Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Archive 1

Step one
Hello everyone, and thank you for agreeing to be a part of this mediation! As it's my first time interacting with many of you, I'll start with a little introduction. I am Mr. Stradivarius, and I have been editing Wikipedia since October 2010. I started off my Wikipedia career editing articles relating to language education and second-language acquisition, which relate to my professional interests as a language teacher. I still edit in this area, but for the last six months or so I have been mostly involved in dispute resolution. I got involved in dispute resolution by accident, when I took a dispute I was involved with to the dispute resolution noticeboard and started commenting on disputes posted by other people. I have since gained the dubious honour of being the editor with the most edits at DRN, and I have also become one of the coordinators here at the Mediation Cabal. I answer to pretty much anything that resembles my username, like "Mr. S" or "Stradivarius", but I think "Strad" is kind of cool, so you are welcome to call me that. ;) The reason for "Mr. Stradivarius" is so that people will know to use "he" and "his" without asking, and because I play the violin; also, "Stradivarius" is the name of a camel someone once gave me (true story). My favourite Wikipedia page is WP:ROUGE, because it is Irrefutable ProofTM that the Mediation Cabal isn't the only cabal on this site.

As part of step one, I would also like to hear a bit about each of you, and about your involvement in the Verifiability discussion. I would be very grateful if each of you could leave a statement, preferably less than 300 words, answering the following questions:
 * 1) What kind of editing do you normally do at Wikipedia?
 * 2) How did you get involved in the discussion about Verifiability?
 * 3) What would you like to get out of this mediation?
 * 4) What is your favourite Wikipedia page, and why? (this one is optional)

I hope these instructions are clear enough for people to get going, but if anyone wants any clarification please feel free to ask. You can leave a message on my talk page, or on the talk page of this mediation. I will leave step one open for a little less than seven days, until 10:00 am (UTC) on Thursday, March 8. No dragging of feet, please - I won't wait for people who are being slow. Once again, thank you very much for participating, and I look forward to having a pleasant and constructive mediation with you all. Best wishes —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

S Marshall
Okay, I'll go first. I feel like I'm speaking at an alcoholics anonymous meeting. Hi, everyone, I'm S Marshall. (Say: Hi, S Marshall!) I choose to edit using my real name. I'm British, male, and 41 years old. I'm happily married and I have a son who's 18. Normally I edit articles about rural Britain and British history: Agriculture in the United Kingdom, History of Hertfordshire, etc. I happen to speak French and German, so I also translate articles from the French and German Wikipedias (mainly biographies of notable women). I find that our coverage of foreign-language topics still has enormous gaping holes in it which it's easy for multilingual editors to fill, so I've contributed quite a few new articles in this way, though most are short and start-class. I also contribute to discussion areas of the project, notably in deletion review where I've been a regular for quite a few years. DRV is a good place to contribute if you want to grow cynical about our systems and processes. I got involved in WT:V after the Rlevse incident. I saw that Rlevse had used WP:V as an excuse for his copyright violations and I thought it would be best for WP:V to mention copyright. (I succeeded, as you can see.) Subsequent involvement followed on from there. What I want is to get rid of certain simplistic, confusing and prescriptive language from the policy and replace it with a clear and nuanced evaluation of the issues.— S Marshall T/C 13:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

ThatPeskyCommoner
Hi, I'm usually known as Pesky; I'm English, with five grandchildren. I'm also a high-functioning autistic, I come from a background of weird mixtures of interests, and have been a professional instructor. I'm principle-centred (which explains how sometimes I can apparently be on both "sides" of a discussion); I'm solution-focused and like being helpful.
 * 1) I do a combination of: concentrated work on a small number of articles (e.g. History of the horse in Britain, Meermin slave mutiny); gnomish little fixes in anything I happen to be reading at the time; I have (in the past) patrolled a few thousand new pages, though I'm not doing that at the moment; I get involved in various discussions here and there;
 * 2) Can't remember; it was a long time ago!
 * 3) I'd like a policy that has no wiggle-room for misinterpretation, is clearly and plainly worded, and if any words or phrases could be misconstrued or are hard to understand, the meaning should be spelled out as simply as possible
 * 4) Favourite page?  No idea.  Pesky  (talk ) 14:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster

 * What kind of editing do you normally do at Wikipedia?
 * Broad interests. I've worked on articles in fields like Greek philosophy, early modern philosophy, human population genetics, Belgian history and whatever comes up. But I think a common thread is that I get interested when I see a very poor article that needs to be brought up to a basic standard. I tend not to be interested in the sometimes rather odd discussions when articles get close to their ideal.


 * How did you get involved in the discussion about Wikipedia:Verifiability?
 * As someone interested in getting articles from terrible to more-or-less ok I am particularly worried about wikilawyering. I often get dragged into debates sensitive to ethnic groups because I am seen as someone who edits population genetics articles, and in such areas one can often see bad articles being kept bad because of a deadlock between parties citing wikipolicy at each other. I am concerned about the "verifiability not truth" wording because of this, and I got involved in discussion on items like that. I also try to spend some time on RSN, again both to help me get perspective on how other people work, and also to make sure my voice is heard if I see questionable ideas needing questioning.


 * What would you like to get out of this mediation?
 * I was invited and would not have really sought to be in this discussion, but if it helps make WP:V better, great. Having a tag in the lead is obviously not perfect, even if I do understand why some people want to keep it longer.


 * What is your favourite Wikipedia page, and why?
 * No idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker
I am a user, with broad article interests and who thinks generally things should be settled and move on. I don't remember how I first got involved; most recently, I have been advocating for settlement through dispute resolution. Unsolicited advice: policy debates around here often seem pinheaded, avoid bike shedding. YMMV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Iantresman
I have been a Wikipedia contributor since 2004. In 2007, I was banned indefinitely by the community in 5h 11m after being accused of being a "POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience" and accused of harassing an editor from Wikipedia who happened to be using one of four socks abusively. As further background, I am over 50 years old, have two science degrees (chemistry and computing), and was employed for 2 years writing for a computer magazine.

My interest in Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability (WP:V) is the same as my interest in other policies (eg. NPOV), and in particularly their ability to simply and accurately convey what they are supposed to mean. In my opinion, the policy page on WP:V tends to fall short because it tends to (a) over generalise (b) sometimes fails to clarify (c) is confused with inclusion criteria (d) doesn't take into account that different kinds of statement require different kinds of verifiability.

