Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence

RFC Proposal re first sentence

The proposal is in two parts...

• 1) change the opening paragraph:

From: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. 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. 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).

The other paragraphs in the lede will not change.

• 2) Insert a new section (as the first section after the lede, following the index box) 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 (i.e., 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). Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.

Rationale

Introduction The first sentence of the policy currently reads: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." There are concerns about this sentence, and particularly about the two words "not truth". In RfCs held in April and June, about 50% of editors responding supported change and about 50% opposed. After further discussion, with neither viewpoint gaining a solid WP:CONSENSUS, a working group formed to examine the concerns of those on both sides of the debate. The working group's deliberations can be found primarily at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence and its project page Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence; although a few threads continued at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Out of this working group has emerged the proposal above. It is seen as a compromise—one that addresses the core concerns of both sides. The proposal keeps the "verifiability, not truth" phrase in the policy, but moves it to its own section and clarifies it. It is hoped that both those who are content with the current wording and those who advocate change, to whatever degree, will support this measure as a compromise. Main rationale presentation Background: The concept that truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia was added for a specific reason - to support WP:NOR in saying that material should not be included unless there is a source that directly supports it. At that time, we had a persistent problem with editors wishing to add unverifiable material purely because "it's true" (a rationale commonly used by editors trying to "prove" their pet fringe theory). However, as WP:V has changed over time, the sentence has been moved earlier and earlier in the policy, and it has lost some of its original context. It has taken on meanings that were never part of its original intent. Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that any material that appears in a source must be included...simply because it is verifiable. This misinterpretation is in conflict with several other policy and guideline statements (especially the WP:Undue weight section of WP:NPOV), but examples of this misinterpretation happening in practice have been provided. How the proposal resolves this concern: The proposal adds an explanation that "while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion", and it notes that other policies and guidelines can affect inclusion. Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that we may not discuss the possibility that verifiable information is untrue (i.e., that the source may contain an error). Specifically, this reading says that editors need not discuss the exclusion of material on the grounds of being not true, in the same way that editors need not discuss the inclusion of material on the grounds of being true. That is, we must accept what a published source says simply because it is published, even if we have reason to believe that the material is inaccurate or that the source is less than reliable. Counter concern: This was never the intent. We often need to make judgment calls about the reliability of specific sources when it comes to specific information. A source may be reliable for one statement, but unreliable for some other statement. We also have to make judgment calls about the relative reliability of one source when compared to others. As Jimbo Wales puts it, "We are not transcription monkeys." We do want the information we present in Wikipedia to be accurate, as far as possible. Further, as NPOV notes, we cannot omit significant viewpoints just because we disagree with them (or even because most sources disagree with them). Sometimes we should discuss facts and opinions that may be untrue, because doing so gives the reader a complete picture of disagreement among the sources. How the proposal resolves these concerns: The proposed language acknowledges that inclusion of potentially untrue information depends on context. We cannot make a firm one-size-fits-all rule on this. The proposal points out that the question of whether to include controversial and potentially untrue material is a complex one, that involves applying editorial judgment. It points the reader to other policies and guidelines that may help. Concern: Introducing the concept of "truth" in the lede is distracting and confusing, particularly for new editors. The lede should focus purely on explaining what Wikipedia means by Verifiability without introducing secondary concepts. To the extent that it is relevant for the policy to discuss the issue of truth/untruth, this belongs in the body of the policy. How the proposal resolves the concern: The issue of truth is moved out of the lede and into its own separate section. Conclusions: The goal of this proposal is not to change the meaning of the policy, but to clarify it and reduce the potential for real or feigned misunderstanding. The concepts behind the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" should remain part of the policy. But they are complex concepts that need to be better explained.

Notice: A change was made to two sentences of the Introduction to the Rationale on the first day of the RfC. This change is documented here. Also note that there were three intermediate versions of these two sentences on the first day of the RfC.

Comments

Support

1. I obviously support this proposal... I was, after all, its primary author. The rational that is presented with the proposal explains most of my thinking on it. Not only is it a good (and, more importantly, a workable) compromise between the various positions... I think it actually improves the policy by making what I have always understood the intent of the current language clearer. Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Support This is a compromise crafted over many months to resolve an ongoing, otherwise unresolvable debate that has gone on intensely for almost a year. It retains all of the intended meanings from the original AND reduces the unintended meanings and effects. I hope and request that folks from both sides of the debate....including those those advocating more or less change...support it as such.North8000 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   This proposal deals with the largest, most discussed issue. It does not preclude tweaks in other areas can then be discussed later. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   I'm guessing that 200,0000 words of reasons have been written over the last 8 months supporting why some substantive change is needed. I'm sure that most folks did not want to repeat them all here, plus this particular proposal is a compromise. I'm sure others kept it short for the same reason.North8000 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

