Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Group 3

This is the discussion page for work group three in the verifiability mediation. Note: The previous guidelines for this page are no longer in effect. If you would like to add new threads, feel free. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

General approach for step 6
When I was going over the results for step 5, it became apparent that group 3 still has a lot to do in step 6. We have had a lot of good ideas, but we don't seem to be anywhere near finding a consensus draft, or even two or three consensus drafts. So, as I said on the main mediation page, I would like to take a step back from the drafts themselves, and discuss the general features that we would like the drafts to have. If we can agree on these features, or at least work out which bits we definitely don't agree on, then I think our task will be much easier. We can use the results of this discussion to decide what ideas we agree on, what ideas we might have to drop, and what ideas we should split into separate drafts. Here are the main themes that I noticed from the drafts and from previous discussion:


 * Whether we should differentiate between the viewpoint of the editor and the viewpoint of the reader.
 * Whether the question of what to do with inaccurate material falls outside the scope of the verifiability policy or not.
 * Whether we should include text that says objective truth should have no influence on what goes into Wikipedia.
 * Whether we should specifically mention other policies in the lede, whether we should just note that "other policies apply", or whether we should not mention anything about other policies at all.
 * Whether we should add/change sections other than the lede.

I will start a thread for each of these below. There may well be other themes that we should discuss. If you think of one, it would probably be a good idea to include it in a new thread. Finally, you are more than welcome to keep submitting new drafts to illustrate your ideas! The page protection on the drafts page has now expired, so you can go ahead and submit new drafts right now. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Viewpoints of editors and readers
Should we differentiate between the viewpoint of the editor and the reader? This was done in several of the drafts for this work group, and seemed to have a positive reception. But would it be worth doing for every draft? Please discuss. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's necessary to do this.— S Marshall T/C 08:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate material
Should we include language on what to do if material is verifiable but not accurate? For example, draft 11 contains the text "When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight." However, other drafts do not mention this at all, considering it outside the scope of the verifiability policy. Can we reach a consensus on this point? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Without having an RfC to settle this, one approach is to consider viewpoint groups:


 * WP:V is used to say that True and False are not content considerations
 * WP:V is used to say that only material that is true can be verified
 * WP:V is not in the truth business
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Verifiable but not accurate" is clearly a big issue for several participants in this mediation. In the recent straw-poll, someone actually spoke of being in the "accuracy camp", IIRC. For myself, I'm not entirely either in that camp or outside it. I think the issue of inaccurate information does need to be mentioned; but not in a way which encourages editors to purge WP articles of anything and everything they think might be inaccurate. The essay WP:Inaccuracy makes valid points, and it should be linked to, but it should be not placed on a par with core policies unless and until it gets adopted as such. That is the balance I tried to strike in draft 11.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's necessary to include this.— S Marshall T/C 08:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean you don't see why it's necessary to say anything about accuracy/inaccuracy? Or that you don't see why it's necessary to include the text from draft 11 quoted by Stradivarious? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably pretty obvious that I think something needs to be included about apparently "verifiable" but in reality inaccurate or outdated material. I know this has been a bugbear for several editors, with others saying "Oh, but it's verifiable!  Look it was published here!" [in this decades-old publication which has since been debunked, or some recent thing which simply quotes the debunked one].  Those people are citing WP:V as a reason to include material which is (proven) wrong, and I think we need to ensure that they know that WP:V doesn't give them an excuse for doing it.  Pesky  (talk ) 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it can give them an excuse for doing it; some misconceptions from old publications do warrant inclusion, if only to explain that they no longer obtain. For example, our article on Pluto mentions that Pluto was classed as a planet until quite recently (it's actually the second sentence of the lede).  It's important that we have the chance to explain when a source has been superseded, because Wikipedia's actually quite good at following recent scientific developments and in many cases may well be more up to date than our readers' print sources.  I don't think we could write a brief, pithy, one-size-fits-all policy about how to deal with sourced but false content.  We probably do have the capacity to write a longer, more nuanced treatment that covers all the angles, but such a thing should start its life as an essay or guideline and be refined over time before it can be imported into WP:V and thereby become policy.— S Marshall  T/C 23:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I (and others, I'm sure) have no objection to debunked stuff being included with / to point out that it's no longer "current wisdom". It's the problem where people put up debunked stuff, stating that it's true, current, whatever, and backing it up by saying it's "verifiable", that's a problem.  I know you know what I mean in this bit, I'm just not expressing it well!  It's not 5am here yet, and I got woken by pain (and am, hence, now editing under the influence of painkillers!)  Pesky  (talk ) 03:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 13
Draft 13 clarifies the original intent of WP:V that WP:V is silent regarding verifiable and inaccurate material. Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do WP editors look to WP:V for guidance on what to do about verifiable but possibly inaccurate material? If the answer to this question were "no", then the new draft section about scope would be pointless. On the other hand, if it's "yes", then the new draft section does very little to help these editors find what they are looking for. It almost reminds me of Monty Python: "Rule 6: There is no Rule 6." So I think Blueboar's other suggestion was better - the policy should make the effort to say something real about verifiable but inaccurate content. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a good question to put to the community in the RfC - see the new sub-section I started on the main mediation talk for my thoughts. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 14
I tweaked it. Not a finalised wossname, of course, just a suggested tweak. Pesky (talk ) 08:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a couple of more related texts,
 * Do not create hoaxes
 * Verifiable but not false


