[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, George Herbert wrote:
> > "Verifiability, not truth" means that sometimes we'll put in something that's
> > verifiable but isn't true.
> "Verifyable, but untrue" - where there's evidence to disprove but it's
> not compellingly better quality data than the untrue data - is the
> hard case.  Either walk the narrow line and present both or pick one
> and defend using it, staying aware that more info may clarify the
> situation into the first case above.

The problem is that the data may actually be better quality (by non-
Wikipedian standards) but not verifiable by Wikipedia standards.  (Like the
case of the bridge which was said in a source to have no traffic, and
someone visited it and saw it has traffic.  You could make up far-fetched
scenarios of why the reliable source could still be correct, but it's far
more likely that none of those scenarios are and that the source is simply
wrong.)

> "Verifyable, but I assert it's untrue" is a variation on "Because I
> said so".  This is what the statement is meant for.  If you assert
> it's untrue and you're right, you have a reason for knowing that it's
> untrue - you can cite what informed you.  If you assert it's untrue
> and you have an opinion but not actual factual knowledge, your opinion
> is trumped by a verifyable statement, even if you legitimately think
> it's an untrue statement.

Same problem: You're assuming that "acceptable citable Wikipedia source" is
equivalent to "good source of information" and that if the source cannot be
cited, it's equivalent to "because I say so".  Wikipedia's standards for
sources do not allow some things that common sense tells us are at least as
reliable as using Wikipedia-acceptable sources, like visiting a bridge
yourself or using a primary source for a birthdate which contradicts a
secondary source.

> Exceptions include BLP, where "I'm person Z, and that never happened
> to me..." does hold some weight...

The only reason BLP is an exception that Argumentum ad Jimbonium is strong
enough that we can ignore all the broken rules that would otherwise prevent
us from doing it.