3. Support as a reasonable compromise and a well thought out approach to address a wide variety of concerns. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - HOWEVER, I think the initial paragraph needs to remove the word 'material' and replace it with 'information' (or similar). The use of the word 'material' can lead a person to think that we only accept words that are verbatim from other sources, which is actually against policy, yet it is FAR too common in Wikipedia. I've been involved in too many debates where people argue that "no, the source said 'rough' not 'coarse'" and people spend endless hours debating whether changing a word constitutes original research. But during this RFC, we're supposed to be focused on the "truth" part of the intro, so I guess despite my misgivings, I'll say 'SUPPORT'. -- Avanu (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
5. Support - This version addresses many of the problems presented though I agree with the information rather than material reword.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
6. Support  Balances many tradeoffs, not all of which I agree with, but overall a huge step forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Support, there is still much that I would change (including "material" to "information"), but this is undoubtedly an improvement.--Kotniski (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
8. Support as a major step forward for this policy. This proposal will reduce the potential for inexperienced or tendentious editors to misinterpret or pretend to misinterpret what it says.—S Marshall T/C 07:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
9. Support Wifione ^Message 08:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. I had no problems with the current version either, but this is a compromise I can accept. Additional changes (material vs information, threshold vs. fundamental requirement, ...) should be discussed afterwards (but, assuming that this rfC gets support, should stay away from the whole "truth" thing for a long time). Fram (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
11. Support the current wording is simply misinterpreted too often and this is an important step forward. Yoenit (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
12. Support Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
13. Support part 2. I particularly like the part on "Assertions of untruth". The new sentences in part 1 read like a camel, but the intent can be understood. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
14. Support. I've sometimes found myself asserting that although WP:V prohibits us from adding unverifiable information, it does not compel us to add information that is verifiable but untrue. This codifies the need for editorial discretion in those instances. I also prefer "information" over "material". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
15. Verifiability and truth should go hand-in-hand. In the rare cases that they do not, we should not be actively encouraging people to post untrue information. I therefore support most of the rewording. —WFC— 12:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • However I oppose the bracketed bit as unnecessary. —WFC— 18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Even though I understood what was meant by "verifiability not truth", it was clear just glancing at past discussions that editors were misreading and/or wikilawyering that counter to the policy's intent. Clarification is always a good thing. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    The problem is, people thought "not truth" = "false" when what we really meant was "neither true nor false." I know some people think we must make truth a criterion to improve the quality of articles, but the problem is this will lead to a conflict with NPOV. NPOV says we must include all significant views. What if a significant view is, we believe, false? I think that the cause for the low quality of many articles is many people confuse "V" for "cite sources." It is easy to "verify" a view by finding a source. The hard thing is to verify that the viw is significant. This is what I think we need to work on! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

17. Support Was tempted to oppose because it retains the Toxic Triad (albeit farther down the page). But it's a start, and in fact quite a good start. It addresses head-on the old "it's been printed in a newspaper so it's gotta go in" argument that we hear so often. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
18. Support. Not perfect, but it is a change in the right direction. Count Iblis (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
19. Support as a good compromise, with the hope that it can be tweaked over time (without giving preeminence back to the too often misused and misapplied 'Toxic Triad' that Boris mentions). First Light (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
20. Support - The "verifiability not truth" mantra has always been the single most idiotic thing about Wikipedia. One of the PILLARS of Wikipedia should be VERACITY — and here we have a very explicit, up front, unambiguous declaration that PUBLISHED FALSEHOOD is perfectly fine. The threshold should be VERIFIABILITY and VERACITY. Period. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    The problem is, people thought "not truth" = "false" when what we really meant was "neither true nor false but something else." I know some people think we must make truth a criterion to improve the quality of articles, but the problem is this will lead to a conflict with NPOV. NPOV says we must include all significant views. What if a significant view is, we believe, false? I think that the cause for the low quality of many articles is many people confuse "V" for "cite sources." It is easy to "verify" a view by finding a source. The hard thing is to verify that the view is significant. This is what I think we need to work on! If we really took the time to make sure that we were accurately representing sources in context (which belongs with "cite sources") and that we are verifying that the views included are all of the significant views, the quality of many articles will increase tremendously. But bring in truth and NPOV goes out the window. People holding equally significant but contradictory views may think they are equally true and the other's false!Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    If I may comment: Intended meaning: Verifiability rules as a requirement for inclusion. Truth or claimed truth is not a substitute. But potential inaccuracy of a statement should not be excluded as a consideration when editors are discussing possibly leaving something out. (Recognizing that in some particular situations, wp:npov trumps the discussion and dictates that it stay in.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    I admire your desire to support compromise. I would support Blueboar's proposal if it were modified. If you are using "accuracy" simply as a synonym for "truth" I fear we just disagree. If you mean that we must ensure that we are accurately representing the views we include, and that we are accurate in our claims that some views are significant and others fringe, I would agree with you, entirely (e.g., it is accurate to say that Darwin's theory of evolution is a significant view, and it is accurate to say that Darwin's view was that evolution occurred through natural selection). But if you mean that we must judge whether an established, significant view is or is not accurate (e.g. "is the theory of evolution by natural selection accurate" or "is the theory of relativity accurate"), then I think you are simply contradicting NPOV - and perhaps misrepresenting how science progresses. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

