Encyclopedia text can be crafted so that it is always true, by consensus. What I've seen is that this is avoided because factions want to present their point of view as true, and demand RS -- no synthesis allowed -- for opposing positions, but not for their own, since it is, they believe "obviously scientific consensus" or whatever.
Suppose that a source, independently published, meeting ordinary RS standards (most newspapers meet this, for example), says "The Moon is made of green cheese." An article cannot and should not say, "The Moon is made of green cheese." Rather, it can say, "According to [RS], the Moon is made of green cheese." That's verifiable, and verification is, in fact, verification of truth.
Wikipedia policies often leave out the most critical factor: consensus. They also seem to believe that neutrality is an absolute, itself true/false. In fact, neutrality is a goal, an ideal to be sought, and the only measure of it is the degree of consensus. If we have 100% consensus on a point, without excluding contrary points of view, we may treat a thing as neutral. In large bodies, 100% consensus might not be obtainable, but seeking it will always improve neutrality if it's possible.
That is, what's left out is the actual implementation. That's convenient, because it then leaves power in the hands of those with advantages as to tools. This is probably not going to be fixed without some major intervention. I'm not holding my breath.
One of the reasons I was banned was that I had learned how to seek and find broad consensus. When this contradicted the opinions and habits of certain administrators, I became quite unpopular. In RfC/JzG 3, I presented conclusive (and concise, by the way) evidence for administrative recusal failure. There is a reason why Durova cosigned that! Two-thirds of those commenting asked for Abd to be banned. For filing a clear, policy-based RfC.
ArbComm confirmed the RfC, in RfAr/Abd and JzG. The very fact that my name was in the RfAr shows institutional bias. I was not alleged to have violated any policies, so it should not have been about me at all. It was treated as a personal dispute. That RfAr might not have gone anywhere if one of the arbitrators had not independently compiled the same evidence. Before that, my evidence was rejected as biased, without any specifics. Obviously, the thinking went, I must have cherry-picked it. I hadn't. It was straight, full disclosure and coverage, all relevant edits. And what they thought were my biased summaries were not, they were JzG's summaries, which I'd italicized. They were quite enough to impeach him.
That was a beautiful demonstration of how a cabal functions on Wikipedia, without there being necessary any "improper collaboration." It's mob rule, whatever mob can gather. ArbComm refused to face this. Instead, later mailing list revelations showed, they sought to shoot the messenger, and they waited until the next RfAr to do it, where I was more vulnerable. I was actually fooled by the first RfAr into thinking ArbComm would function fairly. Rather, the situation was far too blatant then, they couldn't shoot me at that point because it would have been entirely too obvious.
This post has been edited by Abd: Tue 8th November 2011, 2:54pm