[WikiEN-l] History of "Verifiability, not truth"

[David Goodman]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On 07/04/2008, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG