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).
Originally, WP: V explicitly called for accuracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=... . The term was removed in a language tweak in 2005. The phrase "verifiability, not truth" came from a draft revision of WP:NOR in December of 2004.
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.
Is anyone aware of a discussion to this end that I am not? Is there actually a point where we clearly and deliberately decided that the goal of Wikipedia is not accuracy?
-Phil
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@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).
Originally, WP: V explicitly called for accuracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=... . The term was removed in a language tweak in 2005. The phrase "verifiability, not truth" came from a draft revision of WP:NOR in December of 2004.
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.
Is anyone aware of a discussion to this end that I am not? Is there actually a point where we clearly and deliberately decided that the goal of Wikipedia is not accuracy?
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You're asking to open up a huge can of worms with anything else. "Well I know the source says that, but you see, I know it's not actually true, so I can still edit war over putting it in the article even though I've got no sourcing that says otherwise." We're a tertiary source, we mirror sources, not second-guess them. If a source made an error, find a better or more recent source that disagrees with them, or ask them to correct. Many will, and that has the benefit of correcting the erroneous source as well! If they refuse to correct despite having an obvious and glaring error, inform their competitors instead.
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:53:55AM -0600, Todd Allen wrote:
You're asking to open up a huge can of worms with anything else. "Well I know the source says that, but you see, I know it's not actually true, so I can still edit war over putting it in the article even though I've got no sourcing that says otherwise." We're a tertiary source, we mirror sources, not second-guess them.
I disagree pretty strongly with that argument. We're a tertiary source, but we can and should exert editorial judgment about which sources are credible, which are not, and which have made mistakes. Of course this will be more touchy for controversial topics.
Most of the time, when people claim to have found 'errors' they actually have only found a nuance in wording or a matter of differing opinions on the same subject. But occasionally an author will use a word incorrectly, or in a nonstandard way. Sometimes authors genuinely make errors, even in peer reviewed material. In such cases, we have to recognize it and work around it.
- Carl
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
You're asking to open up a huge can of worms with anything else. "Well I know the source says that, but you see, I know it's not actually true, so I can still edit war over putting it in the article even though I've got no sourcing that says otherwise." We're a tertiary source, we mirror sources, not second-guess them. If a source made an error, find a better or more recent source that disagrees with them, or ask them to correct. Many will, and that has the benefit of correcting the erroneous source as well! If they refuse to correct despite having an obvious and glaring error, inform their competitors instead.
The question is not "should accuracy replace verifiability," but rather "was there a consensus to remove the need for accuracy/truth."
-Phil
On 07/04/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@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.
Is anyone aware of a discussion to this end that I am not? Is there actually a point where we clearly and deliberately decided that the goal of Wikipedia is not accuracy?
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.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Most people, when they use the word "true," do not display a deep epistemological crisis at hand. In practice, most of us judge things as true or false constantly, with no particular trauma or difficulty, and there is relatively little that this is remotely controversial about. To introduce epistemological doubt into the equation is an interesting philosophical point that has spawned millenia of discussion, but it does not seem to me to resemble how people actually behave in a practical situation. Simply put, most people do not suffer any particular crisis or difficulty talking about truth, even when talking to each other.
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 is no clear decision point here, though. It was a death by a thousand papercuts as far as I can tell, where statements steadily deformed from their original (and sensible) meanings to a detached slogan that is transparently silly to any reader not steeped in the most wonky of our wonky policy discussions.
-Phil
On 07/04/2008, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
There is no clear decision point here, though. It was a death by a thousand papercuts as far as I can tell, where statements steadily deformed from their original (and sensible) meanings to a detached slogan that is transparently silly to any reader not steeped in the most wonky of our wonky policy discussions.
Indeed. "Verifiability, not truth" is not English, it's Wikipedia jargon. And it's almost as incomprehensible in usage to normal people as the Wikipedia jargon word "notability" is compared to the English language word.
