Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Bureaucracy _ NOT TRUTH

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Someone wants to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&oldid=433875563#Proposal_for_a_change_in_the_first_sentence 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."

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(Gruntled @ Sun 12th June 2011, 7:09pm) *

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.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 9:12am) *

Someone wants to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&oldid=433875563#Proposal_for_a_change_in_the_first_sentence 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.

wink.gif

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20110612/verifiability-vs-truth/ for our moribund blog. Please PM me concerning any factual, grammatical or stylistic errors.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 3:50pm) *

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20110612/verifiability-vs-truth/ 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)

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 12th June 2011, 10:44pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 3:50pm) *

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20110612/verifiability-vs-truth/ 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.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 12th June 2011, 3:23pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 12th June 2011, 10:44pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 3:50pm) *

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20110612/verifiability-vs-truth/ 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.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 5:34pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 12th June 2011, 3:23pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 12th June 2011, 10:44pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 3:50pm) *

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20110612/verifiability-vs-truth/ 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.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 1:50pm) *

This latest episode, in tandem with WP:OTTO, has inspired me to write a http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20110612/verifiability-vs-truth/ 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.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 12th June 2011, 11:58pm) *

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/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.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 11:34pm) *



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.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Mon 13th June 2011, 12:40am) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 11:34pm) *



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?


Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 12th June 2011, 4:40pm) *
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.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 12th June 2011, 3:58pm) *

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?

Image
I'm looking for a Paul Coker, Jr. monster illustration of "Insert your own bete noire here." dry.gif
There exists one for "laboring under a misconception," but it's not on the web. wink.gif
QUOTE(radek @ Sun 12th June 2011, 3:58pm) *

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.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 12th June 2011, 4:40pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 11:34pm) *



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:

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 12th June 2011, 4:33pm) *

"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."


Posted by: thekohser

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

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 12th June 2011, 8:58pm) *

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.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th June 2011, 12:55am) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 12th June 2011, 4:40pm) *
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.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 7:04pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 12th June 2011, 4:40pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 12th June 2011, 11:34pm) *



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:

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 12th June 2011, 4:33pm) *

"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?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 13th June 2011, 2:04am) *


Again, who is this "we"?
Judging by the context, it refers to myself and Doc glasgow.

With respect to the issue of people asserting "truth," I think you are missing the point, which was ably summarized by HRIP:
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 12th June 2011, 4:33pm) *

"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."
IOW, I'm in favor of material being cited to reliable sources, as long as everyone is confident that the material is not a pile of crap. I am not advocating the insertion of unsourced material.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 13th June 2011, 10:02am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 13th June 2011, 2:04am) *


Again, who is this "we"?
Judging by the context, it refers to myself and Doc glasgow.

With respect to the issue of people asserting "truth," I think you are missing the point, which was ably summarized by HRIP:
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 12th June 2011, 4:33pm) *

"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."
IOW, I'm in favor of material being cited to reliable sources, as long as everyone is confident that the material is not a pile of crap. I am not advocating the insertion of unsourced material.


No, no, I get the point, as I've already said. But you are implicitly advocating that any and all sourced information can be summarily removed by someone based on "it's not true (because I say so)".

There's two ways to disparage/POVing a subject - include bad information or exclude positive information, (relative to what's actually out there about a particular subject).

And I've still gotten no answer to the question of how "truth" would actually be decided in any kind of (even mildly) controversial area. Watergate? Never happened.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 13th June 2011, 2:00pm) *

But you are implicitly advocating that any and all sourced information can be summarily removed by someone based on "it's not true (because I say so)".
Really? How did I manage to do that?

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 13th June 2011, 4:09pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 13th June 2011, 2:00pm) *

But you are implicitly advocating that any and all sourced information can be summarily removed by someone based on "it's not true (because I say so)".
Really? How did I manage to do that?


It's the logical conclusion of insisting on "AND truth" in the policy, once you think it through.

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 13th June 2011, 5:15pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 13th June 2011, 4:09pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 13th June 2011, 2:00pm) *

But you are implicitly advocating that any and all sourced information can be summarily removed by someone based on "it's not true (because I say so)".
Really? How did I manage to do that?


It's the logical conclusion of insisting on "AND truth" in the policy, once you think it through.

Hersh can correct me if I'm reading him completely wrong but I think you guys aren't actually disagreeing, just approaching the problem from different angles. He's not saying that information should be removed if it doesn't meet some subjective definition of "truth" but that it shouldn't be included if there's significant evidence that the statement is wrong or that the source is unreliable in context. I could be wrong yet again, but I don't think there's anything in policy that allows you to nullify a source(with the exception of the vague "context"); you can cite the NYT's retraction of the article in which scientists find me personal responsible for global warming but it wouldn't cancel out the earlier article under WP's rubric. Contextual consideration is one part of the RS policy that could potential deal with these issues but it's glossed over very quickly in the mistaken belief that people would not wish to include incorrect information.


Posted by: radek

I inadvertent started a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Using_sources_which_one_hasn.27t_actually_read about something very much related to this discussion: does a person citing text to a source actually have to bother reading the source?

So there I'm actually arguing something closer to the "AND truth" position. So I'm rethinking the position I've taken here....

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(radek @ Tue 12th July 2011, 6:39pm) *

does a person citing text to a source actually have to bother reading the source?

Without wasting time reading reams of Wikiwaffle, I'd imagine the answer is quite simple: yes, of course. How else can you ensure that your citation is correct? It might be that you have another source that quotes the first one. In that case, you cite the second source, noting that it in turn cites the first one.

I know that what seems obvious to me may well not satisfy Wikilogic!

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 13th June 2011, 5:00pm) *
And I've still gotten no answer to the question of how "truth" would actually be decided in any kind of (even mildly) controversial area. Watergate? Never happened.
The "truth" that belongs in articles is verifiable truth, only. If source X says such and such, anyone can verify "according to source X, such and such." We would say "such and such," without the attribution, only if there is no significant controversy, and, my opinion, if an editor wants attribution, it should generally be allowed, until and unless the preserved position has so little support in the world that it's confusing to attribute, and it's only a complete lunatic Wikipedia editor standing for attribution. Who won't be around for long!

Unnecessary attribution does very little harm. It's an easy concession to minority editors. What's remarkable is how often the cabal refuses to make the accommodation, they want the majority position to be expressed as fact, without attribution. I saw this again and again with the climate change articles, and it continues.

They synthesize a majority position, which is really their own position, standing on and enforcing the use of weak sources that don't actually say what they have synthesized, and they exclude the minority position because it's "fringe," even if it's clearly sourced. I've seen exact quotes excluded as "cherry-picking," when what was left was cherry picking.

Basically, Wikipedia failed to create true consensus process, it settled for processes that favor the majority, and, over time, this is fatal to the neutrality mission.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 12th July 2011, 3:07pm) *

Unnecessary attribution does very little harm. It's an easy concession to minority editors. What's remarkable is how often the cabal refuses to make the accommodation, they want the majority position to be expressed as fact, without attribution. I saw this again and again with the climate change articles, and it continues.

They synthesize a majority position, which is really their own position, standing on and enforcing the use of weak sources that don't actually say what they have synthesized, and they exclude the minority position because it's "fringe," even if it's clearly sourced. I've seen exact quotes excluded as "cherry-picking," when what was left was cherry picking.

Basically, Wikipedia failed to create true consensus process, it settled for processes that favor the majority, and, over time, this is fatal to the neutrality mission.
Abd, this is quite lucid, and if fleshed out a bit, but not to the point of tldr, it could make a lovely article for our http://wikipediareview.com/blog/. PM me if interested.