Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence

Earlier polls can be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence/Archive 1.

Poll V_FC_P_11 Essay on Verifiability, Not Truth

Closed, open to see valuable polling results
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is to be kept in the main body of the policy, the essay WP:Verifiability, not truth should be added to the "See also" list.  If the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is moved to a footnote, the footnote should reference this essay. Should be added regardless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Yes, it should be in the See also, regardless. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Yes... the essay is an excellent explanation of the intent behind the phrase. It should be linked. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Yes, definitely, and ideally as a link the first time the phrase is mentioned! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Yes linking that essay would be good. Wish the question was not confused by the "if" preface which not the question, and linking to the essay should not be conditional on it. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Support. This essay is essential reading for everybody who wants to understand what "verifibility, not truth" really means. The problem is that some believe they can simply ignore it because it's "just an essay". If everybody understood item 3 in section "If it's written in a book, it must be true!", we would not be here. Hans Adler 12:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose Policies should be clear and simple. Essays which elaborate on what might be meant are unsatisfactory because they have no formal standing. Warden (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Is this simply opposition to any policy linking to any essay? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Agree Regardless, of weather not truth is removed from the first sentence this essay should be linked from the first sentence. Crazynas t 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Agree. It should be linked under ==See also== now, no matter what happens to the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Agree  Also, I support adding it to the See also section for now, concurrent with other discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Agree - adding to "See Also" seems fine. It's a reasonably well written essay and goes into good detail on the concepts. I do not think it ought to be linked from the first sentence unless it is improved more, but it does a fairly good job explaining things and there's no reason not to add it below in See Also. -- Avanu (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Agree, it should definitely be in the See Also section, very useful essay. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Added link to poll per consensus here and at main WP:V page. -- Avanu (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_13 Blueboar's compromise - move discussion of truth/untruth out of lede and into new section

Closed, open to see valuable polling results, moved to following sections
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Change the lede paragraph to: The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Note, however, that while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article.) Add a new section (right after the lede) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth... as follows: ==Assertions of truth and untruth== An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth"'. Assertions of untruth (ie an editor's assertion that some bit of information is untrue) are a more complicated issue. If the dubious information is not supported by a source, it should be challenged; but the question of how to challenge (whether to tag the information as needing a citation or to remove it immediately) depends on the nature of the information (see: WP:Burden, below). If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a neutral point of view (and especially the sub-concept of due weight). In many situations, a simple rewording to present the information as an opinion rather than as an accepted fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information. Support - as nom. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose Too long. Warden (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Question... is this an objection to the wording or to the concept? Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC) It's OK. No objections. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Support  Balances many tradeoffs, not all of which I agree with, but overall a huge step forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Would generally support if... the section were titled "Verifiability, not truth" (it's the phrase lots of editors use), and that paragraph expanded a little to help people understand and to encourage new editors not to be disheartened if they've been pointed here from a content dispute. After all, we need to address concerns that new users may get discouraged. eg For example, living in a town does not qualify your word as a good source for information that town because our readers would have no way of checking your information is correct. If you cannot find the information you want to include in a reliable source, then you cannot include it, no matter how accurate or true you personally know it to be, or how honest and honourable your intentions. It is also important not to be offended if people remove your material if you have not sourced it; they are simply trying to ensure the accuracy of the encyclopedia. The best response is to find good sourcing. The last paragraph on untrue material is problematic (too much detail on various policies) and needs re-writing if not abandoning.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Support. Good solution for the problem that doesn't seem to open any new ones. Hans Adler 15:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Enthusiastic Support. Overall, this is by far the best idea to have come out of the discussions of the past few months. At the level of tweaking the details, I'm receptive to most of the points raised by VsevolodKrolikov. I would also suggest pruning the second sentence of the lead of the words "Note, however, that". Thus, the sentence would start with "While...". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose - There is a significant problem with this proposal that people may not be aware of: it's too much a change to be successful. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Draft. When you go there you will see that I wholeheartedly agree with Blueboar's first message there and that this proposal is inconsistent with the good points made in that message by Blueboar. Please read that message of Blueboar's and my message that follows it which shows how to address the issue of the phrase "verifiability, not truth" in the first sentence, which is the main issue. Adding other issues and a new section now is a recipe for failure. Please save them for later, once the main issue is settled. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I followed Bob's link, and read Bob's comments there. Honestly, I just don't get them. I don't see the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I think Bob means "The more changes we make (even if we think the change is relatively small), the less likely it will be that this will achieve consensus." -- Avanu (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Please don't take my words out of context... My comment was specifically directed towards suggested changes that had nothing to do with resolving the "not truth" issue (such as changing "threshold" to "criteria"). It was a plea to deal with one issue at a time. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Generally support but we need to noodle on it more firstNorth8000 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Support.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Generally support - I'd like to tweak it to something like requirement rather than threshold, possibly first rather than initial (no real need for polysyllaby here), and I'm with Tryptofish on excluding the "Note, however, that" - fluff-words, unnecessary, just as clear without them, and tidier. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Regarding the change from "threshold" to "requirement", I could agree, but worry that it could be a distraction from the overall change, see Threshold again and especially Threshold vs. requirement.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Weak Support, I'm not a fan of removing "not truth" from the lede, but I recognize that this may be the best we can do in the way of achieving consensus. Certainly willing to work on this proposal, but I am concerned that those who oppose having "not truth" as part of V will not accept this, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuujinn (talk • contribs) 10:38, September 6, 2011 (UTC) Support, kudos to Blueboar for covering all the bases. --JN466 12:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Support. Not bad considering the usually wretched results of compromises. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 15:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Support.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Support - This is acceptable. -- Avanu (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Work area for development of main proposal