Statements such as "Verifiability, not truth" is a beautiful buzz-phrase, but opens itself up to unwanted interpretation. The policy also has whole sections on Reliable sources, when we already have an entire article on the subject, but we have very little on what needs verifying: the statement describing the facts? the facts themselves? does perceived wisdom need verifying in the same way as facts that are known to be incorrect? --Iantresman (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe

 * 1) I do a mixture of maintenance (particularly in WP:FT/N and WP:CFD) and new article creation (mostly lighthouses, but I've twice created articles on Shorpy subjects where there was no extant article), as well as monitoring a number of theology articles. I also gave several of the big railroading articles their basic structure.
 * 2) I got involved in this after dealing with cases in which patently inaccurate material was retained in articles because it could be cited to a "reliable" but inaccurate source; that is apparently a common interpretation of "Verifiability, Not Truth."
 * 3) I've been through at least two attempts to mitigate the problematic interpretation that "VNT" means that the truth of an assertion is completely irrelevant and that sourced information ought to be included even if it is wrong. Each time, attempts at a compromise/consensus were brushed back. The matter remains disputed indefinitely because there is so much resistance to allowing progress in rewording a formula which many people agree to be problematic. I'd like to see that deadlock broken and progress made on a reworded version.
 * 4) Out of the many pages out there, I think one of my favorites is WP:LAME as a sort of self-deprecation. I hasten to add, though, that it would be nice if it didn't get much longer. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar

 * 1) I got involved in Wikipedia back in 2005 to improve articles relating to Freemasonry.  Still do that, but I also edit other topics as well (in a variety of topic areas, as the mood takes me).  I got involved in working on policy shortly after that... and today most of my editing is at policy pages.
 * 2) If you are asking how I became involved in WP:V ... I have had several policy pages on my watch list for years, and regularly take part in discussions over how to improve them.  I suppose you could call me a policy wonk.  If it is asking how I became involved in the current debates on that page... well I guess my answer is the same.
 * 3) I would like to see an end to the endless debate over the phrase "Verifiability, not truth"... by finding some form of language that will actually gain a solid consensus.  I strongly support efforts to return the VNT provision back to its "original intent" (ie what it meant to those who first added it to the policy - the most recent restatement of that intent is: "editors should not add unverifiable material, even if they are 100% positive that it is true").  I would prefer a version that retains the useful and catchy phrase "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not Truth"... but I am not insistent... I am quite willing to consider alternatives, as long as the alternative reflects the "original intent" and gets across the concept.
 * 4) What is your favorite Wikipedia page, and why? - right now, I would say it is this very mediation page.  Because I think it might be able to break the log jam and move us towards resolution.  (I can hope... even if it ends up being another false hope.) Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish
How nice it is to read what the rest of you have said here! And big appreciation to Strad (and his camel!) for volunteering to take this task on!

I'm 56 years old, in the U.S., and a recovering academic (neuroscience).
 * 1) I have very wide-ranging interests in editing. I find Wikipedia to be an endlessly fascinating experiment, and I enjoy seeing what happens as people with differing perspectives try to work together.
 * 2) I responded to an earlier RfC, with the opinion that "verifiability, not truth" was just fine and should not be dropped. I came to be impressed by the concerns of editors who saw the issue differently, and became interested in finding a middle ground about the wording. I believe such a middle ground is what the community wants. I've periodically been quite active in trying to construct that middle ground wording; I also tune out from time to time when the tl;dr of the discussion gets to be too much.
 * 3) Consensus. I think I have a sense of what the community has been saying in the past RfCs, and I hope that I can help craft something that the community will be happy with.
 * 4) Well, I'll plug Aquascaping, a page that I've been working on with particular affection, and haven't been giving nearly enough time to. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Casliber
I'm in my 40s and a psychiatrist by day and birdwatcher, peoplewatcher, gardener and many other things by hobby. I have mainly edited hobby-stuff than work-stuff (i.e. medical) as...well...it's like work really. I am mainly a content editor and writer of DYKs, Good and Featured Articles. Favourite page - not sure, anything I am editing intensively at the time I guess. SOme of the big FAs I have done have been pretty fun.

I generally ignored this page over the years as the catchy phrase just strikes me as wrong - we're striving for some sort of accuracy or "truth" with our writing. I fully accept the emphasis on verifiability and it took me a few months to get into the wiki-mode of making sure I could source additions, and I can see how the phrase is helpful (though I must have looked at this page only a handful times in five years). In any case, I was dismayed at how Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53, with 276 supports for change and 149 opposes can be closed as "no consensus to move", which strikes me that the first mover advantage (which is what this is) is a real barrier to any change around here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kalidasa 777
May this discussion help us to find:
 * 1) Have been editing since August 2007. I edit on humanities topics and natural science topics as well. Two pages which I've worked on extensively are Mithraic Mysteries and Life on Titan.
 * 2) Since I started editing, I've been interested in WP policy, conscious of the need to work in accordance with the agreed community goals. I was reading the WP:V page to see whether or not a source I'd found could be used consistently with policy, when I noticed the tag and found the discussion.
 * 3) S. Marshall compared this mediation to a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous... I'll express my hopes for it in words based on the Serenity Prayer...
 * accuracy about the points which a non-specialist community, like ours, can establish the truth about,
 * neutrality about different specialist opinions, on the many topics which a community like ours can't possibly settle the truth about,
 * a policy wording that knows the difference. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

BruceGrubb

 * 1) I have been editing since 2006 and tend to edit topics I have a reasonable amount of information and knowledge about in an effort to maintain NPOV.
 * 2) I have long used WP:V as a baseline to even consider using a source as a reference and until recently never had many problems until I started seeing bit and pieces of Verifiability being used like soundbite with little to no regard to the larger context within the policy or with other of the pillars.
 * 3) I would like to see this mediation restructure WP:V so that it can no longer be easily turned into soundbite of the day with little to no understanding of how it actual works.
 * 4) The closest thing to a favorite page is the Christ myth theory one given that I and several other tireless editors have put in many years of effort at finally getting that page reasonably NPOV.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Jc3s5h
I watch articles in my areas of interest, such as electronics and time (my first boss after university was nicknamed "picosecond Joe"). I try to make sure material, especially newly-added material, is relevant, well presented, and verifiable (hence my interest in this policy). I often revise the articles for consistent spelling and citations. I occasionally write new articles in these areas.

I hope the mediation will result in a crisp summary of the policy that will give newcomers an idea of why their contribution might not be acceptable in its present form, but will not silently chill the addition of appropriate content. The summary should not imply any prohibitions that do not actually exist.

