[WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Wed, 11/5/11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> A while ago there was a discussion at WP:V talk whether we
> should 
> recast the policy's opening sentence:
> 
> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability,
> not truth—
> whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has
> already been 
> published by a reliable source, not whether editors think
> it is true."
> 
> (As usual, the discussion came to nought.) That sentence --
> whose 
> provocative formulation has served Wikipedia well in
> keeping out original 
> research -- is a big part of the problem.
> 
> A.


Here is how this can play out in practice. This case has been discussed
for the past few days on Jimbo's talk page.

A tabloid accused a minor TV personality of cheating on his wife:

http://mail-on-sunday.vlex.co.uk/vid/romeo-strolling-aficionado-bewitching-68703787#ixzz1LbDAtzox

Two years later, the Telegraph states that the report was the result of 
poison penmanship, and that the originator, who first posted the false claim
on Wikipedia, has since apologised.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8498981/Mayfair-art-dealer-Mark-Weiss-in-disgrace-after-admitting-poison-pen-campaign-against-rival-Philip-Mould.html

"For two years the subject fought to save his reputation, and his marriage, 
as false allegations of infidelity and financial problems were planted in 
newspapers and on the internet by an unidentified enemy. ... It began with 
alterations to his online Wikipedia entry ... After one Sunday newspaper ran 
the story, Mr Mould’s wife Catherine temporarily left him."

What happened in Wikipedia was that the editor trying to remove the spurious
material was accused of conflict of interest, and of removing referenced
material in contravention of WP:COI and WP:V policy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_Mould&diff=prev&oldid=319397169

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emmahenderson

What should have happened in Wikipedia is that the fact that the subject's
alleged infidelity was only reported in the Daily Mail, well known for its
tabloid journalism and frequent inaccuracies, should have set off an alarm
bell. Rather than being defended on the basis of WP:V, the material should 
never have been admitted.

Our much-quoted "verifiability, not truth" mantra is partly to blame here.

As long as we instruct editors, in policy, that --

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is *verifiability, not truth*—
whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been 
published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

we are teaching them a lazy and irresponsible mindset where they no longer 
have to think about the merits and real-life consequences of adding a 
particular bit of content. They can switch their minds off and simply 
respond mechanically: 

"It's been published, therefore having the content is good. Anyone 
deleting it is a bad person. Even if it's untrue, it doesn't matter, because 
my job is simply to ensure that Wikipedia repeats whatever has been published."

Life requires a bit more intelligence.

Given that Wikipedia will come up as a person's first Google hit, and has
a huge echo chamber effect, it's irresponsible to tell editors that truth
does not matter. 

The point about OR can be made without denigrating truth, and absolving 
ourselves of any editorial responsibility, especially when it comes to
salacious stories about living people's private lives.

A.