User:Andrewa/Wikipedia is in the business of truth

It's amazing how often somebody makes the claim that Wikipedia is not in the business of truth, but verifiability or somesuch.

This argument is often used to support valid conclusions, such as the need for references. It's not these conclusions that I wish to disparage. It's the argument. An invalid argument can have a valid conclusion, as any first-year logic student will (wait for it) verify.

But the argument is patent nonsense. The only reason for appealing to such an argument, surely, is to defend for inclusion in Wikipedia something that is not true but which is verifiable. Which, hopefully, is a contradiction of terms. And even if such did exist, surely, we wouldn't want to include it?

Wikipedia is in the business of information, and information is true. Things that seem to be information but are not true are misinformation, and again, surely that's not a good thing to include that in Wikipedia.

But it goes further. Things can appear to be verifiable that are not true. And the appearance can be very persuasive. For example, every now and again a misprint or error slips through into the academic press. For example someone says that the (standard) atomic weight of mercury is 202. (It's actually a little under 201.6, as Mercury-202 is the most common stable isotope but just under two-thirds of natural mercury is lighter stable isotopes. So this error could arise for several reasons, including misunderstandings, rounding, and just plain typo, and fail to be immediately corrected for similar reasons.) If you rely on just one (normally) reliable source, and you're not a chemist, and you're unlucky, you're at risk of getting it wrong. And there are many, many more subtle examples.

(And just as an aside, that's an excellent reason to use Wikipedia. If the rocket will crash and kill people if you do get it wrong, then you'd be stark raving bonkers to just go by the data book. Go to Wikipedia as well, and check the article history. If Wikipedia and the data book agree, and the Wikipedia article has been stable on that point for a long time, then you can be reasonably sure that the rocket won't crash... or at least not for that reason. And if they disagree, of course you need to look further. Those who don't take the few seconds it takes to consult Wikipedia in this admittedly rather contrived scenario are at least as stupid and culpable as those who don't consult the data book.)

Of course Wikipedia is in the business of truth and also of verifiability. One of the main reasons we are in the business of verifiability is because it helps us to determine what is true. (Another is that it helps to reduce the number of arguments... sometimes.) Which is more important? That's a bit like saying which is more important in a car, the wheels or the axles. Without both, you don't have a car at all. The only goal of Wikipedia is to present information that is both true and verifiable.

Logically, the above argument could be saved by the addition of two words. Wikipedia is not only in the business of truth, but also of verifiability is unobjectionable. But this is not nearly as successful as rhetoric, which I suspect is why it is rarely if ever used.

There is a sense of priority for verifiability, in that material that is verifiable is presumably true. That's basic to our methodology.

But there is an even stronger priority for truth. Wikipedia is not finished, and (hopefully) never will be. A true statement with no supporting references is still some use. A false statement is useless to us, and if it's supported by references it is downright dangerous and counterproductive.

Mind you, the unsupported true statement is also dangerous. It's dangerous because it encourages the addition of more unsupported material, which may not be true, and it's dangerous because (again, by our methodology) we can't tell whether it's true or not.

We want material that is true and supported. Unsupported material that is true is useful, particularly on talk pages, and can arguably be tolerated to a limited degree in articles. And no more.

And that's not saying much for it, but it's still far, far more than can be said for material that is not true, whether it appears to be verifiable or not. So Wikipedia is in the business of truth, and very much so.