Wikipedia:Verifiability standards

Verifiability is an ideal standard that is never fully attained. It is at best a matter of degree. It is relative to a particular group of readers, to individuals within that group, to the subject area in which it is considered, to a particular source, to the language of an article, to conventions, to policies, guidelines, and essays, and possibly to other considerations. It may be considered completely subjective, somewhat objective given conventions, or to be objective, but it is never absolute.

The best we can do is to make something more verifiable or less verifiable, relative to some set of standards. We can never ultimately say something is verifiable, only that it is somewhat verifiable. For example, even if a complete source is provided, one can always object that the context of the source has not been provided.

Two human targets of verifiability
There are two main classes of target audience to which Wikipedia policies and guidelines are directed. One is general readers, the other editors. For readers, verifiability can be used to help make Wikipedia more credible as an encyclopedia. For editors, verifiability can be used to improve Wikipedia. Editors should remember that Wikipedia is not just an insiders' club. Readers often lack the knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia that editors take for granted. For example, when a reader who knows that anyone can edit an article sees a citation for what they consider to be a doubtful line is in a certain script, they may throw up their hands and think the line is not verifiable, then go to another online source that they consider verifiable or to have been verified by a reliable authority. An editor may see the same citation, and use WP:V to demand a translation. Or that editor may go to a foreign language group at Wikipedia and get help with the translation. The reader may have no idea that these things are possible.

Two kinds of improvers: expanders and perfectors
There are two kinds of edits. One is a speedy expansion of content meeting minimum Verifiability standards. The other is a slow and careful edit that employs suggested standards that are more strict, but not mandated by a policy. Both are valuable and improve Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a finished project. Policies such as WP:Verify may proscriptively state minimum standards of verifiability, as well as make some suggestions for improvements of making things verifiable. This does not mean that these are the only suggestions, since a policy should not have too many instructions. An example is that it is not mandated in a policy to put quotations and translations in a footnote citing a foreign language source, in order to help readers verify the line for which citation supports. Requiring this might be a burden on the citing editor, and too many such quotes could lead to a copyright violation.

There is a constant tension between improvement of Wikipedia by quick expansion, and trying to make sources the best possible for as many readers as is practical. Editors should not get upset if other editors favor one extreme rather than the other.

Theoretical vs. practical verifiability
Verifiability is a matter of degree, and may not be possible or easy for every reader to do. At one extreme is when a secondary foreign language source is accepted as reliable but for which there is only a handful of hard copies, the entirety of which is summed up in a single sentence, so the citation has no specific page numbers. At another extreme is a stable secondary source web page with easily found supporting content in plain English. The former case may be used as a source under WP:VERIFY, but may still be practically useless as a source for most readers other than the editors who speak the language and have access to the book. WP:VERIFY says that if an editor requests a translation, then a quote and translation should be provided in the footnote or on the talk page. A problem may arise if the editors who had access to the hard copies are no longer around to provide the quote and translation. This request may also place a large burden on the original editors who no longer have the material fresh in their mind. It might have been easier to simply provide the translation and quote in the first place. On the other hand, doing this in the first place may cause an editor to get bogged down in copying text into a footnote, translating it, and then making sure Copyright violations has not been violated. This may slow down editing so much that the expansion of content is hurt.