 * First of all, I like the text change between 13 and 14, that now being, "The accuracy or inaccuracy of verifiable material is outside of the scope of this policy."


 * But I'm wondering if it makes sense to say that the policy is silent on an issue and then include a directory of references. I have a middle ground to propose, which is to include the related material in the Rationale that is to be included with the proposal at the RfC.  Mr. Stradivarius doesn't want us publishing proposed Rationales until step 7, but that doesn't mean that we can't talk about what they would be here.  I'd also be in favor of including a formal proposal that if the Draft is accepted at the RfC, that the Rationale will be published on a Wikipedia Project Page, for example, at WP:V/Rationale, with WP:V/Rationale being prominently noted at WP:V.  Of course, if this seems too complicated, we can also talk about using footnotes for the references regarding inaccurate material.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Objective truth
Related to the previous section, some of the drafts use wording that implies that any belief that editors have about what is true is irrelevant for determining what goes in Wikipedia. For example, draft 0 contains the text "whether editors personally believe information to be true or false should never determine Wikipedia content." However, this idea has been disputed by some editors. In other drafts this is expressed differently. For example, draft 6 uses the text "No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable." How would it be best to word this concept? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is hardly any connection between the two. The later is a long-standing and popular policy, one that is poorly written as VnT.  The first IMO is a misreading of VnT that is why we are here, to get rid of that misunderstanding.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the text in draft 0 because it is a simple and strong expression of the distinction between verifiability and perceived truth. It does not say that verifiable material can never be deleted. It does say that verifiable material shouldn't be deleted simply because an editor suspects or believes that the source is objectively wrong. If I've added something verifiable to an article, and you want to delete it because you think it's false, then I want to know why you think it's false. If you have another verifiable source of information that contradicts my source, fine – we can discuss what the different sources say, and how much weight each of them should get. But if it is just a matter of your personal opinion, or your personal OR, then sorry, but I don't see how that gives you the right to delete.


 * I'd agree, though, that the draft 0 wording could be tweaked a little. As it stands, it could conceivably be taken to mean that an editor who suspects the accuracy of a verifiable statement is expected to do nothing at all. No, you don't have to just do nothing – you can first check the source, then check other verifiable sources, and then have the sort of discussion I've just mentioned. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

