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."

[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)