Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/V FS Archive 46

Truth ?
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is accurately stated, but misinterpreted in secondary sources (like the ever-misquoting press) as saying "The threshold in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", referring to both inclusion and deletion. WP:Commonsense, which is only an essay, not a policy, (or the scary IAR policy invocation) may use a truth threshold for deletion that is stronger than V policy, especially re BLP and MEDRS. PPdd (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am new to Wikipedia and a bit confused. Does verifiability mean that if someone can find a source for a truth-claim, then they can cite the source, and thus, the truth-claim becomes "true" for Wikipedia? For example, if I say, "all dogs are brown," and I have a source for that, is my truth-claim valid?  Also, what about historical sources.  If a primary-source historian writes something as true, can I cite that? For example, can I cite Herodotus as saying that the Babylonians were skillful fighters and put in the article? (I don't know if Herodotus made a similar truth-claim, but just for the sake of argument.)  The reason I am concerned with this is that anyone could cite anything as true, even though it may not be true. Any responses would be much appreciated.--Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent question - the other half of "verifiable" is "reliable". So yes, if it's both verifiable and reliable, you can cite it - even if it turns out to not be "true". However, "truth" and "reliable" correlate closely. If a source provides bad information, editors will quickly label it "unreliable" and... problem solved. We use V & RS as our gold standard to filter out cranks. It also filters out legitimate researches who want to publish their works here first, but since that's not really how academic research gets done, that's not much of a problem (except for a few genuine experts who've had their noses severely tweaked by high school editors following these rules). Rklawton (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to the smaller / longer-discussed proposal
[continued from Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_44]

Ludwig2, again you do brilliant work, but I would like to still deal with the much smaller proposal of the discussions which, recapping, is:

replace the entire first (one sentence) paragraph with:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. No other consideration, such as assertions of truth, is a substitute for verifiability."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * well, ok, but the problem with that particular line is that it doesn't make it clear what relation people should have to truth. I can see people following this kind of logic: "sure, assertions of truth are not a substitute for verifiability.  but assertions of truth are 'right' and so therefore have their own value  and place on project." We have to get something in here that dispels the idea that the project is aiming to express truth, but instead uses verifiability to ensure accuracy.  do you see what I mean?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with you 100%. (actually 1000%).   Right now this is only in the higher level Wikimedia statements, and wp:ver is merely a means to that end. WP:ver CAN semi-successfully be and is myopic of the bigger picture.  You are proposing to change / fix that 100% which is huge. What I'm promoting only fixes that 1%, that 1% went a long time in discussion here without dissent, and even then got reverted when I put it in.  Gotta start somewhere.  North8000 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As a thought: Accuracy on Wikipedia is objective and is determined per  sources, while truth is subjective. When using sources to illustrate truth one is actually creating OR because the editor and his opinions are manipulating the sources to an end "statement". I think one of the hardest things for a new editor is to understand that an encyclopedia is  not a research paper,  but is a compilation of information. Information by definition has to be found somewhere rather than newly created. Weight is an incredibly important aspect of Wikipedia since it helps determine the  the importance/significance of the sources. By determining their weight to the whole subject area  accuracy of the article is determined. As an aside editors quite often use weight when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't possibly because its a kind of second tier. Threshold for inclusion doesn't mean everything can be included just that the basic standard has been met then weight comes into play. Probably what is needed is a chart to set this down... a picture is worth a thousand words...yadyadyada..:o)


 * Actually the Policy as it is worded now does not define verifiability and its connection to what an encyclopedia is. It starts right in with verifiable as a descriptor of something else - sources.


 * Just brainstorming with this version. Not attached in anyway.(olive (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Overall I think that yours is better.  But structurally I think we need to get in there that no other consideration is a substitute. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Making charts... you must be an academic - lol.  The difficulty with this is that saying "An assertion of truth, a subjective consideration" is likely to confuse vast ranges of people who don't see truth as subjective at all.  The whole 'truth' thing is such an ugly red herring...  how about replacing the last line with something like "Wikipedia editors should not write articles from the perspective of what they know to be true, no matter how well founded their knowledge is, but should restrict themselves to information that can be found by anyone."  -- Ludwigs 2  03:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The word truth shouldn't be used because of its diverse relationship to multiple philosophical positions/theories/meanings... very red herring ish. Your wording is an improvement over mine... I'm not sure about "know to be true" another red herring, maybe "think to be true" would be better, and "found by anyone" reads well, but does't take into account sources that are only available to some editors. Maybe that's not a concern.(olive (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC))


 * I like the first sentence  as-is  &mdash; with the bolding for emphasis, and with the placement to stand alone as a first paragraph. Clarifications are best left for later. Wishy-washiness and weaseling should be left out.


 * Also, saying that editors should restrict themselves to information that is easily found would be to back off of longstanding policy. Ease of verifiability is a plus, evan a big plus, but is only a plus. I say this as an editor who lives on and is writing this from a small island having no libraries located in a country having few libraries; "verifiable" for me is restricted to what I have on my bookshelf or can access online. Having said that, I'll also say that ease of verifiability is not and should not be a requirement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your thoughts on "easily found", but I believe that is not an issue because I don't think that it is in any of the proposals. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [WP:Editing policy] states, "...on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information—Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable." RB  66.217.117.98 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)