From: Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com
Obviously [[WP:V]] and (to a lesser extent) [[WP:RS]] are absolutely
vital policies that cannot be discarded. On the other hand, in their current form they are abominations that fundamentally undermine key aspects of Wikipedia's mission.
I'd like to thank Phil for his unusually thoughtful posting. I'm not sure that I agree with all of it, but there is one point that I want to emphasise.
- They actively encourage removal of material that is accurate
Admittedly, our standard for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth." We ought not, however, fall into the trap of deciding that we are therefore against truth. Our goal is to offer the sum total of human knowledge. If information is true and significant, we ought be trying to find a way to get it in.
Hear! Hear! The problem with the current policy, starting with that appalling slogan "verifiability, not truth" is that it presents verifiability and truth as alternatives. What on Earth are we doing here if we don't care whether our articles are true or not? (Before you tell me that we do care, please find a statement to that effect on [[WP:V]].) Why can't we have verifiability AND truth?
What the policy should say FIRST (in my humble opinion) is that we at Wikipedia would love to have the most accurate and complete encyclopedia in the galaxy. That's the AIM. Then it should say, SECOND, that the task of approaching that aim is constrained by the proven need to avoid certain serious problems (personal research, material from dubious or unknown sources, etc) and therefore we have established policies on which sources of information can be cited, and guidelines on ranking of sources. Then those policies and guidelines can be explained.
I suggest that rewriting the policy in this fashion would avoid the impression that in order to embrace verifiability we rejected truth.
Zero.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 9/18/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com
Obviously [[WP:V]] and (to a lesser extent) [[WP:RS]] are absolutely
vital policies that cannot be discarded. On the other hand, in their current form they are abominations that fundamentally undermine key aspects of Wikipedia's mission.
I'd like to thank Phil for his unusually thoughtful posting. I'm not sure that I agree with all of it, but there is one point that I want to emphasise.
- They actively encourage removal of material that is accurate
Admittedly, our standard for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth." We ought not, however, fall into the trap of deciding that we are therefore against truth. Our goal is to offer the sum total of human knowledge. If information is true and significant, we ought be trying to find a way to get it in.
Hear! Hear! The problem with the current policy, starting with that appalling slogan "verifiability, not truth" is that it presents verifiability and truth as alternatives. What on Earth are we doing here if we don't care whether our articles are true or not? (Before you tell me that we do care, please find a statement to that effect on [[WP:V]].) Why can't we have verifiability AND truth?
What the policy should say FIRST (in my humble opinion) is that we at Wikipedia would love to have the most accurate and complete encyclopedia in the galaxy. That's the AIM. Then it should say, SECOND, that the task of approaching that aim is constrained by the proven need to avoid certain serious problems (personal research, material from dubious or unknown sources, etc) and therefore we have established policies on which sources of information can be cited, and guidelines on ranking of sources. Then those policies and guidelines can be explained.
I suggest that rewriting the policy in this fashion would avoid the impression that in order to embrace verifiability we rejected truth.
Zero.
"Verifiability, not truth," taken literally, means that you can have several normally reliable sources all report the same incorrect piece of information, and without contradicting evidence, and in the absense of an expert, the incorrect fact would be considered verified.
Perhaps the slogan should be "verified truth" or "verifiable truth." This puts them both on an equal plane and requires both.
Carl
On Sep 18, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:
Perhaps the slogan should be "verified truth" or "verifiable truth." This puts them both on an equal plane and requires both.
I was thinking of something like "truth is ensured by verifiability," actually.
-Phil
On 9/18/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:
Perhaps the slogan should be "verified truth" or "verifiable truth." This puts them both on an equal plane and requires both.
I was thinking of something like "truth is ensured by verifiability," actually.
What is truth?
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 9/18/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:
Perhaps the slogan should be "verified truth" or "verifiable truth." This puts them both on an equal plane and requires both.
I was thinking of something like "truth is ensured by verifiability," actually.
What is truth?
This bounced, message content type error. Re-sending as plain text. -- Truth is inherently *subjective, not objective.
*To a Muslim, Jesus was just another one of God's prophets and Mohammad was his final and greatest prophet; to a Christian Jesus was the only son of God, the redeemer; to an atheist he is a myth that people like to believe in. All of these views represent Truth to those who hold them. If we allow Truth, we open the door to fanatics edit warring madly. And it isn't just religion; it is everything from whether abortion is moral to which musical artist was the greatest in their field to which episode of SouthPark best highlights the political satire the series is known for.
Hence, "Verifiability, not truth". I can verify and state clearly, with sources, different views from different groups, being careful to not present the views in a biased fashion - per WP:NPOV#Undue weight - and not presume to know Truth, because all I can ever know is my very personal version of the Truth. The same is true for every human - you may agree on some things, but you do not agree on the Truth about everything with any one person.
One puppy's opinion.