NOT TRUTH, dammit! Options

[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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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)".

Really? How did I manage to do that?

[radek]

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)".

Really? How did I manage to do that?

It's the logical conclusion of insisting on "AND truth" in the policy, once you think it through.

[Sololol]

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)".

Really? How did I manage to do that?

It's the logical conclusion of insisting on "AND truth" in the policy, once you think it through.

Hersh can correct me if I'm reading him completely wrong but I think you guys aren't actually disagreeing, just approaching the problem from different angles. He's not saying that information should be removed if it doesn't meet some subjective definition of "truth" but that it shouldn't be included if there's significant evidence that the statement is wrong or that the source is unreliable in context. I could be wrong yet again, but I don't think there's anything in policy that allows you to nullify a source(with the exception of the vague "context"); you can cite the NYT's retraction of the article in which scientists find me personal responsible for global warming but it wouldn't cancel out the earlier article under WP's rubric. Contextual consideration is one part of the RS policy that could potential deal with these issues but it's glossed over very quickly in the mistaken belief that people would not wish to include incorrect information.

[radek]

I inadvertent started a big thread over at RSN about something very much related to this discussion: does a person citing text to a source actually have to bother reading the source?

So there I'm actually arguing something closer to the "AND truth" position. So I'm rethinking the position I've taken here....

[Detective]

does a person citing text to a source actually have to bother reading the source?

Without wasting time reading reams of Wikiwaffle, I'd imagine the answer is quite simple: yes, of course. How else can you ensure that your citation is correct? It might be that you have another source that quotes the first one. In that case, you cite the second source, noting that it in turn cites the first one.

I know that what seems obvious to me may well not satisfy Wikilogic!

[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.