One of my favorite articles is Gregorian calendar because it mixes controversy, Renaissance primary sources, and history of astronomy. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog
What I do or like is irrelevant, we are here to build an encyclopedia.

Policies need to be understood (by most if not all editors) if they are to have their intended effect on our product. That means putting them in language which is as easy to understand as we can manage. As it stands today, we are failing miserably at this. The result is endless wikilawyering (over what policy phrases mean, or should mean, or how to state them, or whether to include a favourite phrase). Meanwhile, good-faith novice editors and others who are trying to work with en-4 or below go quietly mad trying to follow these contorted policies. This must change. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nuujinn
What kind of editing do you normally do at Wikipedia?


 * It varies pretty widely, and I've been taking a break the last few months, turned out to be more fun than I would have expected. I'm mostly lurking now, but will likely be more active in the coming weeks.

How did you get involved in the discussion about Wikipedia:Verifiability?


 * Just got sucked in, I've come back to it from time to time to see how things were going.

What would you like to get out of this mediation?


 * It would be nice to see if we could not reach some kind of compromise. Many have been proposed, but well-meaning folks on both sides have strong enough feelings that the compromises have not been acceptable. My hope is that the perfect will not continue as enemy of the good. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000

 * What kind of editing do you normally do at Wikipedia?

Extremely varied. Article work also varied. Some emphasis in engineering/technical areas, some in folk and traditional music areas, some in Scout areas, some in northwoods and northern US and Canada historical. Recently ended big effort was SS Edmund Fitzgerald to FA and on front page. Also policy pages, AFD pages, and helping out new folks who are struggling with the system. For pronoun ease and geographic/time zone context, I'll mention that I'm male and live in the USA.


 * How did you get involved in the discussion about Verifiability?

I tend to see/analyze policy related things logic-structurally. Including policies, disputes, and the relation between the two. Having seen endless problems in certain areas, and how policies either don't help solve them or are used to make them worse, I have concluded that 6-8 tweaks or enhancements in pillar pages would do an immense amount of good in resolve these and making Wikipedia a less painful place for editors. (I've been roughing them out at an essay WP:Strategic issues with core policies). My RW work in both business and volunteer areas is trying to make larger scale good stuff happen, so the 6-8 is a perfect opportunity. Three of these 6-8 are in wp:ver so I became active there. I tend to be a pussycat on the actual debates and a bulldog when someone threatens the process itself.
 * What would you like to get out of this mediation?

On the core issue, as a minimum compromise, to clarify "threshold" and "not truth" so that they can't be used to create other meanings other than reinforcing the verifiability requirement. (perfect would be "not truth" and "threshold" gone, but we're talking compromise)    This minimum compromise has already been accomplished, if a couple key areas of the current wording are accepted as stable. And I would like the hot painful aspects of this to be settled and over with.

One other good thing to come out of this would be analyzing and parsing the related items so that folks would realize saying that "verifiability is always required" and "accuracy NEVER  matters in Wikipedia" are two different statements on two different topics, albeit sometimes overlapping.


 * What is your favourite Wikipedia page, and why? (this one is optional)

Changes continuously. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Count Iblis
1. What kind of editing do you normally do at Wikipedia?

Mostly scientific articles and the Reference desk.

2. How did you get involved in the discussion about Wikipedia:Verifiability?

Gradual process, I slowly got interested in policy pages, particularly NOR, after rewriting many of the thermodynamics articles in 2008, which cotnained many serious errors. Clearly, Wikipedia's policies were (and still are) defective, how else could such errors have remained in such prominent articles for so many years? Yet, when I tried to suggest some changes to deal with the issues I raised, I found that the people involved in editing the policy pages were not really interested. So, at that time I didn't waste too much time there, but a year later in 2009 some of the issues resurfaced again prompting me to write up the essay WP:ESCA which was rejected as a policy page. Some time later I also got

3. What would you like to get out of this mediation?

The core issue as far as I'm concerned is that Wikipedia's policy should broadly describe how Wikipedia is actually edited, not how some group of editors think Wikipedia should be edited. Wikipedia has come of age most subject areas have matured. It is not good for Wikipedia's policies to imply that some science articles that go into significant detail are in violation of policies like Verifiability, NOR etc. etc. even though everything is verifiable and consistent with the known scientific knowledge. Clearly the way we define Original Research on Wikipedia and how we define Verifiability here is at fault and that has to be corrected.

Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Becritical
I usually edit liberal social issues or wherever there is a conflict which isn't too technical. I enjoy participating in the heated discussions and try to bring an entirely unemotional approach.

So I got involved here because there was a conflict, maybe two months ago?

I think people are not able to resolve the text differences because they cannot agree on what VnT actually ought to say. Maybe agreeing on what VnT is supposed to mean would allow us to generate alternate text. However, since no one agrees on what VnT should mean, that is a reason for replacing VnT with something which is more easily understood. Be— —Critical 23:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating
I am male, in my 60s, and a degreed engineer. I'm more of the left-brain type of thinker.

1. What kind of editing do you normally do at Wikipedia? I've been here over a year now. One contribution is as part of a rewrite of the nutshell of WP:N to remove the word "enduring". Much of my contact with the range of articles at Wikipedia has come through AfD discussions. I find myself attracted to the gazetteer, like Pandora Reef; and public sector institutions, like Taquan Air.

2. How did you get involved in the discussion about Wikipedia:Verifiability? I encountered an urban legend. Basing their argument on WP:V, the defenders of this urban legend say it doesn't matter that it isn't true, end of discussion.

