of the change are a veritable rogue's gallery, lead by SlimVirgin, who modestly says of the wording she coined, "The phrase "Verifiability, not truth" is iconic as a representation of Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality standards."

Beware of anybody who defends anything as "iconic." That means it's as hackneyed, screwed up, and unrealistic as Mickey Mouse's circular ears. But everybody is now as used to it as the Statue of Liberty's green gown, and wants it saved for purposes of pure reactionary cussedness.

So changing policy on WP has now become about as simple as relocating a graveyard. And WP:V is no different. When you try to change the first sentence of the WP:V policy so it's actually understandable to a first-time reader, the people who've lived with it for the last 5 years react as though you wanted to go the Gettysburg Address article and fix it up so it says:

Eighty-seven years ago, a bunch of revolutionaries signed a peice of paper that they hoped would one day lead to a new nation here. That document mentioned the idea that all men are created equal, but it didn't say anything slavery, which you'd think it would have, given the other idea. Now, we pay the price. We are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation that was eventually created from the document, will survive the question of whether or not states should be able to make slavery legal or illegal. We are met on a great battleground of that war, and it certainly sucks to be here, let me tell you.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a new post for our moribund blog. Please PM me concerning any factual, grammatical or stylistic errors.

[radek]

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a new post for our moribund blog. Please PM me concerning any factual, grammatical or stylistic errors.

I'm not really seeing a connection between this and Otto. One says "it has to be verifiable in reliable sources, not necessarily "true"". The other one says "newspapers are not reliable sources".

I understand the main point here though and I've been annoyed by this before. Still, seems like throwing it out is like opening up a pandora's box. Establishing or even suggesting a "truth" requires interpretation, analysis, synthesis, nuance etc. Do you really think that the average Wikipedia editor has any of these skill? To the extent that the present wording puts a constraint on the monkeys, and establishes a criteria that their asses can be checked against sources, limiting potential damage, it is a good thing.

Last thing I want is wikipedia editors putting in what they think is "truth" into articles or deciding whether something is "true" or not.

(Practically speaking, often times if some reliable source says something which is "untrue", and that happens, then there's another reliable source which points it out and that can also be used. Sometimes there's some exceptions and undue weight etc. but it's a "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" kind of thing)

[Doc glasgow]

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a new post for our moribund blog. Please PM me concerning any factual, grammatical or stylistic errors.

I'm not really seeing a connection between this and Otto. One says "it has to be verifiable in reliable sources, not necessarily "true"". The other one says "newspapers are not reliable sources".

I understand the main point here though and I've been annoyed by this before. Still, seems like throwing it out is like opening up a pandora's box. Establishing or even suggesting a "truth" requires interpretation, analysis, synthesis, nuance etc. Do you really think that the average Wikipedia editor has any of these skill? To the extent that the present wording puts a constraint on the monkeys, and establishes a criteria that their asses can be checked against sources, limiting potential damage, it is a good thing.

Last thing I want is wikipedia editors putting in what they think is "truth" into articles or deciding whether something is "true" or not.

(Practically speaking, often times if some reliable source says something which is "untrue", and that happens, then there's another reliable source which points it out and that can also be used. Sometimes there's some exceptions and undue weight etc. but it's a "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" kind of thing)

The point of WP:OTTO is to ask "what constitutes verifiaction?" and "what is a reliable source?". That verification is required (as a minimum) is not the problem. We can't have people saying "I don't care this isn't verifiable - I know it is true". But more care is needed on verification. Shaggy dog celebrities stories from the greet media echo chamber are not verification.

You misuse my essay, methinks.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a new post for our moribund blog. Please PM me concerning any factual, grammatical or stylistic errors.

I'm not really seeing a connection between this and Otto. One says "it has to be verifiable in reliable sources, not necessarily "true"". The other one says "newspapers are not reliable sources".

I understand the main point here though and I've been annoyed by this before. Still, seems like throwing it out is like opening up a pandora's box. Establishing or even suggesting a "truth" requires interpretation, analysis, synthesis, nuance etc. Do you really think that the average Wikipedia editor has any of these skill? To the extent that the present wording puts a constraint on the monkeys, and establishes a criteria that their asses can be checked against sources, limiting potential damage, it is a good thing.

Last thing I want is wikipedia editors putting in what they think is "truth" into articles or deciding whether something is "true" or not.

