First off, lets define "flawed". Flawed in this case will be open for gaming, lawyering, yadda yadda. That being said lets continue.
Lets look at the current wording, or the (in)famous "verifiability, not truth" line. The intent is to allow any content that is verifiable to be added. The truth value does not matter. So if an article in the news paper is verified to exist, the data in it can be added. Now what if the data is false? Well that's no matter cause it's verifiable.
Now lets pull out "not truth". Can we verify the data via sources? Yes we can, and the data can be added. Now is that data true? Nope, but we still can add it cause it's verified data. Truth value doesn't matter still believe it or not.
For the kicker, lets say it says "verifiability and truth". Now we have verified data. We add it. But it gets removed cause some guy says it's not true. Commence argument, edit wars, blah blah blah. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
I know this is a very pessimistic view and probably flawed as well, but that's how I see things. I'm open to flames really (but please keep them civil and back them up), but that's my view.
|