3. What would you like to get out of this mediation? Strength comes from simplicity, which is a synonym for good factoring. I hope to see a commitment to unambiguous language, furtherance of the project by building it on a good foundation, and showing by the example of this group that it is possible to build consensus at Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Olive
I often edit in a contentious area, so policy pages are (supposedly) a break from that. :O) I have an interest in collaborative, creative communities and the way in which they grow and develop. Policies can help determine how well those communities function. So I see policies worded with out loopholes for those with agendas, as a way of supporting a healthy community. My background academically which pertains to this discussion is in linguistics, and also in the understanding of how creativity develops and functions, so I tend to think that if we can understand the underlying principles of this policy and how those play out both in the policy and in relation to the other policies, and then can create  language that connects those principles to editor action, the policy would be its most useful. Rather idealistic of course.(olive (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC))

A Quest For Knowledge
I do a lot of sneaky vandalism specializing in difficult to detect BLP violations. J/K. :) My interests are varied and change over time.  Currently, I'm most active in the 9/11 terrorist attacks topic space (include 9/11 conspiracy theories).  At one time, I was the top 4th or 5 contributor at WP:RSN but haven't posted there much lately.  Some of other articles I've worked on a lot are Jennie Finch, List of common misconceptions and various Michael Jackson articles.  I also do Wikiknome work as I read articles that I'm reading. I got involved in the discussion over WP:V because I'm worried that removing "verifiability, not truth" opens the door fringe theory advocates to push their theories.  Right now, "verifiability, not truth" one of the best tools we have to address the unwarrented promotion of fringe theories.  And even that's not enough. Honestly, I'm not sure what I expect to get out of this.  I don't think anything's broken with the current policy and whenever I ask those in favor of change which specific article(s) are being hurt because of the wording, I'm usually met with silence or someone points out some isolated incident that happened years ago. My favorite article is List of common misconceptions. It's a fun article that debunks or clarifies a lot of popular misconceptions some people have. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Bob K31416
The policies I've mainly worked on are WP:NOR and WP:V. I think that they need to be more clear and better organized.

Step two
Thank you everyone for your statements! They have made very interesting reading, and I hope that you have all learned a thing or two that you didn't know before about the editors that you will be working with. I am glad to announce that I have detected no major problems, and that the mediation is going to go ahead. We have a grand total of 15 17 18 users participating, which strikes me as a very good number for the work groups I am planning to divide you into eventually. So, without further ado, let's head straight into step two: submitting individual drafts of the policy introduction.

The task for step two is very simple - I want you each to prepare your ideal version of the introduction to Verifiability. It doesn't have to bear any resemblance to the current version, or any versions that have gone before, and it doesn't have to address any of the points brought up in the reams of discussion made over the years. It should just be the text that you, personally, think sums up the spirit of verifiability and explains it in the clearest way possible. This could just be a couple of sentences that you would like to change, or it could be a complete rewrite. It could also be exactly the same as the long-standing version, or as any of the other versions proposed on the talk page or in the workshop. As long as you think it is the best version, that is what matters.

The details of how you present it are up to you. Feel free to use whatever formatting you want, so that your version will be as easy to understand for the other participants as possible. Let your creativity shine. I only ask that you concentrate mainly on the introduction to WP:V, and that you keep your draft to a reasonable length. Also, I would like everyone to refrain from commenting on each others' drafts just yet, either on this page or the talk page. The time for comments will come later, after we have finished our analysis of the RfC and related discussion. Also, please don't comment on your own draft, but just write it as it would appear in the policy. When this step is finished, this page should look like an art gallery, for people to come and marvel over our individual efforts, and then make their own minds up about what they would do. Think of this as the chance to show everyone your best drafting skills. You never know, your way with words might make all the difference.

Step two is scheduled to last for three days; that is, until 10:00 am (UTC) on Sunday, March 11. Please let me know if you will have difficulty in meeting the deadline. Best wishes —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm extending the deadline by a day, as we still have eight drafts left to be submitted. The new deadline is 10:00 am (UTC) on Monday, March 12. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We still have three more drafts to come in, so I'm going to extend the deadline by one more day, and then progress without people who haven't submitted theirs. The new deadline is 10:00 am (UTC) on Tuesday, March 13. If I progress without you, then it doesn't mean that I'm kicking you out - it just means that you will have to catch up when you are ready to participate again. Also, if you let me know that you will have problems submitting things on time, then I may be able to make concessions for you, so please do that rather than just leaving it until the deadline. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not intending to produce a draft myself, so don't wait up for me! I'm sure as eggs is eggs that at least one other person here will produce something that I could support quite happily; I;m equally sure that the chances of me producing something better than theirs are minimal!  Pesky  (talk ) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by North8000
For the following to be the ENTIRE lead (I may tweak this later)


 * In Wikipedia, verifiability means that readers must be able to check that information in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it.


 * All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. For how to write citations, see Citing sources. Nothing (such as claimed accuracy or truth) is a substitute for meeting this verifiability requirement.


 * Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion. The fact that something has been published does not necessarily mean it should be included—other policies, guidelines and considerations apply.


 * This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.

North8000 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: portions of this have been "borrowed" from a previous version of the policy and from S Marshall.

S Marshall
My preferred version of the lede is always visible at User:S Marshall/V.— S Marshall T/C 17:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Tryptofish
This is just the opening paragraph. I'm not proposing to change anything after that.


 * Verifiability on Wikipedia is the reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability by itself does not guarantee inclusion. Verifiability, not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia—nothing, such as perceived truth or personal experience, can be a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it unless it is also verifiable.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Becritical
Verifiability is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. If the verifiability of any text in Wikipedia has been challenged, or if it is likely to be challenged, the source must be stated in the form of an inline citation. Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed without further discussion, and unsourced contentious material about about living people must be removed immediately. Because Wikipedia does not allow original research, whether editors personally believe information to be true or false should never determine Wikipedia content.

Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Be— —Critical 01:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Kalidasa 777
I suggest that the intro should begin as follows...


 * Verifiability on Wikipedia means that information in an article can be checked by referring to reliable published sources. Verifiability is a prerequisite for inclusion of information in Wikipedia: verifiability, not truth. Verifiability depends on the sources, not on whether editors believe the information to be true or false. Even certain knowledge, gained through personal experience, is not an acceptable substitute for a reliable published source. When reliable published sources disagree, principles of neutrality and due weight have to be considered.

Rest of intro "It must be possible to attribute... etc" to remain as in the current revision. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by iantresman
I've tried to use (a) simpler English (b) make reference to the other core policies, (c) use our favourite phrase in a suitable context:


 * Verifiability lets you check that Wikipedia accurately and neutrally describes facts by including references to reliable sources of the information. Text that does not meet this requirement may be reworded, or tagged requesting suitable sources, or even removed.


 * Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and is no guarantee that information may be included. So while some have considered it to be true that the Moon is made of green cheese, and even though you may have proof that it is so, it is verifiability, and not truth, which is one of the fundamental criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.

--Iantresman (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by LeadSongDog

 * Readers must be able to verify all material in Wikipedia articles. To do this, they should find attribution to a reliable, published source, appropriate for the content in question. While editors need not cite every attributable statement, an inline citation is expected for any quotation, as it is for any material that is likely to be challenged.
 * Verifiability alone is not sufficient reason to include material in an article: Wikipedia has other core content policies that must also be satisfied. These ensure articles have a neutral point of view and contain no original research.