Developing this per talk. North8000 (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Record of Blueboar's proposal ca. Sept 9th

Change the lede paragraph to:

The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Note, however, that while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article.)

Add a new section (right after the lede) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth... as follows:

==Assertions of truth and untruth== An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth"'. Assertions of untruth (ie an editor's assertion that some bit of information is untrue) are a more complicated issue. If the dubious information is not supported by a source, it should be challenged; but the question of how to challenge (whether to tag the information as needing a citation or to remove it immediately) depends on the nature of the information (see: WP:Burden, below). If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a neutral point of view (and especially the sub-concept of due weight). In many situations, a simple rewording to present the information as an opinion rather than as an accepted fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.

It received overall strong support.

Proposal, as evolved from Blueboar's proposal

The next two areas are for development of the final proposal from Blueboar's proposal. Blueboar's proposal received strong support from the the respondents, in the context of which it was proposed. This can conservatively be interpreted as support of the general approach in the highly debated areas. Proposals and discussions regarding potential changes should be crafted and debated with recognition of what has already transpired. Following is the proposal ca. 9/9/11 with any subsequent consensused modifications:

Change the lede paragraph to:

The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Note, however, that while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article.)

Add a new section (right after the lede) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth... as follows:

==Assertions of truth and untruth== An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth"'. Assertions of untruth (ie an editor's assertion that some bit of information is untrue) are a more complicated issue. If the dubious information is not supported by a source, it should be challenged; but the question of how to challenge (whether to tag the information as needing a citation or to remove it immediately) depends on the nature of the information (see: WP:Burden, below). If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a neutral point of view (and especially the sub-concept of due weight). In many situations, a simple rewording to present the information as an opinion rather than as an accepted fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.

Proposed changes to and discussions about main proposal

OK, now it's time for folks to make finalize, specific proposed changes to Blueboar's proposal, and to see which if any have a consensus. Moved previous discussion to discussion page North8000 (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated version

Here is my attempt to synthesize what discussion has pointed to so far. Your mileage may differ. All in the lead, no separate section of the policy page at this time:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a sufficient reason for inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article). An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth". For guidance on the inclusion or exclusion of verifiable but potentially untrue material, see WP:NPOV (and especially WP:UNDUE).

