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

[Relata Refero]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 3:41 AM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/7/08, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 07/04/2008, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at 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