IMHO this would be a horrible addition, outside of the scope of wp:ver, and a step backwards. Once the material has met the verifiability requirement, wp:ver should step aside and leave it to other policies, guidelines and considerations to determine content. Something in wp:ver that a person can use to say that accuracy is an illegitimate topic for discussion would be terrible, a step backwards, and unrelated to verifiability. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What is or isn't a step backward depends very much on where you want to go... I agree completely with North that accuracy should be a legitimate topic for discussion. A crucial question, however, is what, if any, policies or principles apply to discussions about removing inaccurate material -- i.e. material that someone considers inaccurate. I am discussing this question with North, BeCriticial and Unscintillating in the general talk page of this mediation, under the heading "Accuracy". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning other policies
I have noticed three different approaches as to how we mention other policies in the drafts. The first approach is to explicitly mention the other core content policies, and maybe the copyright policy, and link to them right there in the lede. The second is to just mention that other policies affect material on Wikipedia, not just the verifiability policy. The third is to not mention any other policies in the lede at all. Which approach is the 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> 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is where we have gotten into trouble with scope creep. Unless the issue is connected to VnT, I suspect that we should use what is in the current lede.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think other policies should be mentioned, and mentioned by name. To say that verifiability is not a guarantee of inclusion because "other policies apply" is right in principle, but when I put myself in the shoes of a newcomer to WP policy pages, I find it vague, unhelpful, and almost intimidating. I feel like I'm being told: "If it's not verifiable, don't put it in. On the other hand, tf it is verifiable, you probably shouldn't bother to put it in anyway, because we have lots of other excuses to pull it out again." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but why does this point need to go to RfC? Unscintillating (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a symmetry within the major policy pages. WP:NOR: "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.  WP:NPOV:  "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" 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.  This is why WP:V contains the counterpart sentence.  The bit about copyright was added at my insistence in the wake of the Rlevse incident (you may recall that Rlevse had understood WP:V to mean that he had to closely paraphrase the sources).— S Marshall  T/C 08:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm all for other policies being mentioned by name, with links (looking at it from the clarity-for-Aspie/autie people view). There's no point saying "other policies apply" and leaving people to try and work out which ones, and how they apply.  This has to be clear.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding or changing sections
Many of the drafts add new sections to the policy, or change existing sections other than the lede - notably drafts 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and group 4 drafts 1, 2, and 5. Is this worth doing? What are the advantages of doing this? Would there be any problems with it? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I don't see a problem with adding new sections other than the lede, or editing existing sections, in the interests of keeping the lede itself as simple and straightforward as possible. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The style guide for articles recommends that material in the lede should not be unique to the lede. I have recommended that editors strongly consider following the style of the last RfC in adding a section for the VnT issues.  That style received well over 60% approval at the last RfC.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kalidasa 777 about that, but I also feel that including many short sections destroys the flow and complexifies the structure of the policy, and is therefore to be avoided. I would like to restrict any proliferation of sections to the minimum that's compatible with keeping the lede simple and straightforward.— S Marshall  T/C 08:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kalidasa and S Marshall; by all means let's make things as clear as we possibly can in the main page, but without over-cluttering the lede. After all, this is a policy page, not an article ... I think, where possible, we should incorporate further clarity into existing sections.  It's possible we may need to re-think some section headings so that they can include more clarity, without increasing the number of actual sections, if you know what I mean.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Example of what we are trying to fix
I think it is time to revive a prime example (Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence/Archive_1) of why VnT needs to either be explained better or nuked from orbit.

In Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15 I presented this arguement:

[blockquote]I found the phrase "conspiracy theory" in History of the United States from the compromise of 1850 copyright 1895 in New York, Harper which shows whoever is claiming the 1906 date needs to go back and do a little better research.

And that is not the end of it. "Such a view of the case, if it were generally entertained, would have an important bearing on the conspiracy theory." (Ellis Thompson, Wharton Barker The American: a national journal: Volumes 19-20 May 10, 1890 Page 67)

"There is more and more doubt of the conspiracy theory. None of the Cabinet officers approve it, and the President himself does not believe in it." (McCabe, James Dabney (1881) Our martyred President ...: The life and public services of Gen. James A Garfield pg 556)

"It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Eeade, and the precautionary measure suggested by Dr. Sankey of using a padded waistcoat in recent cases of mania with general paralysis..." The Journal of mental science: Volume 16 Association of Medical Officers of Asylums and Hospitals for the Insane (London, England), Medico-psychological Association of Great Britain and Ireland, Royal Medico-psychological Association (1871)--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC) [/blockquote]

Instead of a nice reasonable NPOV talk we got these pieces of nonsense:

"1 Looking for sources using the phrase "conspiracy theory" is indisputably original research, and we simply don't publish our own work here.

2 A convincing case has been made that the reference to 1909 comes from a source that is not necessarily reliable.

3 In the face an unreliable source making an extraordinary claim (one we have disproved), we have every reason to remove the unreliable information and make no further mention of it until such time as we can find a reliable source." Rklawton (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Maybe the author of the source cited is in error, but correcting sources is not within the scope of the Wikipedia project. The source was published and vetted by the Oxford University Press, so it is certainly a reliable source. This is another one of those instances in which "verifiability, not truth" is what matters for Wikipedia. It can be verified that the author claims that the first recorded use was from 1909, whether or not his claim is accurate. In this case, it looks like you're correct that the phrase appears in earlier publications, but it's beyond us to counter the author's claim because doing so would be original research." (John Shandy` • talk 04:52, 8 September 2011)

"So it seem to me we have two choices, either to remove that particular bit or to see if we can work in the material without violating OR. The former is not particularly attractive and the latter would be difficult as some of the sources BruceGrubb has found are primary sources, and I'm not sure that the secondary sources are about conspiracy theories per se but may be passing mentions. Do any of these source appear usable to others?" (Nuujinn (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2011)

"User BruceGrubb is for example arguing that we have to remove a statement by a recognized professional making a claim about the first usage of the word, because he himself has found an earlier usage. I say if the statement is significant we include it attributed to its source, regardless of whether BruceGrubb's or another editors original research suggest that the statement may be factually incorrect. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)" — (Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/RfC)

Here we see the totally off the wall accuracy be damned mentality VnT as it currently exists can produce.

Rklawton's comment as I said before make no blasted sense but it typical of the whole VnT nonsense. WP:OR clearly states "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Clearly looking for a source that shows the term "conspiracy theory" existed before 1909 cannot in any sane rational manner be called original research. But it is clear thanks to the poor way VnT is explained there are editors that believe this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. Quoting earlier sources using the phrase is not original research any more than looking for any sources for anything in any article is original research.  The correct approach is to say something along the lines of "Source X stated that [blah, blah, blah, with ref); however source Y used it on [n date] {quote, with ref}, source z used in on [n1 date] [quote, with ref}, etc. etc."  Your entire edit is then factual, NPOV, and verifiable (in that people can themselves go and check your sources and verify that what you said was accurate and those people did indeed use that phrase on those dates). That is not "original research".  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 05:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 15
This one is based on Draft 11 with the following changes:
 * A sentence which drew objections has been amended and made into two sentences. The sentence used to read: "Because Wikipedia does not publish original research, whether editors personally believe information to be true or false should never determine Wikipedia content." The new draft says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs of its editors."
 * There is a new section about what to do with clear-cut inaccuracies. It is based on a suggestion made by Blueboar in the General Talk Page of this mediation, about what could be said about resolving these cases thru discussion and consensus. I have added a sentence that says the discussion should be focussed on published sources rather than our own opinions.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think if that's combined with all the links I've put into the draft 14,(When experts disagree, Conflict between sources, and Due weight)  that should be clear enough for all of us (remembering that Autism-spectrum people are likely to look at the "not here" bit and then get stumped as to where to go next for the information).  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your draft also mentions the essay Content removal, and in Group 2 Draft 8 I mention Editing policy. Unscintillating (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. good point ... I was half-asleep earlier! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 16
The same as Draft 15, except that now has a footnote which contains all the links from Draft 14, and also the one from Group 2 Draft 8. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC) - with the "In Wikipedia" (or "On Wikipedia") addition as suggested by S Marshall. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 14:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both drafts 15 and 16 begin with a jarring definition of "Verifiability". Readers will look at it and go, "But that's not what verifiability means".  In its natural meaning, verifiability means truth (which is part of the problem here).  Policy drafts should begin with the words to the effect of, "On Wikipedia this is what verifiability means".  Drafts in this section should also contain language in the lede that compares and contrasts "verifiability" and "truth".  (Drafts that don't do this belong in Group 4.)— S Marshall  T/C 08:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "In Wikipedia" or "On Wikipedia" would be a good addition. Regarding S.Marshall's other point, drafts 15 and 16 actually do already contain a paragraph in the lede that contrasts "verifiability" with "perceived truth", and that paragraph has a footnote with the very words "verifiability, not truth". I would agree that this paragraph could be moved closer to the top.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 17
Same as draft 16, except that again :D Would it be acceptable to do a minor tweak and italicise "substitute"? Like this? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * begins with "In Wikipedia..."
 * paragraph contrasting verifiability with perceived truth is nearer the top
 * reword of paragraph about clear-cut inaccuracies, based on points raised at Group 2 talk page. It now says: "it is usually best not to...", rather than simply "do not". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs of its editors. Neither perceived truth nor personal experience is a substitute for verifiability."


 * I'm not a fan of "Neither perceived truth nor personal experience is a substitute for verifiability" at all, and I've always preferred the less convoluted, plainer phrasing: " It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it." I would also prefer it if the sentence that explicitly refers readers to how to cite sources were restored.— S Marshall  T/C 14:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yuh, that works, too. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 14:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you-all/we agree that saying in WP:V that material must be true is a major change in the WP:V policy? Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That phrasing doesn't say that material must be true.— S Marshall T/C 06:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it as saying that, either ... <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 18
Basically identical to 17 except that it has S Marshall's bit " It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it" instead of the other one. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 19
Keeps " It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it", but adds to the previous sentence a contrast between previously published information and editors' personal experience. Also replaced the wording "readers and editors" with "people reading and editing the encyclopedia". To avoid suggesting that editors are a separate breed... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this. I'd like it even more if we could restore the words "For how to write citations, see Citing sources" into the correct place in the third paragraph, because it's helpful to show editors how to find instructions on how to comply.  But both drafts 18 and 19 are within my personal comfort zone.— S Marshall  T/C 11:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this, too. It does have the link to citing sources in it (as inline citation), so anyone could be pointed to that link if they haven't already clicked on it.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 13:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, restoring the words about how to write citations would be helpful to editors. Regarding the words: " It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it" -- I like the directness of this wording. But maybe Unscintillating has a point -- the first sentence could be read as meaning that being true is a prerequisite -- a necessary condition though not a sufficient one. Which would be problematic... clear-cut inaccuracy is one thing, true beyond reasonable doubt is another, but there is a huge grey area in between... Is there a way of keeping the directness of the wording, while avoiding this problematic part? For instance "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to substituting that wording.— S Marshall T/C 22:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * , with the substituted wording. Note: I prefer this to 20 and 21; I think three separate footnotes are easier for A-spectrum editors than one footnote.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 20
This revision of draft 14 includes a new feature which is a diff of the proposed change to the policy page. In this draft I've added all of the list of related policies and essays as a footnote. Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That draft includes the words "verifiability and not truth". Do we feel that it belongs in group 3?  I personally have a strong preference for drafts 2, 18 or 19 over this.— S Marshall  T/C 07:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? Did it change while I wasn't looking?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 21
Same as 19, except that 1. It now includes the words "For how to write citations, see Citing sources." 2. It says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." instead of "It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it" 3. The words "previous published", which in Draft 19 were repeated, now occur just once, but in bold print. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I now like this one best! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Finding agreement
Hello everyone, and thank you for your continued hard work in making drafts. I have left this group to its own devices for perhaps a little too long, so I thought I should come by and comment. I am pleasantly surprised to see that we appear to be almost in agreement. I see two major factions in the latest drafts: drafts 15-19 & 21, by Kalidasa, S Marshall, and Pesky; and drafts 13-14 & 20, by Unscintillating. I think we have enough agreement within these factions that we can discuss these drafts with the other editors in the mediation.

Before we do that, though, we need to work out what to do with the extra sections. All of these latest drafts contain new proposed sections for the policy - the "Clear-cut inaccuracy" sections in drafts 15-19 & 21 and the "Scope" sections in drafts 13-14 & 20. As you all should be well-aware, there is now a discussion at WT:V about the possibility of including a new section about accuracy in the Verifiability policy. I think that it would be simplest and neatest to leave discussion about possible new sections to WT:V, and to concentrate purely on the lede in this mediation. There is also an element of the "cat being out of the bag" here - the discussion about having a new accuracy section is going on at WT:V now whether we like it or not, so it makes sense (to me) to deal with new sections there, rather than attempt to force the discussion back to the mediation pages.