21. Support - A revision like this has been needed for a long time; this will end a whole lot of senseless talk page wikilawyering. --Ludwigs2 16:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • P.s. I'm not thrilled about the parenthetical statement at the end - it doesn't seem to make any sense, and I'm not certain what it is intended for. That should be removed. --Ludwigs2 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
22. Support - Sounds reasonable. --Iantresman (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
23. Support seems like an improvement. -- Taku (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
24. Tepid support. I'm supporting because I think that the clearer explanation of "not truth" is a net plus. I also think that Blueboar deserves enthusiastic applause for devising such thoughtful wording for the sentence in which it appears, and for working productively with the diversity of editor opinions that went into the drafting. I am also taking to heart the suggestion that editors adopt a spirit of compromise. However, my support is only tepid, and I actually agree with a lot of the comments that I read in the oppose section. I see no good reason to move the discussion of truth out of the lead, and I worry that it has been buried in tl;dr. I also think that the proposal has been weighed down with additional changes that go beyond the central issue of truth. I believe this policy has long served Wikipedia very well in its present form, but that this proposal is, net, a very small improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
25. Support - Mainly because of the inclusion of "While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion." in the lede, though I think the whole thing is beneficial. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Clarification — In light of the extended discussion about truth that has developed here, I'd like to make it clear that my support is for the whole package, parts 1 and 2, not for any individual part and I would oppose any change which omits or softens — which the initial proposal does not in my opinion — "verifiability, not truth". — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
26. Support in principle What we have needs to be changed, and the three things that need to be made clear are the three things presented in the proposal; however, the proposed text is far too verbose—a little more work and we'll be there. Uniplex (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    This addresses just the main topic of concern/debate. Other items can then be tweaked after that. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, the verbosity was my main concern also, and that can be improved over time. First Light (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    Full support in light of comments. Uniplex (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

27. Qualified support The addition to the lede has the correct intent but is too wordy; it needs to be tightened up considerably. The additional section still fails to address the issue of simple factual error in sources, and, with WP:BURDEN, still encourages the creation of fake controversies by discouraging the rejection of manifest factual errors in otherwise "reliable" (that is, conforming the Wikip's formal standards) sources. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
28. Support Although I agreed with the philosophy behind the original wording, its actual expression caused far too much difficulty. This proposal is an improvement. I shall not suggest any changes to the proposed wording and I suggest other "supporters" do not do either. Refinements can be made after any implementation is done. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
29. Weak Support. The examples show that something about the current formulation of this policy is problematic. It's like the burden is always on those arguing for the removal of well-cited material to prove that it is irrelevant, unreliable, or otherwise inappropriate. However, it is not at all clear where this well-cited is holy attitude is coming from; in particular, I do not see how one can be so sure that "not truth" is to blame. Still, I largely agree with Tryptofish, this is a net plus, and my view is clearly closer to those wishing to remove "not truth" than to those who deny the problem altogether. Vesal (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
30. Support per Blueboar. --JN466 22:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
31. Support While "verifiability, not truth" is a great slogan, it's confusing enough that more explanation is warranted. I appreciate the further explanation of truth wrt verifiability and, in the strange circumstance that someone in a dispute actually read policy, would help. Just lop off the parenthetical statement at the end of the first change. On a different note, I'm seriously annoyed that this was set up as a vote by the proposer. When did we leave behind that other great slogan, "Voting is Evil"? 2009?Danger (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    I don't think that is fair. Blueboar is not so much that author as he is a de facto manager of a very long and comlicated process involving many people on some subpages. I think that the subpages were a serious exercise in good faith consensus building, and this poll should be seen more as a ratification or reality-check for the subpage process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    Also, Blueboar just put it up as an RFC. Others added the format and structure for the feedback. Not that I disagree. North8000 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Actually, Tryptofish is evil. I made the edit creating support and oppose sections, so please blame me, not Blueboar. And I think that it has proven to be a useful edit. Please note that there are hardly any "me too" type comments. Rather, editors are generally taking the time to explain their thinking. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    I, for one, was glad that Blueboar was willing to do the primary work to create the RfC, and I appreciate his role in getting this going.  It was a decision of the working group to proceed with the RfC.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

32. Support the compromise. Not the most ideal solution in my view but better than the "not truth" abomination. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
33. Support When I read paragraph 1, I was ready to jump flaming away onto the oppose side. Luckily, I kept reading and thus avoided making an idiot of myself. I think the compromise of keeping the wording but moving it out of the lead is one that will help clarify the point for new readers, while still leaving the concept available to this of us to whom the old wording makes sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
34. Support. The existing language does more harm than good. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
35. Support As one of the party working on making the policy clearer and with less leeway for genuine misunderstanding or "creative misunderstanding", this is a very good start. We've spent a long, long (and at times tiring!) time working towards an improvement here, and finally come up with something which we all agreed could be put up for a "vote" by the wider community. This baby has been months in gestation - it's time for it to poke its head out into the world now. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
36. Support. We are concerned about truth - it's just that that concern is secondary to our concern about verifiability. We first make sure our statements are backed by reliable sources, and then and only then consider whether they are true. But that doesn't mean we don't consider truth at all, which WP:V could be mistaken to mean right now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
37. support not truth helps those who defame wp, dont believe what you read in wp, anyone can edit it and it doesnt have to be true. a clear example of wp being more concerned with the process than the result. it reminds me of a romantic scene where the troops know the are marching into certain death and continue because it is their duty. i also think it is stupid  :) Darkstar1st (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    People defame WP because most of its editors are too lazy to take the time to go to a library and read several books in order to represent the current research on a topic. This is what academics do, and the result is not claims about "truth" but actual well-informed research. "Truth" is a metaphysical concept that people throw around when the believe in something that they do not understand, or use as a shortcut that saves them the trouble of investigating the complexity of just about anything and everything actual scholars study. No reform of WP will be effective unless we distinguish between two very different kinds of critics of WP: POV-pushers who hate WP because it includes views they think are false - this is a matter of faith (even if we are talking about secular claims), and people who recognize quality research. Quality research does not depend on claiming that something is true; it does show that one has read the most recent and well-reviewed books published by academic presses, and peer-reviewed journal articles, and, just as important, explain the views found in these sources in context. I have read lots of WP articles where people cherry-pick quotes from academic sources to promote a view that many people believe is "true" but that distorts the scientific research. As long as this happens, university professors will rejct any student research based on WP. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

