[WikiEN-l] History of "Verifiability, not truth"

[SlimVirgin]

On 4/7/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/04/2008, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > I've been working on figuring out the history of this bit of wording,
>  >  since it's, on the surface, transparently untrue (we, in fact, do want
>  >  to provide truth as well - not necessarily big-T absolute truth, but
>  >  certainly the little-t truth that is a synonym for "accuracy" - i.e.
>  >  the word as normal people use it).
>
>
> How can we know if something is true or not? (With or without a
>  capital 't') You're into the realms of philosophy there. The best we
>  can do is show that something is verifiable. It's impossible to show
>  that it is true.
>
>
>  >  As far as I can tell, there has *never* been a consensus discussion of
>  >  the phrasing "verifiability, not truth," nor was there a discussion
>  >  about removing the statement that Wikipedia strives to be accurate
>  >  from WP:V. These changes were inserted, albeit years ago, without
>  >  discussion, and long-standing principles were pushed to the side and
>  >  minimized in favor of increasingly context-free restatements of the
>  >  changes. But I cannot find *any* evidence that the position "accuracy
>  >  is not a primary goal of Wikipedia" has ever garnered consensus.
>  >
>
> The fact that it hasn't been changed is implicit evidence of a
>  consensus. That's how consensus decision making works in the majority
>  of cases on Wikipedia - someone does something and if no-one objects,
>  it sticks.

There's a strong consensus that Wikipedia should publish only what
reliable sources have already published on a topic, so that readers
can check material for themselves. That is the key idea of the
encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is most useful as a resource in allowing readers to follow
its leads. Readers don't swallow wholesale what it says. They look up
what the Wikipedian has looked up, then they make up their own minds
about the accuracy of it.

We don't try to impose "the truth" on people, and we don't expect that
they should trust anything just because they read it in Wikipedia. All
we do is provide what we hope are the best and most appropriate
sources, and a surrounding text that sums up what good sources are
saying, in a way that we hope is readable and that makes readers want
to know more. We enable them to inform themselves.

That's the difference between us and, say, the Encyclopaedia
Britannica. We empower readers. We don't ask for their blind trust.

Sarah