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me to be progress again. Good. Could it be better? Comments seem to be required upon the following decisions you've implied:-

• First, you are one of the people saying we should NOT try to change "The threshold...", to "A fundamental requirement...". I am not sure there is consensus on this. Personally I would prefer to try to make the best version possible.
• You have proposed above that instead of Blueboar's whole new section, you have just one new paragraph. This means two major changes to Blueboar's proposal: (1) no section break and (2) a paragraph gets deleted. I think no one replied to your proposal above, so it is not clear if there is consensus about it. I personally think it is OK. The deleted paragraph was this one: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph to which Andrew Lancaster refers
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Assertions of untruth (ie an editor's assertion that some bit of information is untrue) are a more complicated issue. If the dubious information is not supported by a source, it should be challenged; but the question of how to challenge (whether to tag the information as needing a citation or to remove it immediately) depends on the nature of the information (see: WP:Burden, below). If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a neutral point of view (and especially the sub-concept of due weight). In many situations, a simple rewording to present the information as an opinion rather than as an accepted fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.

I think you make valid points, and they are, indeed, the kinds of things we should discuss. The reason I collapsed the paragraph is that I don't want people to get confused about what is and isn't proposed here, and it's still easy to click to see it. Where you say no one replied above, I want to point out the discussion on the talk page, where there actually seems to be no substantive objection. About the opening wording (threshold etc.), I based it on what is on the page now (see the discussion below where S Marshall and I agree), but I did so recognizing that it would still be discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My infinitely preferred version (which I think we had pretty much agreement on) is this one:

A fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability— whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a sufficient reason for inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article). An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth". For guidance on the inclusion or exclusion of verifiable but potentially untrue material, see WP:NPOV (and especially WP:UNDUE).

Howzat? (Yup I added the italics as well, but if anyone had any major objection to the italics it wouldn't break my heart to see them go.) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm missing something, but it looks to me like you changed 2 things: (1) the opening words, and (2) the italics. Is there anything else? I'm fine with the italics. I'd even be fine with bolding, as is done in the next paragraph. As for "The threshold" versus "A fundamental requirement", I'm personally pretty neutral on the merits, meaning that I just don't think it matters either way insofar as the usefulness as a policy. However, as I have been saying before, I advise against changing wording in the first sentence beyond what seems really necessary at this step. With each additional change from what the policy says now, it's just one more reason for the community to say no to the whole thing. If it's important enough to you to push for "A fundamental requirement" that you would be OK with the community rejecting everything and leaving the page unchanged, then go for it. But if you think that "not truth" is the important issue to address, then you should consider letting it go. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want either of those versions to be accepted, you have to get SlimVirgin's support. She can muster all the opposition she needs to defeat it, if she wants to. See my previous message too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We can't accept ownership, and slim being at the at the extreme end of the status quo / change needed spectrum would certainly affect chances for her support of a true compromise version. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that she's at the extreme at all. Many of the editors who are most eager for change are probably more at the margins of what the larger community thinks. But I personally don't think it's a matter of needing any one editor's blessing (including mine, of course!). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As of this time, I think that something along the lines of what Pesky and I are suggesting should be the way to go, especially from the perspective of getting the "opposition" to consider it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• IMHO Blueboar's proposal is better than this one. I see this as a compromise to the compromise. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that it's more of a compromise. That's why I think it's a good idea. Of course, there is an alternative: insist on less compromise, and get nothing at all. A narrow majority of those who responded to the last RfC were perfectly happy to keep the status quo. And I'd be perfectly happy to keep it too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

My quick thumbnail is that in the biggest RFC half the folks wanted the most "extreme" change...taking "not truth" completely out. The other half would be a mix of "no change" folks and "lesser change" folks. I think that that very roughly indicates that something half way between the "extremes" (= Blueboar's proposal) is probably too conservative, if anything, yet the premise of your proposal is that we need to go farther towards the "very little change" end. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Community building and decision making