38. Support. The "verifiability, not truth" is catchy, but the literal interpretation is not entirely accurate. It tries to make "verifiability" and "truth" opposing concepts, when in actuality they are supportive of each other. We should never knowingly add false information to an article just because a "reliable source" is erroneous. (Indeed if the "reliable source" is erroneous on a certain statement, then the source isn't reliable on that statement, even if it is reliable otherwise.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Not quite. We must include all significant views, it is not for us to determine whether they are true or not (especially when "truth" is a word most scientists avoid and philosophers question). The most we can say is "it is true that this is a significant view," if this is what you mean about mutually supportive. But what we are verifying is that it really is a significant view, and that we are providing an accurate account of it. This is a far cry from saying that th view is true! Do you truly believe that we are supposed to verify which of the following interpretations if quantum mechanics: The Copenhagen interpretation; Many worlds; Consistent histories; Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation; de Broglie–Bohm theory; Relational quantum mechanics; Transactional interpretation; Stochastic mechanics; Objective collapse theories; von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse; Many minds, is "true?" If one of them is true, the others must be false. Scientists acknowledge that they cannot all be correct. But you think our policy should be to report the true one? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Of course there are cases where there are genuinely competing views in high-quality sources about what the truth of a matter is. But that is addressed in WP:NPOV policy. It's not a matter for WP:V. --JN466 13:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    I agree with you that this is covered in NPOV. But my position starts with NPOV as axiomatic and asks what then follows? My point is (1) V must be consistent with NPOV, and (2) given NPOV we have to ask ourselves, what is it that we are verifying? For me, if we accept (1) the answer to (2) cannot be "the truth." If we accept (1), then what we must verify is that "x is a significant view." It may be a view of the truth (as is often the case with religion, and never the case with science). Some people who are polling "support" are motivated by a perception (accurate in my experience) that most academics do not respect WP. They are also motivated by the belief that the cause of this perception is our use of "verifiably significant as opposed to fringe views" as our criterion for inclusion, rather than "true as opposed to false." I vehemently disagree with this.

    I am convinced that the credibility problem with WP is cased by the fact that very few of our editors take the time to do enough research - which often times must take place in a library - to distinguish between fringe and significant views, and to be able to provide an adequate context when presenting significant views. This is a skill that any PhD must have when writing a literature review, but one does not need a PhD to have this skill (and I have always opposed making one's academic credentials or lack of them relevant to editing WP). One does however need to make an effort, and in my experience a great many editors do not. And academics can see this. Moreover, I am convinced that making "truth" a criterion for inclusion will degrade the quality of the encyclopedia either by encouraging OR or by leading to overly-simplistic coverage of complex topics. We would be much better off if we took more time to provide guidance about what kinds of research are required to verify whether a view is significant or fringe, and to be able to provide sufficient context to understand why people in good faith might have competing views (e.g. why different US Supreme Court Justices hold different views on the constitutionality of abortion, gun control, or torture. Or why equally respected scientists have mutually exclusive interpretations of quantum mechanics. I am not criticizing these articles, just using them to illustrate my point) This, and not the absence of "truth" is in my experience why so many scholars are dismissive of WP. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    The problem here is significant and fringe are not exclusive things. Regardless of how you define it the Jesus myth theory is significant but because the definitions for it are all over the map it is next to impossible to tell if the entire idea is fringe.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    I would rather say that Jesus Myth Theory is significant in one context and not in another - just as I would say that Creationism is significant in one context but not in another. As many scientists have pointed out (Gregory Bateson most notable) context is crucial. Bruce, I think you make a valid point. I just do not think that making truth, fact, or accuracy a criterion is the solution. I think that clearer criteria for significant and fringe views, criteria that make clear the importance of context, will not only address the specific problems people here are concerned with but would moreover improve the encyclopedia in many other ways. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Several of the examples Slrubenstein mentions are cases where the truth is controversial or unknown. In many cases the fallacy of a statement in a reliable source is fairly clear cut and objective. The latest one I ran into was Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 2#Transportation where a "reliable source" erroneously said that the (hideous) Oslo bombing in July halted all public transportation. Would it have been right to propagate that statement? (In this case the issue was resolved by finding an even more reliable source, but even if not, I would support eliminating any sentences that are in clear and objective error.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    True and in the case of the Jesus Myth Theory just what the idea even is is up for grabs. For example, take this definition from Bromley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Page 1034: "This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,...". Even if you ignore the whole story of issue (George Washington and the Cherry Tree is a mythical story of George Washington but doesn't mean there wasn't a George Washington) you still have the huge range of Greek and Norse mythology. Hercules was regarded by Eusebius in Preparation of the Gospel as a flesh and blood person who was later deified and as late as 1919 it was stated "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." So Bromley's definition depends how well you know Greek and Norse mythology and is only regarding story of Jesus rather than the man himself--not very helpful.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