LeadSongDog come howl!  22:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft 1 by BruceGrubb

 * The inclusion of information in Wikipedia mainspace (articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions) requires verifiability— ie being attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. This means means that quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.(See the discussion about sources in WP:NOR that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources.)  For how to write citations, see Citing sources.  Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.
 * Verifiability works in conjunctions with core content policies that must also be satisfied. These ensure articles have a neutral point of view, contain no original research, and that verifiable but inaccurate information in articles is kept to minimum.

BruceGrubb (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft 2 by BruceGrubb
For information to be included in Wikipedia mainspace (articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions) it must mean the verifiability' requirement— ie being attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. This requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. (See the discussion about sources in WP:NOR that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources.) For how to write citations, see Citing sources. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.

In this context wikipedia is concerned with Verifiability, not believed (ie unreferencable to a reliable source) truth; however verifiability in of itself is not factual truth either. Sources meeting verifiability can conflict or even be in error.

--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Unscintillating

 * First change
 * Replace information with material.


 * Second change


 * Was:
 * Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it unless it is verifiable.


 * New:
 * Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia.


 * New section:
 * == Perceived truth and personal experience ==


 * Verifiability depends only on whether or not material has a WP:RS reliable published source. Perceived truth and personal experience are not substitutes. See the essay WP:Verifiability, not truth, which discusses the phrase, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is 'verifiability, not truth'." Potential inaccuracy of verifiable material is a WP:DUE due-weight consideration, see the essay WP:Inaccuracy.

Unscintillating (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Count Iblis
The verifiability of a text in a Wikipedia article is to what degree the average reader qualified to understand the topic, would judge the text to be consistent with what reliable sources write about the topic. Editors should aim for maximal verifiability. When personal opinion clashes with mainstream views in reliable sources, the former should be ignored. Information edited in Wikipedia is, however, not required to be verifiable. An editor interested in some topic but unfamiliar with reliable sources, is allowed to start an article based on his/her knowledge from unreliable sources (e.g. a documentary instead of peer reviewed scientific sources). Other editors can then improve the article by rewriting it from more reliable sources. Including references to sources from which the article is written, helps this process proceed smoothly and it is likely to eventually leads to an article that is manifestly based on reliable sources.

Count Iblis (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Olive
Opening paragraph:

The threshold point for inclusion of content in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth, or what an editor perceives to be accurate. Editors must make sure content can be directly supported in a reliable source, and  the reader must be able to trace content to its sources. While verification of content is the threshold or initial step in the process of identifying potential content for inclusion, verification alone does not guarantee inlcusion. Once content has been verified, Wikipedia's many other policies and guidlelines help editors determine if that content can be included in an article.

(olive (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC))

Draft by Jc3s5h
Lead section:

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Consequently our readers cannot rely on the expertise of our editors to assure the content of articles approaches the truth. One of our methods to move our content toward the truth is to set a minimum requirement that all article content must be verifiable in reliable publications.

Although well-known information that is easy to find in reliable publications need not be associated with a particular source using an inline citation, material that is a quotation, has been challenged, or is likely to be challenged must have a citation. Material that ought to have a citation but does not is regarded as original research, whether the editor who placed it in the article performed the research, or served as a conduit from someone else; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Such material should be removed immedately from biographies about living people and should either be removed from other articles, or an improvement process initiated.

Verifiablility is a minimum requirement, but does not assure inclusion. Laws, especially copyright laws and the other core content policies (No original research and Neutral point of view) work together to exclude inappropriate material, or provide a balance for one-sided material. The principles of good writing determine which allowable material is appropriate for an individual article.

Drafts comment by Andrew Lancaster
I think North's proposal above, which as he says has been developed from efforts of many people, is the best I know of at this moment. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Nuujinn
Verifiability on Wikipedia means the readers are able to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article.

Verifiability, not truth, is the fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia—nothing, such as perceived truth or personal experience, can be a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it unless it is also verifiable. But while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion--all information in Wikipedia is subject to other policies, which may preclude inclusion of material that is verifiable. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Blueboar
Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core Policy concepts. Our readers must be able to verify that the information presented in an article has been presented accurately. We achieve this by citing reliable sources that directly support the information in an article.

All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Editors should not add unverifiable material, even if they are convinced that the material is true. In this context, the initial threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth. However, Verifiability is not the only threshold for inclusion. There are other policies and guidelines that influence what information may be included in an article. The fact that information is verifiability does not guarantee its inclusion. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core policy concepts that affect content. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three.

Note that the policy requirement is for verifiability, not actual verification. It must be possible to attribute the information in a Wikipedia article to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged (see below).

Blueboar (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Mangoe
Verifiability is one of the three core policies of Wikipedia. It requires that information be attributed to a secondary source directly supporting the statement, which a reader may check against the article, and which meets standards for neutrality and reliability. Attribution is made through citation of the material the editor used as a source, especially of quotations and of material which may be or has been challenged. Such material may be removed if it lacks citation, if the cited material is found not to exist, or if the source does not support the statement made. Contentious material about living people must be removed immediately if uncited or if the citation is found to be faulty. This policy applies to all material in mainspace.

All information in Wikipedia is subject to verification. An editor's mere belief in the truth of a statement is not sufficient to justify its inclusion; a source must be provided. However, other policies also govern content, along with editorial judgement. Having a source for a statement does not guarantee that it may be included; the source must reliable, and the statement may be tested by other editors against other sources both for neutrality and accuracy. Patently inaccurate or biased material should not be included whatever the source. Editors are expected to resolve differences over the acceptability of material by consensus, according to our behavior guidelines.

Wikipedia sources statements through inline citations which appear as footnotes. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources.

Mangoe (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Bob K31416
Verifiability is the foremost requirement in Wikipedia. Information added to articles must be verifiable using only reliable sources that have been  published.

An appropriate inline citation is evidence that information is verifiable. Inline citations are required for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Suitable inline citations should refer to published reliable sources that explicitly support the information being presented. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources.

Any material that requires an inline citation but does not have a suitable one may be removed. Unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately.

Material that complies with this policy may still be removed if the material does not comply with other policies and guidelines, most notably No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Copyright.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Pesky
Pesky's ideal version can be seen here. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft by A Quest For Knowledge
''NOTE: Here's my proposal for the lede. It includes an additional section (to the body) to clarify what VnT means.'' The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.

This verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace&mdash;articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions&mdash;without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.