What I am seeing is that none of the discussions since Blueboar's 3 September proposal, a proposal that achieved 13-2 favorability, have come even close to gaining traction.  On this Project Page there is currently a blur of unnamed proposals, discussion, and an unnamed poll.  It should raise design questions to see a Project Page being used for a Discussion page.  That being said, I see two paths forward, (1) either take Blueboar's 3 September proposal to RfC (the rationale attempt is valid but is currently tending more toward being an advertising campaign than a technical document, and there is no plan on how to use the document in conjunction with the policy page); or (2) take community-building more seriously.  By the later, I mean that right now, SlimVirgin, whose support is needed in building consensus, has been strengthened as the only viable responsible force to protect WP:V.  Most recently, Jayjg had to come over to WP:V to restore order, but the effect was still to show how much SlimVirgin's oversight here is needed.  IMO, the editors here that support orderly changes to WP:V should have been standing in line to protect WP:V.  Part of the support for "not truth" comes from a desire for psychological force (the "jolt"), which simultaneously indicates a lack of security to be found in the strength that should come from good technical writing.  IMO, the recent need to have order restored has strengthened the idea of the need for "jolt"s in WP:V's technical writing.  So, take community-building seriously, implement the ability to make decisions, show that we have a viable community that does not depend on a bully editor, segregate procedural discussions like this comment (such as was the intent of WP:V/First/Procedural), and then actually make some decisions about changing Blueboar's 3 September proposal—or just take Blueboar's 3 September proposal directly to RfC.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The word initial (and the word threshold)

Earlier parts of thread are on the talk page.

Is "A fundamental requirement..." acceptable to everyone?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Or:

• do we use Blueboar's original version?
• do we move discussion about the first couple of words below to the sub-section that started as a discussion about the word guarantee?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

My thought is at this later point, it time for folks tomake specific proposed changes (to Blueboar's proposal) to discuss. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"A fundamental requirement" works for me. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change from North8000

Change "Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion" to "Other policies, guidelines and considerations affect inclusion." North8000 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think the long version that includes the sentence in question is as likely to get community support. But if we go this way, I'd drop "and considerations", so it would just be "Other policies and guidelines". With those caveats, I agree that shortening the beginning of the sentence would be a good copyedit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hardly seems worth debating on this particular forum of discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a proposed tweak. My thought was that "considerations" would make it more precise, and things can be left out for reasons that are not policy or guidelines. Suggest we just do a quick thumbs up/down on this idea and move on. I won't jump off a tall building if this idea gets rejected. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish, I like the shorter version, but considerations opens the door for all kinds of lawyering. But do you have any specific notions as for considerations that would not fall under guidelines and policies? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Work area for development of rationale for main proposal

Working draft of rationale for main proposal

There is a spectrum of concerns with the current version, but the main issues are:

• Philosophy: As Jimbo Wales put it, "We are not transcription monkeys." Editors espousing this view say that Wikipedia is seriously aimed at getting to the truth, and the phrase "not truth" is not just confusing but actually misleading about Wikipedia's aim, because it seems to imply that Wikipedia might be unconcerned about the truth.
• Ambiguity: This concern observes that the sentence either 1) protects against insertions of material that are alleged to be "true" but not verifiable, or (2) protects against exclusions of material that are alleged to be "not true" but verifiable. It is ambiguous which is meant, and editors are concerned that other editors are misunderstanding, or deliberately misunderstanding, the ambiguity in order to introduce or protect a minority POV version.

There is a long history of intensive discussion surrounding the term "not truth". This proposal was developed via an extensive process (see Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence), and it is offered in hope of offering a "middle ground".

Discussion for development of rationale for main proposal

I find it interesting that while we are all happy to propose ideas and debate them endlessly... no one has (yet) come up with a simple statement as to a) why a change is needed, and b) how the proposal actually resolves the issue. Could we please focus on this for a while... we are not going to agree on wording unless we agree on what we are actually trying to achieve here. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've stuck a working draft in. Deliberately unsigned because I mean for others to edit it.—S Marshall T/C 19:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

S Marshall has given a first effort which aims at a big picture. OK, on that challenge, I'll try to come from the other direction and list the most widely shared concerns I know of, point by point, with the first part of the current first sentence:-

User:Andrew Lancaster. Draft of first sentence (edited after discussion)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth

...not truth... This is the most complicated discussion. The intended meaning is that discussion about inclusion should not be based on discussion about personal opinions. But even defenders of it normally seem to admit that it does not really say this in any clear way. They defend it because it gives a "jolt" of thoughtfulness which can then, ideally, lead to enlightenment later. Instead of giving the intended message, saying that in Wikipedia truth is not important for inclusion does a few problematic things: (1) It wrongly gives the impression that Wikipedia editors are actually commanded not to aim at truth, which is obviously inconsistent with Wikipedia editors being intelligent human beings working together to make a reliable, verifiable, quality encyclopedia. Or to put it in Jimbo Wales' words it makes Wikipedia editors seem like "transcription monkeys". (2) As with some of the above concerns, it leads people to the idea, quite logically given the way it is written, that WP:V trumps all other policies, including the other 2 core content policies. (3) As seen by some of the twisted defenses of what is after just a wording question, it is leading rapidly to a form of hieratic thinking in Wikipedia, in which normal people do not need to understand the complex and indirectly written traditional rules of the higher order editors. This is against the principle that WP:Anyone can edit.

Of secondary importance is the way in which this first sentence seems to try to over-rule other core content policies:- (1)The... It is the wrong word. There are 3 core content policies and there is a consensus that they work in an interlocking way. It should be made clear (2)...threshold... Again it is the wrong word. "Requirement" or something like that is obviously what is intended. The idea of a threshold is that if you get over it, you are in. There is consensus that verifiability is not enough to be in.

Am I missing anything?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, you are missing the fact that the primary issue is really "not truth", the view by some editors (not necessarily me, not necessarily a majority of the community) that it makes it sound like Wikipedia doesn't care if untrue material is published in the encyclopedia. The stuff about "The" and "threshold" is just not a concern for the vast majority of Wikipedians. The more that editors here weigh down the argument with secondary issues, the more likely it is that the larger community will find reasons to disagree and stick with the status quo. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best if we separated out "not truth" for the moment and focused on that. "Threshold" will be a sideshow. It needs fixing but I don't think fixing it will be anything like the struggle we had with "not truth".—S Marshall T/C 22:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish and S Marshall agree about something! The rest of you better take this seriously! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. But then it is not that I was missing something, but rather you are saying I did not emphasize something enough, or you are maybe saying I had too much. If we are going to separate out this one first sentence issue for special attention then the draft above should start by saying that there are various issues, but one draws the most discussion. So then looking at my "not truth" summary, am I missing anything?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I do think we need to use more neutral phrasing. Words like, for example, "obviously inconsistent with Wikipedia editors being intelligent human beings" will derail an RFC in minutes. Remember, this is Wikipedia, where editors absolutely insist on going on tangents—on Wikipedia, if God said "let there be light", he'd get no further because of all the people going "what colour?" Basically, if we make it possible for people to find ways to be offended by it, they will.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, so we should take out the bit about being intelligent human beings.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that another thread of the rationale should be that this is a compromise solution which will (hopefully) resolve a large, difficult and long running debate, and vs. the alternative of not doing so. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It is and must be a compromise. Should the final version include some summary of the evidence we have for the different community opinions which we tried to take into account?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So, why not just delete the two words "not truth"? Those two words have been criticized by many editors including Jimbo Wales. It's just a two-word style change, not a policy change. The sentence still retains the same meaning.