39. Support. The proposed wording is a welcome clarification on what to do with material that is verifiable but not necessarily true. I think that it is a lot clearer on the subtleties of this issue for someone who is reading the policy for the first time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
40. Support. Useful clarification. Murray Langton (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
41. Support I have previously opposed any change on this guideline, which has served us well. But the proposed wording is simpler and clearer, and doesn't confront new users right up front with a basic rule which at first glance appears to be a logical contradiction-- or perhaps the nearest analogy might be a koan. Koans are very attractive as ways of expressing some deeper truth that is otherwise difficult to verbalize, but it's not necessary to have one here. The basic threshold is, after all, quite simply verifiability in the ordinary meaning of the word. If we can not find any information about a subject, even as a concept, we cannot write about it. Everything else is a subsequent step. We need not, for example, consider whether something would be notable if it existed, or whether a possibly insulting paragraph about an made-up person is a BLP violation. For content also: we cannot find some evidence for a quotation, we can not use it. If there's no source for a birth date, we can't give one. And so on, as the basis for WP:OR and much of WP:NOT , and many other fundamental policies and guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    But DGG this change doesn't suggest that if there is no source we can't give a birthdate - it suggests that a sourced birthdate can be removed if one editor says "I know that birthdate is incorrect because they guy used to be my neighbor".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    I do not think it can be read that way. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    Several editors voting support are clearly stating that that is the way they read it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    I don't think so.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

42. Support The proposed wording is more precise and the additional section is accurate with regards to community consensus. ThemFromSpace 05:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
43. Support per TransporterMan. I like how it reminds editors to get down-and-dirty in article-talkpages and discuss the verifiable sources - so they can form a consensus as to whether such-n-such is really appropriate/reliable.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
44. Support While I appreciate the pithiness and power of the "verifiability, not truth" aphorism, it really doesn't belong in the beginning of the lead of this policy page, where the proper nuanced reading of it may be lost, and it is too easily open to misinterpretation. Insofar as the "not truth" part distracts from the intent of this policy page, it should be removed as described, and the addition providing context is also nice. --Jayron32 05:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
45. Support. I think the link to the essay "verifiability, not truth", even the whole sentence including it, is unneeded; but this is still a better version. Congratulations to the many editors that discussed this (I've read once in a while over the months) and then brought it to a RfC. I am learning from you, thanks. - Nabla (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
46. Support. This wording is better. I am amongst those who feel that a further improvement could be achieved by tweaking the first two words, "The initial...". Initial implies a chronological set of steps in editing Wikipedia which do not exist, and the use of "The" instead of "A" makes it sounds like it is even a strict one. During discussion of this draft many people clearly preferred something like "A fundamental threshold..." and I do not believe that consensus has been tested upon this point yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
47. Support.Drift chambers (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
48. Support. The current version is very confusing and is Wiki-jargon rather than real English. The proposed version is still far from perfect, but it is better. Neutron (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Can you explain what, specifically, you find confusing? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

49. Support - a beneficial clarification. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
50. I support the proposal (1) as obviously desirable, and in line with other policies, WP:NPOV for instance. Not everything that is written about a topic deserves equal coverage in Wikipedia; some sources may deserve no coverage at all in a specific context. I have reservations that proposal (2) is adding anything of value, see my comments in the "neutral" section on this one. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    I do not understand how eliminating the "not truth" is in line with NPOV. Can you explain? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Um... the proposal does not eliminate the phrase "Verifiability, not truth"... it moves it, and explains it. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Given that there are only two choices to vote on here, I chose the lesser evil. My own favorite formulation would be:

    "A necessary [but not sufficient] condition for the inclusion of a piece of information in a Wikipedia article is verifiability—whether the information has been published by a reliable source. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion. Truth is approximated in Wikipedia articles by following the neutral point of view, which requires that various bits of information from diverse sources be represented in proportion to their due weight."

    Aye, Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    I share the anxiety many people below express, about a major change in policy. But below, Have mörser, will travel suggests that a better slogan would be "NPOV, not truth." I like this. What's more, I think this is a very constructive point, and it is a shame it is burried as a comment to someone else's comment.

    I second "NPOV, not truth" as a very constructive point. I think it deals with a lot of issues that people have with our current "verifiability, not truth" slogan. Nageh (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    That Blueboar's proposal has so much support tells me that there is a serious need to clarify our policies (and as I said before it also acknowledges the hard work Blueboar put into the proposal). But there is still considerable opposition and we are far from any consensus for such a change. Yet, some very positive things have come out of this discussion. One is Have mörser, will travel's suggestion that "NPOV, not truth" is the better formulation of the slogan. Elsewhere, Unscintillating suggests that it is our "Reliable Sources" policy that really needs work. I think that if any changes to V were made in conjunction with these other suggestions, it might be possible to move closer to a consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    In pretty much every case we have talked about here, it's really the formal reliability of a source that has produced the problem. When editors have judged that the actual reliability of a statement was too low to justify including it, there have been objections that the type of material being cited was intrinsically reliable, and that therefore the editor could not object to its inclusion. That's the problem with "not truth": it is being interpreted to mean that editors cannot exercise judgement, because judgement implies interpretation, and that this interpretation is ipso facto OR and thus forbidden, and that therefore the truth of a tatement isn't germane in any way even when it is obviously wrong. That's quite different from what I believe was originally intended: that you can't just add material you think is true; you also need a good, referenced source for it.