I submit that we actually mean something much more like - to use actual English rather than internal jargon - "Be accurate in describing the points of view, but verifiably so."
- d.
On 4/7/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@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
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
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.
None of this is equivalent to "we are not interested in accuracy" or "accuracy is not a pre-requisite for inclusion." Nobody is seriously suggesting that verifiability is *not* a requirement. What I'm trying to figure out is whether anybody is seriously suggesting and/or whether a consensus exists that accuracy is not *also* a requirement.
The changes in question to the policies were largely yours, albeit from three years ago. Did you intend to eliminate accuracy as a requirement? Accuracy was explicitly a requirement in WP:V even after you added the phrase "not truth, but verifiability" in December of 2004 - accuracy was explicitly policy until you changed it to "reliability" in August of 2005.
Did you intend to say that accuracy is not a requirement? If so, what made you think there was consensus for this view?
-Phil
On 4/7/08, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
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.
None of this is equivalent to "we are not interested in accuracy" or "accuracy is not a pre-requisite for inclusion." Nobody is seriously suggesting that verifiability is *not* a requirement. What I'm trying to figure out is whether anybody is seriously suggesting and/or whether a consensus exists that accuracy is not *also* a requirement.
But we have no idea most of the time whether what our sources say is accurate. All we can do is try to make sure we use good sources; use in-line attribution wherever appropriate; and make sure our readers can trace our line of reasoning so they can judge it for themselves.
The changes in question to the policies were largely yours, albeit from three years ago.
This has been an evolutionary process on one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia, with lots of people joining in to help change it, or defend it against changes. The result is never going to be perfect (and, as you know, I'd have preferred one page, WP:ATT, to summarize V and NOR), but it's a policy that helps to keep nonsense out, and it's really very easy to stick to it.
Did you intend to eliminate accuracy as a requirement?
Accuracy was explicitly a requirement in WP:V even after you added the phrase "not truth, but verifiability" in December of 2004 - accuracy was explicitly policy until you changed it to "reliability" in August of 2005.
Did you intend to say that accuracy is not a requirement? If so, what made you think there was consensus for this view?
I didn't add that phrase to V. Someone suggested it in 2004 during a reorganization of NOR, and I added it there. (But they suggested it because it is what we were already doing.) Then someone else moved it to V. But why does it matter who first suggested it or added it? The point is that it was strongly supported and still is. We don't do truth. We report what good sources are saying, and we leave it to the readers to decide what to believe.
Sarah
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 06:18:16PM -0500, SlimVirgin wrote:
But we have no idea most of the time whether what our sources say is accurate. All we can do is try to make sure we use good sources; use in-line attribution wherever appropriate; and make sure our readers can trace our line of reasoning so they can judge it for themselves.
Proposal: An editor who has no idea whether what a source says is accurate really shouldn't be editing that article using that source.
- Carl
On 4/7/08, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 06:18:16PM -0500, SlimVirgin wrote:
But we have no idea most of the time whether what our sources say is accurate. All we can do is try to make sure we use good sources; use in-line attribution wherever appropriate; and make sure our readers can trace our line of reasoning so they can judge it for themselves.
Proposal: An editor who has no idea whether what a source says is accurate really shouldn't be editing that article using that source.
That means we can never again cite the New York Times unless we've personally contacted the source to make sure he really did say X, and perhaps further, unless we've also checked out that not only did the source say it, but that he was right to say it.
Sarah
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 06:45:23PM -0500, SlimVirgin wrote:
On 4/7/08, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
Proposal: An editor who has no idea whether what a source says is accurate really shouldn't be editing that article using that source.
That means we can never again cite the New York Times unless we've personally contacted the source to make sure he really did say X, and perhaps further, unless we've also checked out that not only did the source say it, but that he was right to say it.
Far from it. I have good reason to believe that the vast majority of statements in the New York Times are not only attributable but are actually correct (note that, for quotes, "correct" only means "correctly dictated"). Of course there will be occasional errors, but it's only hyperbole to say that we have "no idea" whether what it says is accurate.