So, here is my suggestion: we strip the suggestions for new sections from each of the drafts, leaving just the ledes, and we choose one draft from each faction to present for comment to the other editors at the mediation. Based on those comments, we can choose to either tweak the drafts a little more, or just put them straight into the RfC.

For the drafts 15-19 & 21 faction: I would like you to work which of the drafts you find to be the most acceptable compromise. This could be one of the existing ones, or a new one that looks similar to the existing ones. It looks like all the major disagreements have been ironed out already, so I don't think this should be too hard.

I think the drafts 13-14 & 20 faction requires a little more thought. As S Marshall notes, these drafts contain the words "verifiability, not truth", so they would seem to belong in group two rather than group three. Unscintillating, would you say that these drafts are different enough from the group two drafts that they should be presented separately at the RfC? I wonder if they could be combined with the group two drafts in a way that is acceptable to you. If not, we can see if there is agreement among the other mediation participants to submit it as a separate draft. Or, if you prefer, we could submit draft 6 (minus the new sections) as one of the RfC drafts, as I imagine that you prefer that one over drafts 13-14 & 20. Let me know what you think.

And of course, if you spot any glaring issues with my logic, please let me know, and we can try to work things out. I do tend to be quite vague sometimes, so feel free to ask me anything necessary to make things clear. 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> 02:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To find where Draft 20 mentions "verifiability, not truth", it is necessary to open the "proposed new policy page" diff and scan down to the "See also" section, where the essay is mentioned. Not a single time during this entire mediation has this essay been mentioned until now.  By default it exists in every Draft made in this entire mediation.  The only reason that it is possible to find this mention in Draft 20 is because I have gone the extra mile to let editors understand the full context of the proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The only mention of VnT in Draft 13 (and by inference Draft 14) is as the three letters "VnT" as a part of the Rationale. Since the Rationale was ruled out of order pending Step 7, it doesn't make sense to analyze three letters in a out-of-order Rationale and define those three letters to be the phrase, "verifiability, not truth".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Has there been a decision to change the scope of this project to work on the lede? What has become of the "under discussion" tag project?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we are not understanding each other correctly about this. I opened the permanent link to the proposed policy text of draft 20 that you provided, and the third sentence of the lede is "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." Therefore I regarded draft 20 as including the phrase "verifiability, not truth". (I don't regard the "and" as being of any significance.) That is, even though the phrase "verifiability, and not truth" is not included in the text that you wrote for draft 20, after we have finished carrying out the instructions in your draft, the words "verifiability, and not truth" would be there in the lede. And because the words "verifiability, and not truth" would be there in the lede, I would consider this draft to fall under the remit of group two, not group three. The same goes for drafts 13 and 14. The phrase "verifiability, and not truth" isn't in the text you wrote for the draft, but this phrase would be in the policy after we applied your changes. Does this make my reasoning clearer? Also, I have to go right now, but I will deal with the last two questions in your post later on. 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> 06:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the difference between VnT and VANT, the two have different names for a reason. Also, it is a strength of this proposal that it solves the problem with VnT, VANT, or neither.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm back. About your last question of whether the scope of this mediation has changed - it hasn't. This mediation has had the goal of rewriting the lede of the verifiability policy from the very start. Let me quote from my mediation overview way back on February 29:
 * 'So, let me outline my main ideas for this mediation. I am of the opinion that any attempt to address the tagging issue without addressing the wider issue of the "verifiability, not truth" wording will be unproductive. Therefore, this mediation will address the more general issue of how to word the introduction of the verifiability policy.'
 * Maybe this was unclear, and if it was, I apologise. I meant that we would be working on drafts of the introduction of the verifiability policy to present to the community in an RfC. Having said this, at that time I wasn't sure exactly how we would be making the drafts. This became more clear after the straw poll in step three, as you will remember I closed as a rough consensus to include four drafts in the RfC. However, we were, and still are, working on the drafts with the aim of solving the issue over whether/how to include "verifiability, not truth" in the verifiability policy text, and by extension solving the "under discussion" tag issue. I am a little unclear about how you think this mediation is changing scope from this goal. Could you explain the reason you think it is changing scope? Thanks — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 10:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the rollout phase of the mediation, the mediator mentions modifications to the introduction, but nothing there requires re-writes of the entire introduction. Nor should reasonable people assume that the mediator wouldn't consider good solutions that solve the problem(s) with writing outside of the introduction, in fact, the formatting of the drafts allows footnotes.  It has taken until April 21 for the mediator to rule that drafts with new sections are to be excluded from consideration at this mediation.  It is not clear why footnotes are "simple and neat", but new sections on the policy page are not.  Meanwhile, restricting the writing to the entire lede, is not the same as restricting the writing to the lede.