(Practically speaking, often times if some reliable source says something which is "untrue", and that happens, then there's another reliable source which points it out and that can also be used. Sometimes there's some exceptions and undue weight etc. but it's a "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" kind of thing)

The point of WP:OTTO is to ask "what constitutes verifiaction?" and "what is a reliable source?". That verification is required (as a minimum) is not the problem. We can't have people saying "I don't care this isn't verifiable - I know it is true". But more care is needed on verification. Shaggy dog celebrities stories from the greet media echo chamber are not verification.

You misuse my essay, methinks.

I hope that my blog post is unambiguous on this point. The goal should be both verifiability and truth. At the very least, when a Reliable Source is demonstrated to carry provably false information (as in OTTO), it is the height of irresponsibility to go ahead and include that information, using the "verifiability not truth" rationale.

[radek]

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a new post for our moribund blog. Please PM me concerning any factual, grammatical or stylistic errors.

I'm not really seeing a connection between this and Otto. One says "it has to be verifiable in reliable sources, not necessarily "true"". The other one says "newspapers are not reliable sources".

I understand the main point here though and I've been annoyed by this before. Still, seems like throwing it out is like opening up a pandora's box. Establishing or even suggesting a "truth" requires interpretation, analysis, synthesis, nuance etc. Do you really think that the average Wikipedia editor has any of these skill? To the extent that the present wording puts a constraint on the monkeys, and establishes a criteria that their asses can be checked against sources, limiting potential damage, it is a good thing.

Last thing I want is wikipedia editors putting in what they think is "truth" into articles or deciding whether something is "true" or not.

(Practically speaking, often times if some reliable source says something which is "untrue", and that happens, then there's another reliable source which points it out and that can also be used. Sometimes there's some exceptions and undue weight etc. but it's a "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" kind of thing)

The point of WP:OTTO is to ask "what constitutes verifiaction?" and "what is a reliable source?". That verification is required (as a minimum) is not the problem. We can't have people saying "I don't care this isn't verifiable - I know it is true". But more care is needed on verification. Shaggy dog celebrities stories from the greet media echo chamber are not verification.

You misuse my essay, methinks.

I hope that my blog post is unambiguous on this point. The goal should be both verifiability and truth. At the very least, when a Reliable Source is demonstrated to carry provably false information (as in OTTO), it is the height of irresponsibility to go ahead and include that information, using the "verifiability not truth" rationale.

Yeah, but the problem is this - if you include "and truth" in the requirement then pretty much anything can be challenged on that basis, aside from the most basic of facts. Say there's a dispute between editor X and editor Y. Editor X puts in the article "Historian A says that blah blah blah". Editor Y says, "well, he says it, but it's obviously not true, therefore it violates "Verifiability and Truth", I'm removing it". Editor X says "no of course it's true, I'm restoring it". Editor Y says "no no it's obviously not true, I'm removing it" etc. etc. In other words by what standard are you going to decide whether something is true or not?

I mean, the two editors can then go on to write thesis-length arguments on the talk page to support the "truthiness" of their positions, but the above "yes it is/no it ain't" is basically what it's gonna be.

As I said before I'm sympathetic to the complaint. Hell, I edit in the topic of Eastern Europe. There's a TON of clueless western historians, who have no familiarity with the subject, probably had to look up Kiev on a map that morning, yet think that a History degree from some western university with a specialization in, say, medieval Scotland, entitles them to pontificate on the history of Eastern Europe. As a result they write a bunch of "untrue" nonsense (and I can provide specific examples) which then can make it's way into Wikipedia because it's "verifiable". I would love to be able to remove that said nonsense because it's untrue. But I know that changing this policy has wider implications and would probably lead to more trouble than it's worth. So I grudgingly accept the presence of these "verified but untrue" sources.

More generally I think a common mistake made in criticism of Wikipedia and its policies is, well, the inability to generalize. What often happens is that a person is involved in a particular situation and they think "if the policy didn't say this, then I would get my way, and since I'm right in this situation, the policy is obviously bad". And this may even be true, in that particular situation. But you got to think ahead. Changing the policy may benefit you in this particular instance, but come on, this is Wikipedia. Soon, the change in policy will probably end up being used AGAINST you. So let me reiterate my question

Do you really trust the average Wikipedia editor, or even the "prominent" Wikipedia editors like SV or [insert your own bete noire here] to be given the right to ascertain what "truth" is and is not?
It doesn't matter that it's "verifiability AND truth" - the "AND" just means they can remove whatever they don't like by calling it "untrue". And this would slice both ways - whatever the specific issue that you care about is.