However, Wikipedia does overuse newspapers to a great extent. Many of our articles only appear adequately sourced because we turn to newspapers rather than peer-reviewed sources.
- Carl
On Apr 7, 2008, at 7:18 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
I didn't add that phrase to V. Someone suggested it in 2004 during a reorganization of NOR, and I added it there. (But they suggested it because it is what we were already doing.) Then someone else moved it to V. But why does it matter who first suggested it or added it? The point is that it was strongly supported and still is. We don't do truth. We report what good sources are saying, and we leave it to the readers to decide what to believe.
Sorry - I was unclear. You were the one who added it to the draft of NOR in 2004 (though I can't find where the suggestion was originally made).
What you added to WP:V was a change from "Wikipedia strives to be accurate" to "Wikipedia strives to be reliable. That was this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=2...
So you were the one who removed accuracy from WP:V.
Which, actually, I'm also curious what you meant by.
-Phil
Hello, I've joined this list for the sole purpose of saying how much I appreciate seeing this discussion.
I've only been with the encyclopedia about two months, and so far have been mostly reading and trying to learn how things work here, and at the same time trying to determine whether and how I think I can be useful here, which involves asking a lot of questions to fine-tune my understanding of policy. In my reading I've come across the phrase again and again: "Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability," and each time I've seen it used, mostly in discussions on talk pages, it has been used to justify including ideas of dubious credibility in the encyclopedia, simply because (often dubious) sources can be found that promulgate the ideas. When I've asked for clarification, whether the people saying this really believe that the official stance of Wikipedia is that accuracy or credibility is not important, I've never got a straight answer. But I have been told, as a way of answering the question, that if I really think articles should reflect a "neutral, objective, dispassionate view of the topic at hand" then I'm probably "not right" for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia isn't about truth.
At the same time, I've come across a principle asserted in several arbitration decisions, to the effect that Wikipedia strives to be a serious, high-quality encyclopedia, and I'm confused. I can't tell whether Wikipedia intends to be a serious encyclopedia, or whether Wikipedia is "about verifiability, not about truth;" I don't see how Wikipedia can have it both ways, as long as the slogan is widely interpreted by editors to mean that Wikipedia values verifiability even at the expense of accuracy or credibility. It's my impression that Wikipedia has become the platform of choice for ideas that have been rejected by most rational and educated people, and that are not respected in academic or otherwise reliable sources, to gain a measure of credibility and legitimacy, and that those whose purpose is to get this material included in the encyclopedia are using the slogan as a way of deflecting arguments against inclusion.
I agree that Wikipedia has to be about verifiability, there's no argument there. The encyclopedia has to rely on good sources to back up its information. But at the same time, shouldn't verifiability go hand in hand with accuracy rather than being at odds with it? The best sources should reflect the best, most accurate information available, it seems to me. Some in this discussion have seemed to suggest that the only alternative to "verifiability not truth" is a kind of accuracy-by-OR. That's not what I'm arguing for at all; all I'm looking for is a recognition that accuracy matters to an encyclopedia, and that verifiability as a rule should ensure (or at least tend toward) accuracy, rather than serving as a justification for inaccuracy. I think the real problem with the articles in question is that the editors in these cases aren't respecting (or maybe aren't understanding) WP:RS, or the undue weight part of NPOV, but that they are evading those issues by meeting every challenge with the slogan "Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability."
It's encouraging to me to know that at least at one time, Wikipedia valued accuracy of information; it would be more encouraging to me, and would increase the likelihood that I would remain and contribute to the project, to know that Wikipedia still values accuracy as well as verifiability.
