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.

[Doc glasgow]

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.

[EricBarbour]

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.