This post has been edited by radek:

[EricBarbour]

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a new post for our moribund blog. Please PM me concerning any factual, grammatical or stylistic errors.

Looks good to me.

The poll on the first statement in WP:V being misleading is currently 12 yes, 11 no. Yet.....the "vote" on actually changing the first sentence in WP:V is currently running 8 support, 14 oppose, with SV and her whores piling on. I suspect this vote might be different, if more average WPers noticed it. This "discussion" should be preserved as a fine example of wikilawyering.

[HRIP7]

Yeah, but the problem is this - if you include "and truth" in the requirement then pretty much anything can be challenged on that basis, aside from the most basic of facts.

No one is suggesting the addition of "and truth". The proposal is only about deleting "not truth", because editors are misusing it.

"Not truth" was meant to say, "Your knowing it is true ain't enough to put it in Wikipedia."

These days, editors are using it to say "Our knowing that it is wrong is no reason to keep it out of Wikipedia."

The Sam Blacketer controversy was a great example. Lots of editors argued, "We know the papers have got it wrong, but it doesn't matter. It's verifiable".

They were perfectly happy to have false BLP information, sourced to Chinese whispers in newspapers, in Wikipedia forever. In fact, they seemed to think they were showing great moral integrity by arguing that way. It's nuts.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[Doc glasgow]

I hope that my blog post is unambiguous on this point. The goal should be both verifiability and truth. At the very least, when a Reliable Source is demonstrated to carry provably false information (as in OTTO), it is the height of irresponsibility to go ahead and include that information, using the "verifiability not truth" rationale.

Except that's not the issue. There's no real problem if a source says x, and a later source (or the same) says x turned out to be false. Include both chronologically. "In May 2011 the Daily Blog claimed x<ref>, but this was retracted in June<ref>".

Both statements are verifiable, and "truth" doesn't come into it.


The issue for WP:OTTO is: when is a "reliable source" actually "reliable"?

The Telegraph may be a reliable source sometimes, but sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is an echo chamber of hearsay. The solution isn't speculation over "truth" it is a) to examine what the source is actually saying: it is making a truth claim or repeating hearsay with caveats. Hearsay with caveats should NEVER count for verification. And b) to accept that some types of material in newspapers is generally unreliable.

[lilburne]

I hope that my blog post is unambiguous on this point. The goal should be both verifiability and truth. At the very least, when a Reliable Source is demonstrated to carry provably false information (as in OTTO), it is the height of irresponsibility to go ahead and include that information, using the "verifiability not truth" rationale.

Except that's not the issue. There's no real problem if a source says x, and a later source (or the same) says x turned out to be false. Include both chronologically. "In May 2011 the Daily Blog claimed x<ref>, but this was retracted in June<ref>".

See there you go, why are you wanting to document things that aren't so?

[EricBarbour]

The Telegraph may be a reliable source sometimes, but sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is an echo chamber of hearsay. The solution isn't speculation over "truth" it is a) to examine what the source is actually saying: it is making a truth claim or repeating hearsay with caveats. Hearsay with caveats should NEVER count for verification. And b) to accept that some types of material in newspapers is generally unreliable.

Please feel free to devise a list of "approved reliable sources".

Any such list will be rejected by your fellow travelers, and you already know that.

[Milton Roe]

Do you really trust the average Wikipedia editor, or even the "prominent" Wikipedia editors like SV or [insert your own bete noire here] to be given the right to ascertain what "truth" is and is not?

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/PaulCoker1.jpg)
I'm looking for a Paul Coker, Jr. monster illustration of "Insert your own bete noire here." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
There exists one for "laboring under a misconception," but it's not on the web. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

It doesn't matter that it's "verifiability AND truth" - the "AND" just means they can remove whatever they don't like by calling it "untrue". And this would slice both ways - whatever the specific issue that you care about is.

No, that's wrong. The point of the policy is that for a fact to get into Wikipedia, is that (at minimum) it must be both true AND THUS theoretically verifiable (with a proper reliable and respected source). It doesn't mean you should stick it in if you think it's true, but you're pretty sure a lot of other people don't.