Perhaps I should add that one of my areas of interest is why people believe things that have no evidentiary basis, so I'm especially interested in how Wikipedia approaches "fringe" topics. As a result, I've no doubt run into more of this than the average newcomer might see. But at the same time, it distresses me to think that Wikipedia might inadvertently become a promoter of unsound ideas because of the overly literal interpretation of, and undue weight given to, a slogan that is indeed "transparently silly" and (I fervently hope) doesn't actually mean what people are taking it to mean. Thank you. Woonpton
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:57:46 -0400, "Philip Sandifer" snowspinner@gmail.com said:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 7:18 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
I didn't add that phrase to V. Someone suggested it in 2004 during a reorganization of NOR, and I added it there. (But they suggested it because it is what we were already doing.) Then someone else moved it to V. But why does it matter who first suggested it or added it? The point is that it was strongly supported and still is. We don't do truth. We report what good sources are saying, and we leave it to the readers to decide what to believe.
Sorry - I was unclear. You were the one who added it to the draft of NOR in 2004 (though I can't find where the suggestion was originally made).
What you added to WP:V was a change from "Wikipedia strives to be accurate" to "Wikipedia strives to be reliable. That was this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=2...
So you were the one who removed accuracy from WP:V.
Which, actually, I'm also curious what you meant by.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:57:46 -0400, "Philip Sandifer" snowspinner@gmail.com said:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 7:18 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
I didn't add that phrase to V. Someone suggested it in 2004 during a reorganization of NOR, and I added it there. (But they suggested it because it is what we were already doing.) Then someone else moved it to V. But why does it matter who first suggested it or added it? The point is that it was strongly supported and still is. We don't do truth. We report what good sources are saying, and we leave it to the readers to decide what to believe.
Sorry - I was unclear. You were the one who added it to the draft of NOR in 2004 (though I can't find where the suggestion was originally made).
What you added to WP:V was a change from "Wikipedia strives to be accurate" to "Wikipedia strives to be reliable. That was this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=2...
So you were the one who removed accuracy from WP:V.
Which, actually, I'm also curious what you meant by.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 09/04/2008, woonpton@fastmail.fm woonpton@fastmail.fm wrote:
At the same time, I've come across a principle asserted in several arbitration decisions, to the effect that Wikipedia strives to be a serious, high-quality encyclopedia, and I'm confused. I can't tell whether Wikipedia intends to be a serious encyclopedia, or whether Wikipedia is "about verifiability, not about truth;" I don't see how Wikipedia can have it both ways, as long as the slogan is widely interpreted by editors to mean that Wikipedia values verifiability even at the expense of accuracy or credibility.
The arbcom tries not to write policy, but their understanding is worth quoting as a supporting statement for a sane approach, even if it doesn't have the winning power of a hand with four aces.
It's my impression that Wikipedia has become the platform of choice for ideas that have been rejected by most rational and educated people, and that are not respected in academic or otherwise reliable sources, to gain a measure of credibility and legitimacy, and that those whose purpose is to get this material included in the encyclopedia are using the slogan as a way of deflecting arguments against inclusion.
To some extent. [[Crank (person)]] used to have a great Bruce Sterling quote about this (which I've just restored to the article):
"There's supposed to be a lot of difference between the hurtful online statement "You're a moron," and the tastefully facetious statement "You're a moron :-)". I question whether this is really the case, emoticon or no. And even the emoticon doesn't help much in one's halting interaction with the occasional online stranger who is, in fact, gravely sociopathic. Online communication can wonderfully liberate the tender soul of some well-meaning personage who, for whatever reason, is physically uncharismatic. Unfortunately, online communication also fertilizes the eccentricities of hopeless cranks, who at last find themselves in firm possession of a wondrous soapbox that the Trilateral Commission and the Men In Black had previously denied them."
(http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Bruce_Sterling/Catscan_columns/catscan....)
- d.
On 07/04/2008, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Uh, the history of [[WP:RS]] is *precisely* an attempt to impose such upon the reader. Canonicalising given sources is training wheels for sourcing at best - it's a limited rule to teach beginners right at the introduction to the subject. Not a basis for going on.
