[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[FT2]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:

> "Verifiability, not truth" means that sometimes we'll put in something
> that's
> verifiable but isn't true.
>
> If you use IAR now, you'll have a hard time justifying not using it every
> time something's verifable-but-false.  And if you do use it every time, why
> not just fix the rule?  (Aside from "it's so easy to filibuster a rule
> change and people are so attached to the existing rules that it's
> impossible
>  to fix them".)



Verifiability not truth is probably one of the most poorly understood
expressions on the wiki.

It roughly means that we document what can be factually checked, in
preference to what we "believe". Most of the time the two coincide - I
believe people have lungs, and it's a fact that a wide range of very
credible sources on human anatomy say they do as well. Pure unsupported (or
poorly supported) belief is not, by itself, a good basis to tell the rest of
the world "this is what's so". As a reference source, the mandate we have is
to document information, that means not introducing our own beliefs about
"whats true" too much into it.

"Write about what is verifiable, rather than what you or someone happens to
believe is true" is a soundbite, a way to express that approach. We don't
know 100.000% about reality, or history, or culture, or any area. We do know
what credible students of reality, history and culture have concluded and
without dipping into philosophy, that is what we document.

It's not fireworks and adventure. It's documenting what credible sources
state, and the fact that credible sources do state those things.

IAR is the other main "poorly understood" policy ;)

FT2