User:Coppertwig/Attribution policy discussion

I see a big problem with the second sentence of the proposed policy page Attribution: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true: Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.

The problem is with the wording "not whether we think it is true". Although this is an accurate representation of policy for the common situation of excluding material which seems true but is unattributable, nevertheless it is in my opinion an inaccurate representation of policy for the rarer, but important, situation where someone wants to present material as if true which is attributable, but which they know or believe to be false. The actual policy says "verifiability, not truth" (Verifiability) which does not suffer from this problem because the word "verifiability" includes the idea of "truth" in its definition, therefore balancing and modifying the meaning of "not truth". The version at Attribution needs something to balance and modify, in a similar way, the phrase "not whether we think it is true".

This question has been asked several times but I don't remember seeing an answer to it: "Are you really suggesting that an editor who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is helping write the encyclopedia?"

I believe that everyone can be satisfied if we find a wording which accomplishes the following:
 * Makes it very clear that material Wikipedians believe is true, but which is not attributable to a reliable source, is not to be included.
 * But does not seem to imply that it's OK to insert, without prose attribution, material which one knows or believes to be false.
 * But in the process of clarifying the above, does not seem to imply that Wikipedians must verify or guarantee the actual truth of material which is included.

Some possible alternative wordings:
 * Just delete "not whether it is true". Once "verifiability" is gone, those words are unnecessary.
 * Revert to the original "verifiability, not truth".
 * As User:DCB4W suggested: "...not solely whether it is true".
 * "...not merely whether it is true."
 * "Being true is not enough."
 * "Some true material does not belong."
 * "All material must be attributable."
 * "If it's not attributable, it does not belong."
 * "...otherwise, it does not belong in Wikipedia."
 * "...; only such material is acceptable."
 * "...without this, it cannot be included."
 * "...; proving that something is true does not get it included."
 * "...; however, false or contentious material requires prose attributions (see WP:NPOV)."

Please discuss these wordings at Wikipedia talk:Attribution or Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Role of truth.

Links

 * Position statement commenting on merging of policy pages: User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy.
 * Another subpage: User:Coppertwig/Significant dissent.  It's intended to be reached via a link in the first page.
 * Wikipedia and the meaning of truth: an outside view