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