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.