 * At Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability, I asked, And then I added, upon request for clarification,
 * The moderator replies,


 * It has only taken from 1 April 2012 to 23 April 2012 to again be saying, "Unless we know why we are re-writing the entire lede, we may be "condemned to repeat the past" going forward." Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha, so this is about the possibility of repeating old mistakes. You have a very good point. Actually, we will discuss this as part of step 7. Step 7 will determine how we use these drafts in the RfC, and it will also determine what questions about general principles we will ask (as well as other possible questions). From what I have seen, your concern is one that will be best raised while talking about step 7, rather than in the details of any drafts that we present. I think it would be fair to have an entire separate question in the RfC about scope, for example. (See my post 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> 13:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Of drafts 18, 19 and 21, I do not mind which is eventually chosen and there is no need for me to express a preference. Whichever Pesky and Kalidasa prefer may be used.— S Marshall  T/C 12:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Skipping to the chase, I think that the "Scope" solution, without any essays, remains viable at RfC as the simplest solution we have. Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, then why don't we just do that? We can include a question about the "scope" solution in the RfC, and in step 7 we can work out exactly how we can include it. Does that sound fair to you? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 13:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not following how Step 7 is going to accomplish all of this, but I appreciate that you've allowed more time for deliberation. I've added a new draft at Group 2 Draft 10.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Scope" thing; I think this link should go into the footnotes bit with the others. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In step 7 we will work out how to include the drafts in the RfC - what rationales we use, what formatting we use, what questions we ask about them, and possibly other things that we think of. We will also agree on what other questions to include. These could be questions about other sections, questions about accuracy, questions about what the community thinks "verifiability, not truth" means, or questions about other things. From my way of thinking, talking about a "scope" section would be a perfect subject of discussion for step 7, but less suited to step 6 where we are restricted to making drafts of the policy lede. Step 7 is going to be the most important step in many ways, because the structure of the RfC will have big implications for the type of responses that we get from the community; this in turn will have an impact on the result. So step 7 is actually a big thing. It won't be just a case of providing rationales, asking a question and then submitting the RfC; step 7 will require a lot of discussion and careful thought to make sure that we structure the RfC in the best possible way. I really do intend to accomplish a lot in step 7. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 18:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make a suggestion, that, when we discuss inclusion of questions about various things other than the choice amongst drafts, we give some thought to what the possible outcomes would be, in terms of specific courses of action. In other words, if we ask a question about accuracy (just to pick one example, rather arbitrarily), we should anticipate that the possible outcomes are that the community thinks either "x", "y", or "z", and there will be a specific action to be taken with respect to the policy (or further work on revising the policy) that would result from each of those possible answers. Not just, let's ask about this and see what the community thinks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I like 21 best of these. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just put up a Draft 22, which is exactly the same wording as Draft 21, except without the section about inaccuracy. As Strad mentioned the idea of an section about inaccuracy has become the topic of a discussion on the WP:V talk page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, so long as we can get that extra section onto the page somewhere! (And even if we can't, it's kinda acceptable). <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Group 2 Draft 10
Group 2 Draft 10 is the draft subsequent to Group 3 Draft 20. It is moved to Group 2 because of a disputed objection that the phrase, "Verifiability, and not truth" is not significantly different than "Verifiability, not truth". Since S Marshall both made the initial objection, and is the editor that made the change to WP:V that added the word "and", I'd be interested to hear his viewpoint regarding the idea that the change he made to WP:V was not significant. Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)