"Verifiability" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Neutral point of view" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

For questions about whether a particular source is reliable, see the Reliable sources noticeboard.


 * Verifiability, not truth

That we require verifiability, rather than truth, as the threshold for inclusion does not mean that Wikipedia has no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect the facts.

Wikipedia's articles are intended as an overview of the relevant literature within the field in question, a summary of current published debate. The Neutral point of view policy, another core content policy, holds that all majority and significant-minority published views be represented in articles. But sources are not infallible. They may make simple errors, or be outdated or superseded. Editorial judgment is required to decide how to use the best sources in the best way.

When there is agreement among editors that an otherwise reliable source has made an unambiguous error, simply ignore that material, and when in doubt discuss on the article talk page, or on the reliable sources noticeboard. The concept of "verifiability, not truth" does not mean that anything published by a reliable source, no matter how mistaken, must be included in Wikipedia.

Step three
Hello again, everyone, and thank you all for your policy drafts. Also, sorry to keep you waiting - gathering all the drafts took longer than I expected. So, let us move full steam ahead to step three. In this step we will be working together to summarize the feedback from the October-December 2011 RfC, and related discussions. The reason for doing this is to get as accurate a picture as possible of what the Wikipedia community thought of the past proposal, the phrase "verifiability, not truth", and about any other wordings that were proposed. The summary that we create will be of vital importance to the mediation process, as we will be basing the drafts we present in the RfC directly on our findings here.

I would like you to write a series of statements outlining a particular view held by community members, and for each statement I would like you to include how widespread the viewpoint is, and the evidence that backs the statement up. Each statement will look something like this:


 * Statement outlining opinion about WP:V
 * This opinion was shared by X number of editors out of 250 who participated in the RfC. However, Y number of editors disagreed. This evidence comes from administrator Z's closing notes, and from a direct count of the RfC.

When contributing to the summary, I would like you to keep the following points in mind:


 * The statement should be kept short, but the evidence can be as long as you like.
 * The statement should be an opinion about the policy wording, and the evidence should consist of facts.
 * Views that have the highest acceptance among the community should have highest priority for inclusion. Participants should determine the acceptance of a viewpoint both by the number of editors that expressed it, and by the strength of the arguments contained. Viewpoints held only by one or two editors, or that use exceptionally weak arguments, should be omitted.
 * Please do not add your own original analysis of any particular view. It's ok to use your judgement to say how widespread a particular view was, and who disagreed with it, but please don't add your own commentary about the view itself.
 * Participants should focus on summarizing the arguments made in the October-December 2011 RfC and accompanying discussion. Participants may also summarize more recent arguments, but these should have been discussed by a significant number of editors to justify being included.

This will be a collaborative drafting effort, very similar to writing an article, so don't include sigs, and feel free to edit each others' statements and evidence sections. Try to add content rather than delete it, but it is fine to edit others' work to make it more accurate, or to add other points of view. I encourage you to use the talk page to discuss the drafting process, especially if you disagree with another editor about what the summary should say. I will keep an eye on things to make sure discussions go smoothly. And remember that this isn't a competition - we are doing this for the good of the encyclopaedia.

Here are a few links to past discussions that you may find useful:
 * The October-December 2011 RfC
 * Closing comments by RegentsPark
 * Closing comments by Worm That Turned
 * Closing comments by HJ Mitchell

Finally, this process is somewhat of an experiment, so if you have any ideas on how it could be improved, I would be delighted to hear them. Just leave a note on the talk page and I will have a look. I've created a couple of statements myself to get you going - let me know if anything is unclear.

I am aiming to finish this step in four days, so let's say at 10:00 am (UTC) on Sunday, March 18. I'll review this in a couple of days to see if this is a realistic estimate. Good luck! — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary of community views about WP:V

 * The "verifiability, not truth" text needs clarification.
 * The 276 "support" votes out of 444 editors who commented in the RfC are a good indication that something needs to change. RegentsPark says that "at the minimum, [the phrase "verifiability, not truth"] needs clarification" in their closing comments.


 * The phrase "verifiability, not truth" is simple and powerful.
 * A significant number of oppose votes (number?) argued that the wording should be kept simple. Worm That Turned reports this in his closing comments.


 * The issue needs to be resolved, and as amicably as is possible.
 * A significant number (how many?) of respondents supported it for being a compromise, needed for this purpose, or noted that consideration even if opposing.


 * The term "not truth" correctly supports the policy because Wikipedia does not care about the truth.
 * According to oppose #1 (Maunus) of the RFC, "...wikipedia doesn't care about truth at all...". Maunus was specifically supported by Opposes #5, #7, #53, #57, #66.
 * (This position of Maunus was disputed by Jimbo Wales.)


 * The term "not truth" harms the public perception of Wikipedia as not caring about accuracy.
 * A significant number of responses had this theme.


 * VNT is a much-needed strong reinforcer and protector of the verifiability requirement. Changing it would weaken that much-needed protection against edits that are only editor opinion.
 * A significant number of responses had this theme. The most prevalent theme amongst "oppose" opinions.


 * Inside of Wikipedia "not truth" denigrates or works against efforts to provide accuracy.
 * A significant number of responses had this theme.


 * VNT is often taken to mean things (e.g. we're just "transcription monkeys") beyond the verifiability requirement, and that is a bad thing.
 * A significant number of responses had this theme.


 * VNT is often taken to mean things beyond the verifiability requirement, and that is a good thing.
 * Not widespread, but important because it is a view strongly held by some on one side of a core question.


 * Specifically against using the term "not truth" here.
 * A significant number of responses had this theme.


 * Specifically for using the term "not truth" here.
 * A significant number of responses had this theme.


 * "Threshold" is ambiguous and/or misleading and should not be used
 * A common note amongst those that participated in this secondary debate.


 * "Threshold" is fine and should be used
 * A common note amongst those that participated in this secondary debate.


 * The policy is often misinterpreted to mean verifiability guarantees inclusion, and the lede must warn against this misinterpretation
 * In the RFC, at least 10 editors express this view and at least 4 oppose mentioning this in the lede.

Thank you to everyone who helped to make the summary! I have organised the views by significance, and also by their stance on VNT, as there was a very clear divide between "pro-VNT" and "anti-VNT" views.


 * Significant pro-VNT views
 * The phrase "verifiability, not truth" is simple and powerful.
 * VNT is a much-needed strong reinforcer and protector of the verifiability requirement. Changing it would weaken that much-needed protection against edits that are only editor opinion.
 * Specifically for using the term "not truth" here.