    we're getting captured by the obsession with keeping OR out of articles, but the side effect has become essentially a lot of campaigns to keep false or misleading information in articles. The issue is becoming exhausting because those of us who want to produce an accurate encyclopedia and fix these errors have to spend inordinate effort to make what ought to be trivial corrections. I think there is a way to fix this without giving away our ability to reject genuinely novel material. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    The misleading information situation has a sort of a poster child in the Weston Price article. That article has many problems nearly all stemming on how Price's work is being used today rather than anything he himself did or wrote. So totally RS direct quote by Price from JAMA and a 1939 medical book division which would help address many of the POV issue of the article have been kept out under a misunderstanding of what OR even means.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    In addition to its relevance for ongoing, difficult discussions and curation, I think that the change is relevant and helpful even for casual but knowledgeable editors who are turned off by the idea that some wikipedian may remove a solidly sourced edit and replace it with a sourced but out-of-date or bogus replacement. While (hopefully) everyone in this discussion understands NPOV and the concommitant unattainability of "truth", it is quite off-putting for many to see a negation of truth in the lede. Mellsworthy (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

51. --Kmhkmh (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
52. A reasonable way to deal with incorrect statements in otherwise reliable sources; reflects current practice. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
53. Support A useful and beneficial clarification. Edison (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
54. Concur with the above. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
55. Support My comments on the proposal have appeared elsewhere on this page. To address the concerns of those opposed to the proposal: I believe that the current WP:V (toxic trio: Verifiability, not truth) (1) enables cheap shots to be made at the quality of Wikipedia's editors and processes, (2) confuses new users. It is necessary. I foresee nothing substantial changing in how we edit, resolve disputes, etc. as a consequence of this change. It does no harm. patsw (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
56. Support There's nothing inherently wrong with losing punchiness for clarity on the subtler points. We shouldn't sacrifice meaning in order to get a slogan. SamBC(talk) 12:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
57. Support Good compromise. Salvidrim (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
58. Support So long as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, I agree with Blueboar's proposal. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
59. Support - I've always thought that line could be misunderstood, but never had the time or inclination to do the research to craft a well-researched proposal. Kudos to the work put in by the proposer here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
60. Support - I've always struggled with this line, we can include falsehoods as long as there is a verifiable source is how I have read it. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
61. Support - The proposed text is a clearer version of what the original text is trying to say. The original text may have some sentimental value, but the wording we use in policies needs to be worded for newcomers to WP ... and what they need is of clear, plain guidance. The proposal makes clear that which is only implied in the original. --Noleander (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
62. Support – sgeureka ^t•c 09:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
63. Support - This new wording makes the policy easier to understand and refrains from making verifiability and truth seem like opposites. Chris (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
64. Support. I have not been following this discussion recently, but this proposal seems good to me. I think "verifiability, not truth" should still have a prominent place, but I also think the notion of "truth" could be misinterpreted, since it means different things to different people. So I'm impressed with the compromise this proposal offers. Mlm42 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
65. Support "Verifiability not truth" is easily misunderstood. Moving it later in the policy helps to give it the necessary context to be understandable by a new user.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
66. Support I think the current version is fine. But this version is clearer, and therefore better. LK (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
67. Support, but suggest a different formulation The problem with the lead is the first two words "The threshold". This implies that verifiability is the single threshold or at least the most important. A better statement would be "One requirement for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability. Other requirements are relevancy and due weight. " This would reduce the argument that every bit of trivia needs to be included, or that information published by mistaken or fringe sources needs to be included. "Verified" means "demonstrated to be true." It is contradictory to say "verifiability, not truth". If something is verifiable it is necessarily true. If a source makes a mistaken assertion such as Dewey Defeats Truman, we would not consider that verified, even though it could be sourced to contemporary newspapers. Jehochman ^Talk 22:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
68. Support This seems like a much better method of explaining to readers exactly how WP:V works. This is a nicely worded compromise on prior arguments. Silverseren^C 00:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
69. Support The new wording preserves the original intent, but minimizes the possibility of misunderstanding. I appreciate the hard work that has gone into this. Sunray (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
70. Support I agree. Sole Soul (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
71. Support this is long overdue. USchick (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
72. Support - It's an improvement in most ways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
73. Support Well argued. Dolphin (t) 04:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
74. Support, several times before this discussion occured I noted to myself that 'not truth' is flawed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
75. Support [1]... getting closer. Specifically, I agree that getting the mantra out of the lead is correct. I don't think letting editors know that there is more to policy than this page is a bad thing, and the current conflict with undue weight as pointed out in the proposal all lean in favor of this change. I think this page addresses two classes of users, Garage Band X and The Truth^TMer's. For Garage Band X with a listing in Podunk Daily, this proposal nullifies their ability to say see, put it on it's verifiable (the policy change nips a certain SPIA argument in the bud). For the The Truth^TMer's I think that this version still does a fine, even better job, with the additional section on "untruth", explaining why Proposition Q can't be included even if it is 'true'. Cheers Crazynas ^t 05:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    RE: People that don't support this because moving it out of the lead is watering it down. Pointing to a specific section of the page, for specific editors that need that advice is no less powerful then having it in the lead, if someone won't read what being polemic is with links like that, they are demonstrating a willful ignorance of what's being pointed out to them, or they are not suitable for this kind of work. Editors that don't 'get it' when linked to the new section, won't 'get it' reading the lead as it currently stands. Crazynas ^t 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

