On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:53:55AM -0600, Todd Allen wrote: 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 07/04/2008, Phil Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 06:18:16PM -0500, SlimVirgin 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. - Carl

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 06:45:23PM -0500, SlimVirgin wrote: 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

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(a)gmail.com> said: On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:57:46 -0400, "Philip Sandifer" <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> said: -- woonpton(a)fastmail.fm -- http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail

On 07/04/2008, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

_________________________________________________________________ �Ѻ���ªش��ԡ�þ���ɿ�ըҡ Window Live services! http://www.get.live.com/wl/all

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

On 4/7/08, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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