[Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution?

[Christoph Seydl]

Contrary: If the principle of verifiability is not defined in basic
principles, there is always discordance:

* There are people who say that it is just a recommendation to verify
facts. They don't source any fact because they think that footnotes are
ugly. And why checking something if one knows a fact? They say that
footnotes are counterproductive because they suggest an academic
standard which Wikipedia cannot provide; every quote can be faked. They
believe in the self-cleaning process of 100-eye-checks.

* On the other side, there are is the encyclopedia fraction. They say
that every material must be sourced. If there is no published source, it
is not a matter of an encyclopedia. And if something is important, there
is a source. An encyclopedia is about verifiability, not truth. Being
forced to check facts in reliable sourced before adding the material,
improves the quality of Wikipedia because it puts the kibosh on smattering.

* Between these two extremes, there are people who think that sourcing
is important, if is about disputed issues.

Actually, just stating "verifiability is a pillar" is not enough. It can
mean everything and nothing. In reality, not defining verifiability,
supports the "sources-are-only-a-recommendation-I-do-not-like-anyway"
attitude.

Jimbo Wales says: "I can NOT emphasize this enough.    There seems to be
a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative
'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs
a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be
sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of
negative information about living persons.    I think a fair number of
people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy
writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude
and frustration.)"
(http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046433.html)

You see that there is a lot of discordance among Wikipedians. If there
is no policy, there is always dispute how to deal with verifiability.
The question is: Which information has to be sourced? I think that the
verifiability issue should be outlined, if it is a pillar.

/Chris


Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Saying that we follow the principle of verifiability should be enough.  
> When you get too specific, we unfortunately have many people who are 
> determined to take it to extremes at either end of the scale.  Some will 
> accept the most ephemeral of data as verification, while others will 
> insist that even the most broadly observed information must '''always''' 
> show references. 
> 
> The urgency of verifiability also depends on the nature of the subject 
> matter.  It is broadly accepted that the biographies of living persons 
> require documentation, especially if what is said about the person can 
> have negative overtones.  Verifying details about fictitious characters 
> is much less urgent.  Another important factor about good verification 
> is can I go to the source that is mentioned, now or at any time in the 
> future, and confirm that it says exactly what it is supposed to say.  
> This need not need to mean that I should be able to find the image 
> directly on the Net.  I may need to travel to look at the book, or 
> perhaps it is available by interlibrary loan.
> 
> Ec