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."

[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:

[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:

[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."

[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?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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:

"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.

[radek]

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:

"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.

[Abd]

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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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 blog. PM me if interested.