76. Support Although not perfect, and significantly wordier than the current version, the proposed change is a step forward in that it more accurately reflects the actuality of how en.Wiki is edited: verifiabilty is the essential first step, but a positive relationship with reality (i.e. "truth") is important as well. Even sources that are reliable by Wikipedia standards can put forth statements of "fact" which do not accord with reality, and to include these without a caveat simply because they are verifiable does a disservice to our readers, and to our reputation (such as it is) for accuracy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
77. Support, extremely strongly. Evaluating if a source is a reliable source, even though it is technically original research, is and has always been acceptable, because, as we have no god list of reliable sources we must figure out if a source is reliable on our own on a case by case basis. Due to the poor semantics of the issue, sometimes this vital and accepted deliberation over if a source is reliable or not due to factual inaccuracies/bias/outdatedness will be disrupted by people claiming "Verifibility, not truth!". JORGENEVSKI 08:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
78. Support I support this proposal, although I don't see the change in policy as very large since the "verifiability not truth" notion will remain in the policy. One thing that caught my eye was this passage in the proposed new paragraph: "Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information" I think this is good, but we might go even a bit further in that sometimes reliable sources may be materially in conflict with each other, and in those situations we could explicitly identify that the issue is in dispute, which is important information to present to readers. So it can be OK to say there is a dispute/disagreement (even though no source explicitly says this), and then present the information in terms of a dispute (e.g. using attribution). There is a section in the policy already (lower down) that says "Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution" but this idea would go a tad further. --Dailycare (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
79. Support The "not truth" bit of the first sentence has long been problematic. It's a fact of life that many editors who read the policy for the first time (and that includes a lot of newbies) don't read much more than the first sentence. It's not atypical for a newbie to be scolded about his edits and asked to read WP:V. These editors come here, conclude that Wikipedia doesn't care about truth and leave. Pichpich (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
80. Partial support. In the (happy) absence of a wiki-judiciary to tell us what the words mean, it's up to us to occasionally rephrase policy to ensure that its clarity and relevance is maintained. I'll go along with the proposed change, though I think some rewording would be beneficial: I don't like "initial threshold", or the bit in brackets about specifics, for instance. In fact my preferred version would read something like:

    Information can only be included in Wikipedia if it is verifiable - that is, if it is possible to check that it has already been published by a reliable source. While this verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of it because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion too.

    Actually I don't know why we don't discuss issues such as this by encouraging everyone to submit their own preferred wording. Very few people wouldn't want to make at least a few changes and it would provide a tangible indication of the direction the majority want to go. It would certainly put the spotlight on the "vocal and unreconciled folk" who are resistant to change.  —SMALLJIM  21:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
81. Support This is a small, commonsense step toward a smarter encyclopedia. "Verifiability not truth" is a simple-minded mantra mostly used to slap down other people's edits. No one thinks, "Hmm... This is probably wrong but I'm going to add it anyway because it's verifiable." Brmull (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
82. Support The present wording seems to give the impression that accuracy is not important. Ward20 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
83. Support I like "Verifiability not truth" but prefer to have an explanatory preamble to ameliorate the cognitive dissonance it causes on first reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
84. Support. The statement, "verifiability, not truth" is a paradox according to the English language definition of the words verify and "not truth". Why this has been allowed to stay in this lead section for years on end is a question that needs to be answered. We need to say what we mean and mean what we say. Wikipedia needs to get in the habit of using words the way the rest of the world uses them, and to stop trying to redefine the language. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
85. Support. As I totally understand the birth of that slogan and actually support it. Reading it as : Wikipedia is not the place for genuine revelation; We'd rather wait tomorrow news [at the least] (reflecting NOR). I also think that it is time to counter the other side of the medal : If you know something relevant you ought to write about it (reflecting NPOV). And if the accident happened in front of your door, please don't ask a source in the name of verifiability knowing it's absolutely true. Iluvalar (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
86. Support. The proposed revision is, for me, simply a clearer way to express the existing sentiment. Ben MacDui 09:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
87. Support - seems preferable to the existing version. The words 'not truth' in the first sentence of the current version have always bugged me, and have confused many people over the years. Robofish (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
88. Support - This is an important albeit incremental step in more clearly explaining existing policy. First, although "verifiability not truth" is a useful slogan to remember, and a pedagogical tool to instruct the newbies that we can repeat only what we can verify, it is not strictly true in lay terms. A closer approximation might be "verifiability and truth", or "verify but be skeptical", as the new paragraph so aptly explains the nuanced approach to dealing with things that can in fact be cited to reliable sources but are nevertheless of dubious validity or encyclopedic value due to weight concerns, contradictory sources, irrelevance to the subject, being clearly erroneous, and various other matters of editorial discretion. Like "ignore all rules", TNV is an old-style Wikipedia Jimboism that is instructive precisely because it strikes the reader as ridiculous or untrue on the surface, in turn inviting us to consider how it is apt in a deeper sense. That's great for us as a community, and indeed the proposal doesn't mean we can't keep the slogan, write essays, create shortcuts, and so on. But as a simple policy lookup that should be accessible to editors old and new, the rewritten version comes closer to explaining how it actually works in straightforward language. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
89. Support Clearer exposition of community consensus. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
90. Support - Simply because something is in a supposedly reliable source doesn't mean that it's actually true - reliable sources have biases. Allens (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
91. Support per Brmull. Albacore (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
92. Support - may as well get rid of it, my experience has been that I've rarely seen it actually invoked in those words, just because it sounds so creepy... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
93. Support - verifiability is not opposed to truth, it is a way of approximating to it. I have never liked their use here as apparent antonyms. The new wording is far more defensible. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
94. Support Yosef1987 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
95. Support. "Not truth" adds nothing useful and, although I don't think it should, it is clear that it confuses even some experienced editors. Also, I agree that it does sound a bit creepy. --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
96. Support. I believe that anything verifiable is true. I also think the "not truth" expression sounds almost like something out of Orwell. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
97. Support. While we strive to make our encyclopaedia as true as possible, it would be impossible without sources to vefify verify the information with. Shuipzv3 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
98. Support. Truth... Not Truth... without the proper context, an appropriate level of reading comprehension and a source's proven consistency over time - is either really provable nowadays when it comes to verifying even the most well-established of sources? The new wording allows for such nuances to have a place if proven warranted. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
99. Support - states the policy clearly enough and in a much less creepy way. Kansan (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
100. Support - I like the new phrasing. It's clearer and more positive. - Frankie1969 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
101. Support as an improvement over the current phrasing and a reasonable clarification. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
102. Support - Much clearer. _noisy jinx ^huh? 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
103. Support as a major improvement in the clarity of the statements. Gwickwire (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
104. Support Just the phrase "not truth" alone rings alarm bells for me. Bejinhan talks 04:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
105. Support Editors that insert information without a source are relatively easy to deal with. It is the editors that use a source to justify a edit that violates undue or is not significant that are more difficult. Having this mentioned early in this policy can only help. AIRcorn (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
106. Support I believe this change should go forth. As it has been said above, uncited material is easily dealt with, and the proposed change covers all of my concerns with it. Well done, I agree. Jessemv (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
107. Support I can see no particular logic in the existing wording - it is philosophically questionable, and seems to have been arrived at on an ad hoc basis, rather than as a reasoned explanation of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia. In practical terms, the change will make little difference, except in that it will emphasise the necessity of proper sourcing - which can only be beneficial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
108. Support I really hope this change goes through. Having the lede of this policy negate truth (or even "truth") is not helping anyone. Long-time users should know already that sourcing and reputability/depth of sourcing is what is needed to back up content, but (anecdotally--ie. unsourced except for this page) those who are just getting deeper into wikipedia can find it quite off-putting. For example, empiricists eschew belief in obtaining truth, but they label the quest for NPOV a search for truth. I think that truth is a contentious enough word that we should (as the current proposal does) embed the discussion of truth more carefully into the middle of the matter, rather than at the beginning where it is too easy to come away with the wrong idea. Mellsworthy (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
109. Support The concept of not truth shouldn't be in the lead, because it's misinterpreted by new editors. It also gives Wikipedia's critics ammunition that we decide on content by consensus, rather than truth - which they have a point much of the time, unfortunately. --Confession0791 ^talk 07:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
110. Support I especially think that the new paragraph about truth and untruth is desperately needed, and I hope that it is added whether or not the lead sentence is changed. Ravendrop 07:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