 * Significant anti-VNT views
 * The term "not truth" harms the public perception of Wikipedia as not caring about accuracy.
 * Inside of Wikipedia "not truth" denigrates or works against efforts to provide accuracy.
 * VNT is often taken to mean things (e.g. we're just "transcription monkeys") beyond the verifiability requirement, and that is a bad thing.
 * Specifically against using the term "not truth" here.


 * Other significant views
 * The "verifiability, not truth" text needs clarification.
 * The issue needs to be resolved, and as amicably as is possible.
 * "Threshold" is ambiguous and/or misleading and should not be used
 * "Threshold" is fine and should be used


 * Minority views
 * The term "not truth" correctly supports the policy because Wikipedia does not care about the truth.
 * VNT is often taken to mean things beyond the verifiability requirement, and that is a good thing.

Going from these views to the rough contents of the drafts will be a little more of a leap than I anticipated, so I think some discussion will be required before we start step four. You can expect a post on the talk page shortly. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the last items in the first two groups are reversed. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Me, too. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, fixed it. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♫</b> 11:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Step four
It has taken a lot longer than I originally thought it would, but here we are at step four! This is where things get exciting - we are finally going to start the process of creating drafts. As you can see from the results of the straw poll, we will be working on four drafts of the policy. The rough contents of these drafts will be as follows:


 * 1) The "status quo" draft. This will include both "threshold" and "verifiability, not truth", and should be as representative as possible of the status quo that has existed on WP:V. There have been different "status quo" versions at different times, so determining the right mixture of these will be the primary task for the drafters here.
 * 2) The VnT compromise draft. This will include "verifiability, not truth", and may or may not include "threshold". Though it will retain VnT, it should be significantly different from the status quo draft, and should address as many of the concerns found in step three as is practical. This will likely be by drafters explaining the meaning and/or implications of "verifiability, not truth" in whatever way they see fit.
 * 3) The non-VnT compromise draft. This will not include "verifiability, not truth", and may or may not include "threshold". This version may contain entirely new wording, but it should still address the concept of how verifiability differs from truth should still distinguish between perceived truth and verifiability. Drafters will have considerably more freedom here than in drafts one or two.
 * 4) The all-new draft. This will be a completely new draft, and will include whatever content the drafters deem appropriate. There will be complete freedom in this draft, as long as it suitably outlines or introduces the rest of the policy page.

To create the drafts, we will divide into four work groups, each of which will create one draft use four work group pages. Here are the work group pages Here they are:


 * Group 1 - the "status quo" draft.
 * Group 2 - the VnT compromise draft.
 * Group 3 - the non-VnT compromise draft.
 * Group 4 - the all-new draft.

Please indicate which work group you will join by signing in the section below. Once you have done this, you can start to submit your drafts at the group page linked above. Editors should only edit the page for their own working group. However, if you really absolutely must, then you may comment on other groups' drafts on the relevant talk page. When choosing your work group, I recommend that you join the group that will be working on the draft that you are most interested in helping to write. There will be time in the next step to comment on other groups' drafts, and I will be around to help with any groups that need it, so there shouldn't be any need to take on a draft just because "it needs to be done". For example, if many editors wish to work on the compromise drafts or the all-new draft, then I can help to assemble the "status quo" draft.

When editing your group's page, please only add new drafts - do not edit other editors' drafts. Also, please do not include commentary on the drafting page. When you wish to discuss the drafting process, please use the work group's talk page. Editors are encouraged to use the talk page often and early, as the goal of this step is to agree on one single draft per group. Having said that, if a work group finds itself having significant problems agreeing on the wording to be used, it will be possible to simply split that group into two separate drafts. Also, if two of the groups find themselves creating drafts that are similar to each other's, then it will be possible to merge the two groups into one. There is no set process for creating drafts, other than always submitting new drafts and not editing other editors' drafts. However, if the work group members choose to, they may set a process up for themselves.

I will assist each work group as necessary. This stage might require a lot of input from me, or perhaps none at all - we will only really find out when we start drafting. Before we start, however, I would just like to remind you of ground rule number three: "Try to keep in mind that we are working together to create a proposal to present to the Wikipedia community. If you disagree about the specifics of a particular draft, do your best to find a compromise, and remember that we doing this for the good of the encylopedia." While we are discussing the drafts, let's all remember the reasons that we signed this and the reasons that this dispute came to mediation.

This stage is scheduled to run for five days, so I think I will leave it open at least until until 10:00 am (UTC) on Wednesday, March 28. After that, I will review the different discussions to see if we need to take more time. If you have any questions, then you can ask on the mediation talk page, or on my user talk page.

That's all from me for now. Happy drafting! — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 17:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify what the "the non-VnT compromise draft" is? That sort of sounds like a conflict in terms. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. It will be a compromise on the VnT issue, but it won't include the exact phrase "verifiability, not truth". The compromise will lie in explaining the concept of "verifiability, not truth", even though the exact words won't be used. It will differ from the "all-new" draft in that the all-new draft doesn't even have to mention truth at all. Does that clear things up? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 18:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. 95% say that VNT is essentially a mechanism of bolstering the verifiability requirement, essentially that it is method, not a concept; given that, then what would the "concept" of VNT be? Or did you mean "but does distinguish between perceived truth and verifiability" as Kalidasa 777 just described on the talk page? That would be good. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. I've changed the wording to make it clearer. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 02:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you want us to choose just one workgroup, or may we participate in more than one? Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It says just below, only one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Work group members
Please indicate which work group you will join by signing with four tildes in the relevant space below. You may only join one work group.


 * Group 1 - the "status quo" draft.

(pretty lonely up here.. :O)
 * (olive (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC))
 * You have lots of friends nearby. :-) North8000 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we were permitted to be in more than one group, this would have been my second. I'd be happy to comment in talk if that would help. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Group 2 - the VnT compromise draft.


 * --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Group 3 - the non-VnT compromise draft.


 * — S Marshall T/C 23:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * --BruceGrubb (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC) (But I could change groups to group 4 if there end up being not enough people in it)
 * <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC) (But I could change groups to group 4 if there end up being not enough people in it)


 * Group 4 - the all-new draft.


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jc3s5h (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A new approach
I'd like to offer my apologies to everyone. When laying out the process for step four, I thought that the problem would be keeping the level of discussion to a manageable level, and to mediate any disagreements about the proposed wordings. However, to my surprise, the amount of discussion has been very low. We have a lot less drafts than I thought there would be, and only group three have actually started to use their talk page. It's clear that we need to do something to increase the level of discussion.