As far as a compromise is concerned, if you want to do that, you have to make the compromise with SlimVirgin, who is the originator of the phrase and is the leader of those who are against change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I was mostly making the point that resolving this vs. it going on forever is another reason to support whatever proposal emerges. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In regard to those last several points, it's worth taking a look at the discussion between Blueboar and SlimVirgin at User talk:SlimVirgin#WP:Verifiability. I think an important take-home message is that it's likely that the community will be presented with a binary choice between one proposal for a new version, and the status quo. Anything the community dislikes about the new version will be reason to say "no". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting discussion. SlimVirgin is apparently amongst those who want WP:V to be taking what she knows is a non-obvious philosophical position about the meaning of the word "truth", saying that it needs to be in the first sentence "especially given that we use the word "verifiability," which implies truth-seeking". So what does the community of Wikipedia feel most strongly about? WP:V itself, or taking this minority stand on a philosophical point? There are many of us who think the policy wording should be based on trying to make a clear wording of the consensus ideas about what the policy intends, not taking positions about the meaning of the word truth at all. The two aims are quite different, I would say strictly in opposition to each other, and perhaps we should mention the two aims as background to the proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think not addressing the question at all is a form of expressing a philosophy on truth by ommission. There is a nearly non-negotiable truth in Wikipedia: WP:NPOV and every thing else flows from that. Even WP:V is saying, "We can sometimes ignore absolute neutrality because the sourcing is overwhelming" - that is verifiability, not truth. It is not a minority philosophical position on truth, it is a succinct, disruptive explanation of NPOV. NPOV itself is non-intuitive, and this is often discussed in both practical and philosophical ways, but it is what this project is about. I am for internal consistency whenever possible, in particular because any exceptions to a any rule is covered by WP:IAR. I think opposition to the "verifiability not truth" is largely based on a philosophical, rather than practical consideration, one that says that there is objective truth, and that this truth is to be help true by the encyclopedia. It is a less extreme version of the argument that leads to Conservapedia: roughly wanting to codify (ie "resolve for good") issues that should better be left for consensus on a case-by-case basis.--Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but that description bears no resemblance to my concerns about "not truth"......mine centers centers around negative impacts that have nothing to do with verifiability. But we digress. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not so clear what North's answer refers to. But Cerejota, I like your response, but only think you are misunderstanding others. I think NPOV is much more important than most newbies and readers of Wikipedia are being taught. The idea that WP:V flows from WP:NPOV is not what they are learning at all. Your intention is good but we need to find a way to achieve it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree that NPOV is very important...in fact it needs strengthening by making it more operative. But don't agree that wp:ver flows from wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hybrid version?

The "not truth" phrase in the first sentence has generated almost endless, often heated, and complicated discussions, which have made it clear that quite a number of people, old and new, can see problems with it Philosophy: It implies that Wikipedia is so unconcerned about real facts that editors are actually commanded not to aim at truth; this is inconsistent with Wikipedia's aim of being a reliable, verifiable, quality encyclopedia. As it currently stands, it can be (is?) quoted by those who write Wikipedia off as being "unreliable". Ambiguity: It is unclear, at present, whether our aim is to 1) protect against insertion of material that is alleged to be "true", but is not verifiable, or 2) protect against exclusion of material that is alleged to be "not true", but is verifiable The combination of these points can be "creatively misunderstood" by editors wishing to include inappropriate material. Defence of the "not truth" phrase so far is that it supposedly gives a "jolt" of thoughtfulness which then, ideally, leads to enlightenment later, and / or it's been quoted so often, it's traditional, etc.

We currently have a compromise solution which will (hopefully) resolve a large, difficult and long running debate; without a solution, this debate will continue to take up many hours of editor time. It is not going to go away.

I think / hope I've covered most of the bases so far. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Over all, I think that this is a good approach, not too long. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• I feel as if we're almost ready for the RFC now.—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not confident of that. I am not sure now what our latest proposal is. It is being argued that this proposal needs a quite polished draft and also a well presented "case".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the part about "can be used (is?)"... See for example, Simson L. Garfinkel in Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth. He quotes "Verifiability, not truth" in the context of criticizing Wikipedia for not caring about objective truth. I believe his criticism is not so much that this makes Wikipedia unreliable, but that Wikipedia endorses that awful style of relativistic, pseudo-balanced reporting when the two sides of any issues are treated with equal validity, letting the reader think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I believe the new proposal, which discusses "not truth" in context and also links to WP:DUE, should help avoid such misunderstanding. Regards, Vesal (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps yes, the proposal justification should mention things like this, and perhaps also the posting of Jimbo Wales on the subject. Any proposal will face a lot of rhetorical resistance, so it would be important to make sure there is some evidence that this is not just a small group wanting change for its own sake.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)