Of course you don't need to provide the source when the statement is "President John F. Kennedy was assassinated," because only nuts disagree with it. But if somebody questions you, you can come up with a cite even for that.

Yes, this does place a burden on the writer to know what things are true and need an included cite, and what things are true and don't need a cite, but the writer has to make that decision, or the encyclopedia becomes unweildy anyway. An astute writer even needs to know to phrase controversal statments of truth so the concluders can be identified, and it's not just stuck in the encyclopedia ex cathedra. Thus, you don't even need a source for JFK was assassinated in 1963, but if you talk about who did it, you have to say what commissions came to the conclusion that only one gunman fired the bullets that did it, but that some other commission decided a second gunman fired and missed, and since then a bunch of other people think even the missed shot (based on acustic study of one source alone) did not happen, and thus any second gunman lacks good evidence. And that's the way to write an encyclopedia.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I hope that my blog post is unambiguous on this point. The goal should be both verifiability and truth. At the very least, when a Reliable Source is demonstrated to carry provably false information (as in OTTO), it is the height of irresponsibility to go ahead and include that information, using the "verifiability not truth" rationale.

Except that's not the issue. There's no real problem if a source says x, and a later source (or the same) says x turned out to be false. Include both chronologically. "In May 2011 the Daily Blog claimed x<ref>, but this was retracted in June<ref>".

Both statements are verifiable, and "truth" doesn't come into it.


The issue for WP:OTTO is: when is a "reliable source" actually "reliable"?

I'm not sure I understand how we disagree, if indeed we do. I suppose my view is that no source should be deemed axiomatically "reliable." A source may be generally reliable, but there are always exceptions. I think the salient point was captured by Mr. Hrip here:

"Not truth" was meant to say, "Your knowing it is true ain't enough to put it in Wikipedia."

These days, editors are using it to say "Our knowing that it is wrong is no reason to keep it out of Wikipedia."

[thekohser]

What I want to know is how does this affect Wikipedia's article about Carolyn Doran?

[Milton Roe]

What I want to know is how does this affect Wikipedia's article about Carolyn Doran?

Well, it's certainly not approaching ~ 250 kB = novelette size, that's for sure.

[Doc glasgow]

The Telegraph may be a reliable source sometimes, but sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is an echo chamber of hearsay. The solution isn't speculation over "truth" it is a) to examine what the source is actually saying: it is making a truth claim or repeating hearsay with caveats. Hearsay with caveats should NEVER count for verification. And b) to accept that some types of material in newspapers is generally unreliable.

Please feel free to devise a list of "approved reliable sources".

Any such list will be rejected by your fellow travelers, and you already know that.

And it would be rejected my me too.

A source can't be reduced to "reliable" or "unreliable"

The Telegraph is pretty reliable for a main page, properly investigated, story, not so much for p46 celebrity gossip.

[radek]

I hope that my blog post is unambiguous on this point. The goal should be both verifiability and truth. At the very least, when a Reliable Source is demonstrated to carry provably false information (as in OTTO), it is the height of irresponsibility to go ahead and include that information, using the "verifiability not truth" rationale.

Except that's not the issue. There's no real problem if a source says x, and a later source (or the same) says x turned out to be false. Include both chronologically. "In May 2011 the Daily Blog claimed x<ref>, but this was retracted in June<ref>".

Both statements are verifiable, and "truth" doesn't come into it.


The issue for WP:OTTO is: when is a "reliable source" actually "reliable"?

I'm not sure I understand how we disagree, if indeed we do. I suppose my view is that no source should be deemed axiomatically "reliable." A source may be generally reliable, but there are always exceptions. I think the salient point was captured by Mr. Hrip here:

"Not truth" was meant to say, "Your knowing it is true ain't enough to put it in Wikipedia."

These days, editors are using it to say "Our knowing that it is wrong is no reason to keep it out of Wikipedia."

Again, who is this "we"? Sure there's gonna be obvious cases, but obvious cases being obvious are easy to deal with. And just to deal with these cases you're willing to open the door to a bunch folks with the average intelligence of a ... well, of a Wikipedia editor, to suddenly get to decide what is "truth" or "wrong".

You're assuming "we" = "me". But it ain't gonna be that. It will be "we" = "they".

To restate the question, in any kind of controversial or disputed situation, by what standard are "we" gonna judge whether something is "true" or not?