So, I'm going to abandon the one-work-group limit. From now on, all mediation participants may submit drafts on all the work group pages. You may also comment on all the work group talk pages with no limitations.

Futhermore, I am instituting a new structure for commenting on drafts, as follows:


 * Each draft will have its own section for comments on the work group talk page. When commenting on drafts, editors should use the appropriate section. Comments in the wrong section, or in new sections, may be moved.
 * If possible, I would like everyone to comment on all the drafts for each group.
 * When you create a new draft, please leave your rationale for creating it on the work group talk page, in the section for that draft.
 * Also, when creating new drafts, please try and address the comments that people have left for previous drafts. By doing this we should start to home in on a consensus version. If you have a reason not to address previous comments, please explain why in your rationale.
 * If you have general comments about the drafts or about the process, please leave them on the main mediation talk page.
 * Editors should use this process for all new drafts. It is not strictly necessary to use it for drafts that have already been written, but it is encouraged, as it may help the consensus-building process.

Hopefully this system should help us progress faster than we have been doing. It seems clear to me that we will need more time for this, so I will extend the deadline for this step by three days. The new deadline is 10:00 am (UTC) on Saturday, March 31. As always, let me know if you have any questions. Regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 18:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The amount of discussion has been low: now that's a new one for us! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I've fallen behind on this. I'll post a draft version and rational  tomorrow.(olive (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC))
 * I kind of lost track too, even though I thought I was on it. North8000 (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We're getting pretty close to the current deadline for Step 4, and I'm not confident that all groups will be able to make it. On the other hand, we have pretty much incorporated what was going to be Step 5 into this step. Should we add the two days planned for Step 5 into the combined Steps 4 and 5? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I share your concerns here. The deadlines are not set in stone, however. It would be silly to enforce the deadlines strictly if some groups have still not decided on drafts and there are still useful discussions going on. It might just be that I was too optimistic when I made the mediation schedule. Having said this, I don't want things to drag on for too long. If things start slowing down appreciably, then I'll step in and get things moving. I think we should leave the current step open for another couple of days, and see if we can find one consensus draft for each group. I think that to do this, we will need to start proposing several new drafts aiming at combining the best parts of all the drafts presented so far. I'll outline this below. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 16:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Compromise drafts
Hello all, and thank you for all your hard work in submitting your drafts! We have had some very good drafts and some very useful discussions. I know that today is the last scheduled day for step four, but I think we should keep it open just a little while longer. What I was really looking for in this step was to find compromise drafts - drafts that combine the best parts of everything that you have thought of so far. There have been some attempts at creating these drafts here, I know. I am also well aware that the text of many of the drafts that have been submitted here are themselves compromise drafts, and have been discussed at great length. I think, though, that if we are to agree on a small number of drafts that we can present to the community, that we will need to go one step further. We need to do our best to find a compromise between the existing drafts in each work group.

To remedy this, I would like every mediation participant to submit at least one draft, at one work group, that includes the best points of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. It doesn't matter how small a change in wording you make - if it's a new draft that you think could be accepted as a compromise, then please submit it. If you can write more than one draft, then please do! I would like to see at least five more drafts for work groups 2, 3, and 4, so that we can have as many choices as possible when we decide what is going into the RfC. This especially goes for groups three and four, where the wording of each draft is significantly different.

So to sum up, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one new draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. I'll give you a couple of days to make these drafts, let's say until 10:00 am (UTC) on Tuesday Monday, April 2. (And no April Fools drafts please. Actually, you can if you really want to. ;) — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 17:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Whoops, just realised I said the wrong day here - I meant Monday, not Tuesday. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 11:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, I don't think I can do another one ... I like my one already, lol! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And here we have the problem. :) I know that you all like your own drafts, but this word "compromise" doesn't mean "choose what you like and argue until you get it it". It means "find a way that everyone can agree with". If we're being clever about it, this way that everyone can agree with will also use the best ideas that everyone has proposed so far. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 19:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a helpful approach. As a follow-up question, do I understand correctly that the new drafts that you request here should be made as "Draft (number whatever it is)" on each work group's page, rather than on the talk page under "General discussion"? I figure you mean it that way, with the talk page for, instead, discussing how to sort out the compromise drafts, but I just want to make sure first. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what is liked or disliked about my draft, though, so I don't know how to work on a compromise draft. I'm probably still brain-fuzzed from being post-op and full of painkillers, but it's very hard for me to move forward with what feels like insufficient feedback.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 23:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pesky, I made some comments over there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr. Stradivarius, FWIW I'm very satisfied with my Draft 0 at Group four and I would be curious how it would be received if presented in an RFC as is. I tried to alter it a little according to discussion and looking at another editor's draft, but I think the resulting Draft 3 wasn't as good as  the original. C'est la vie. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob, all of us think that the versions we wrote (for whichever work group) is the best wording ever, and all of us think that the versions that others wrote are not as good as what we came up with. If we are ever going to resolve things we must compromise... and accept something that may not be "as good" as we would like... but is "good enough". Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. I considered that. But of all my work on Wikipedia policy, I feel that Draft 0 stands out from the rest of my work. BTW, could you direct me to your draft and do you think your draft stands out from the rest of your work on Wikipedia policy? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Bob - I can totally understand how you feel here. If the compromise draft(s) end up being worse than the original, then of course you are going to want to use the original. Blueboar has explained the problem here well, and I heartily agree with his sentiment that we need to find a compromise that may not be our exact preferred version. That said, we are not going to be able to agree about everything, and it might just be that there are some things that we must leave out of the RfC. There is going to have to be a point where we make a decision to include a specific version, and I think it is unrealistic and impractical to expect every single one of us to agree on that version for all four groups. Some of the disagreements can be solved by increasing the number of drafts we include in the RfC, but this action must also be agreed upon by the participants, and that in itself is bound to be controversial. It is the nature of this process that some people will be left disappointed, and if this happens to be you, then try not to take things too hard. You will always be able to express your views in the RfC itself in some form. Although who knows, the quality of your writing in group 4 draft 0 may gather enough support that we end up choosing that over any of the compromise versions. I'm going to start the process of choosing a final draft later on tonight, so we shall have to wait and see what happens. Best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 10:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish - yes, that's what I meant. Just present it as another draft on the work group page, and discuss it on the work group talk page. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♫</b> 16:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)