User:WormTT/V

As one of the three closers of the Rfc on V, I thought I'd write up my notes before discussing them with the other two closers.

Initial thoughts
Raw numbers state that 276 editors are in the support section, 149 editors are in the opposed section and 19 editors are in the neutral section. However, reading the comments that editors have made, some supporters are supporting with a proviso which opposes part of the proposal and some opposers support parts of the proposal. The vast majority of comments on both sides do not add new thoughts to the debate, but rather become votes to add weight to that side. As such, it is important to weigh up the arguments on both sides and evaluate the consensus - if there is any.

Arguments in support of proposal

 * The proposal is a compromise, attempting to take into account all previous discussions and trying to find a middle ground.
 * Worth keeping in mind - as there is such feeling involved in here, it's good to see that there is an attempt at finding the middle ground, but doesn't actually address the issue
 * Adds clarity to the policy, reducing unintended meanings.
 * Stops inexperienced editors misinterpresting the policy
 * Stops tenditious editors pretending to misinterpret the policy
 * The new text is wordier, but more accurately reflects the situation
 * Old text is catchy but ambiguous
 * The current wording implies that Wikipedia does not care about accuracy - a key policy states it does not care about truth.
 * "Verifiability, not truth" implies that veracity can be ignored - this is detrimental to the perception of wikipedia
 * Discourages new editors
 * Editors should be able to use discretion to exclude verified but untrue material.
 * WP:V should stop unverifiable material and not force untrue but verifiable material.
 * The burden is on the editor who wants to remove irrelevent, unreliable or otherwise inappropriate information
 * Is this true? Verifiability isn't about notability, reliable sources or NPOV. Mixing up policies, perhaps'
 * Currently does more harm than good
 * I'd like to see some evidence of this, but it's certainly a view that many people hold
 * "Verifiability, not truth" implies that we can only have verifiable or true information, when in fact they should be supportive. Appears to be a contradiction
 * The position of the phrase in the policy shouldn't matter - if an editor "doesn't get it", they won't no matter where it is.
 * Clearly does matter, based on the amount of response it has evoked.
 * Unsourced is easier to deal with than sourced and incorrect.
 * Added in 2005 with little consensus - now redressing the balance
 * Irrelevent, if it has stayed in, there has been consensus
 * New wording introduces the concept of verifiability then goes on to compare it to other concepts such as truth and NPOV.

Arguments in opposition of proposal

 * Wikipedia shouldn't care about truth at all, only the verifiability of views
 * WP:V only goes so far as to verify that this is a significant view, not looking at the reliability of sources
 * Editors shouldn't be evaluating "truth"
 * Neturality means we cannot judge the truth
 * Going to be misused either way, better the current wording that is easily spotted when misused
 * A rather pessimistic view, but the page should both reflect what happens and explain what should happen
 * It ain't broke, don't fix it. Clarification happens later in the page
 * Been there for years
 * A weak argument, resistance of change for the sake of it does not help the encyclopedia. Clearly many editors do think it's broken.
 * Simple, elegant and powerful.
 * Makes things too complicated, the shorter, the better.
 * New generations of editors are unfamiliar with the policy and will not understand that the truth is not something that should be pushed into articles
 * The issues of sourced but untrue pale in comparison to the issues of editors arguing over the what they believe to be true.
 * The new text allows editors to take sourced information out simply because they claim it is untrue
 * Strawman argument, the text does not appear to allow this

Conclusions
On the face of it, it appears that there is a clear support of the proposal, indeed that was my initial reaction. However, it is essential to remember that the RfC is not a vote, but rather a discussion. Having looked in depth at the arguments made by both sides, the outcome isn't nearly as clear cut as it appears to be. For one thing, partially due to the structure of the RfC and partially due to the minor nature of the change, there are editors holding the similar opinions, but in both support and oppose areas. On top of this, there are many editors who have provisos against their vote, large portions of the supporting editors do not support the proposal in full.

Weighing up the arguments on both sides, they are pretty even in strength, and to me, the whole thing appears to boil down to one very important question - Is "Verifiability, not truth" clear enough for the first sentence? Most supporters acknowledge that it is evident what it means when taken in context, but on the other hand most opposers acknowledge that it can be misinterpreted. There are clearly many editors who do not believe it is clear enough to be in the first sentence and this proposal is a "first step" towards making that change.

However, whilst there does appear a very strong opinion that something needs to change - notably that the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" needs more focus, there does not appear to be consensus that this proposal is the right way to go forwards. So, for the time being, the status quo should be maintained.