http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ver...bility/2012_RfC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ver...12_RfC/Comments

"Verifiability, not Truth" is up for discussion once again.

It strikes me as a sterile debate, reminding me somewhat of the 1920 Vienna positivism in philosophy championed by Fredddie Ayer et al. It can't be long before we have a Popper style counterculture emerging, insisting that on the contrary deniability should be the test, and finally the emergence of a full blooded Kuhnian relativism insisting that we regard each article as a paradigm whose ultimate worth lies in its utility ... erm ... call that a covenient truth.

In fact, in practice, we essentially have relativism at work in the emergence of cabals - the kind of thing that allows editors like Ceoil, the noted Irish dairyist, asethete and Wikipedia trouble-maker, to assert absolute nonsense such as Vincent van Gogh's final Auvers period paintings being exceptionally 'dark' (on the contrary they are placidly beautiful), have it left unchallenged for years and finally find it defended when challenged by such luminaries of the fine arts as the Sydney psychiatrist Casliber and the hissy extreme-right American pedagogue TruthKeeper88, whose heuristic of borrowing as many library books on any topic that takes your fancy and copying out in your own own words the bits that strike your fancy is such a boon to the cause of learning everywhere.

More to the point would be a debate on selecting and assessing the relevant importance and significance of references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=504028201

The discussion will be closed on July 28, 2012.

I wish someone would summarize the differences between these options. I haven't been following the debate and at a glance I can't discern much difference between them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ver...sing_statements

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=504820980

The discussion has been closed, and WP:Verifiability's lead section has been rewritten.

And I still don't even know what the outcome means or what the ramifications could be. The authors of the RFC should have done a much better job of articulating the distinctions between the options.

Hey, don't you suppose that's exactly what people intended? If even someone as experienced as you doesn't know the bloody hell what it means, just think what the blighters can do to some poor newbie that crosses them. "What do you mean by inserting that stuff? WP:V! Off with your head!"