- d.
On 4/7/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/2008, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Uh, the history of [[WP:RS]] is *precisely* an attempt to impose such upon the reader. Canonicalising given sources is training wheels for sourcing at best - it's a limited rule to teach beginners right at the introduction to the subject. Not a basis for going on.
RS has always been a troubled guideline. It's wavered between versions with long instructions about how to identify reliable sources, and versions that are basically just a repeat of WP:V.
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:11:17 -0500> From: slimvirgin@gmail.com> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] History of "Verifiability, not truth"> > On 4/7/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:> > On 07/04/2008, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:> >> > > 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.> >> >> >> > Uh, the history of [[WP:RS]] is *precisely* an attempt to impose such> > upon the reader. Canonicalising given sources is training wheels for> > sourcing at best - it's a limited rule to teach beginners right at the> > introduction to the subject. Not a basis for going on.> >> RS has always been a troubled guideline. It's wavered between versions> with long instructions about how to identify reliable sources, and> versions that are basically just a repeat of WP:V.> > _______________________________________________> WikiEN-l mailing list> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ �Ѻ���ªش��ԡ�þ���ɿ�ըҡ Window Live services! http://www.get.live.com/wl/all
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 3:41 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/2008, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Uh, the history of [[WP:RS]] is *precisely* an attempt to impose such upon the reader. Canonicalising given sources is training wheels for sourcing at best - it's a limited rule to teach beginners right at the introduction to the subject. Not a basis for going on.
RS has always been a troubled guideline. It's wavered between versions with long instructions about how to identify reliable sources, and versions that are basically just a repeat of WP:V.
Its also the one most editors tend to send newbies to. When you disagree with someone, you actually dont start by saying "we need verifiably, not truth!", you tend to say "I don't think that meets our guidelines for reliability." Its the training wheels, but 90% of our editors are in training at any given point in time. (Don't quote me on the figure.)
RR
The EB also gives sources, though not in the detail we do, and reports what is found there, not what original research leads them to. It can avoid giving the detail because the articles are signed, and there is editorial supervision over the contents, which over time has acquired a reasonable reputation for accuracy and objectivity. We need the detail because we are edited autonomously with erratic control--and therefore, unlike the EB, if we didn't give detailed sources, there would be no reason for anyone to have even minimal confidence in anything found in Wikipedia.
There is the additional benefit that we give much more in the way of leads for further research. The problem here is the limitation in the quality of the sources many editors use, with the practical restriction to either web sources or obsolete printed works.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:59 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@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.
It's also part of the contract between the project and the readers. As a project, we don't have people who are paid (or even focus on as volunteers) fact checkers. We assume that people generally aren't putting false or subtly biased info in, and hope that we catch it if they do.
Given that, we can't be asserting the truth on matters. We need to remind them, and the people writing articles, that the info here is only generally and statistically accurate, and that any claims that are made here should be supported by external sources that did go through some level of credible fact checking.
On 4/7/08, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's also part of the contract between the project and the readers. As a project, we don't have people who are paid (or even focus on as volunteers) fact checkers. We assume that people generally aren't putting false or subtly biased info in, and hope that we catch it if they do.
Given that, we can't be asserting the truth on matters. We need to remind them, and the people writing articles, that the info here is only generally and statistically accurate, and that any claims that are made here should be supported by external sources that did go through some level of credible fact checking.
Again, though, you're not talking about the statement that's being made in the policy. Now you're into the site disclaimer, where we admit that any article could be total shit at any given time. But this is a policy page - its normative. It's intended to describe what articles should be.
Again, we should be able to say that any piece of information that goes into Wikipedia *ought* to be accurate as well as verifiable. That is to say, inaccurate information should be removed. (Again remembering that the only information we ought to be having one way or another is NPOV presentations of things - i.e. not "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" but "Newton says..." Thus the distinction between accuracy and verifiability is a very, very narrow one.)
-Phil