     Perhaps "untruth" could be an article/concept created, rather than a redirect. It is an actual word - but not on this wiki ;> Doc talk 07:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

     I second the motion, for clarity. --Confession0791 ^talk 08:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

111. Support - this is admirably clear, and reflects well on all who worked so hard. A big improvement, thankyou. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
112. Support - this is a good way of avoiding any perceived false dichotomy. StAnselm (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
113. Support' - very important. thank you. Soosim (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
114. Support. Never liked the old version. This is an improvement. Qwfp (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
115. Support - Actually this is exactly what I felt should be written instead of the current version of WP:Verify. It is needed as it has more clear "wordings" and is more comprehensive to new users (old users would definitely be happy with it!). If the first line sounds "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." - that might create confusion to others - doesn't WP need truth...?? - something like this... So better focus on verifiability first, then in a separate section clarify what is considered as truth according to WP:Truth. And yes, it is always advisable that "If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page" - rather than removing it immediately. But I always recommend that before removing any unsourced information - the editor should search him/herself for whether there is any possibilities of existence of any source. -- Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
116. Support Better balanced. Aflis (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
117. Support Much clearer than the previous wording. Further improvements can be made... but that can be part of the normal editorial process. Yaris678 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
118. Weak support It's a clearer picture of what verifiability means relative to truth, but I must confess I appreciate the shock value of "verifiability, not truth." I would support more strongly if WP:VNT had a template more official than essay, which makes it easily dismissable as a minority view when that isn't really to be the case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
119. Support. While I strongly agree with removing the problematically confusing "not truth" slogan, I think the second paragraph of the proposed new truth/untruth section may prove problematic in other ways. I expect that if this change is approved that the language will need to continue to be tweaked in that section. older ≠ wiser 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
120. Weak support Per the well-argued #Rationale. In the greater scheme of things, I do not think a minor change of the specific wording of this policy matters all that much. —Ruud 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
121. Support The "verifiability, not truth" was added by User:SlimVirgin in 2005, without much discussion, and never enjoyed particularly strong consensus support. The change was reverted many times over the ensuing year or two and ultimately was left in place. This change restores balance. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
122. Support I believe this proposal splits up the requirement into better more easily digested chunks. The initial statement about verifiability has been chopped down to what it actually means without sticking in negatives. The statement about verifiability not truth has been put where it makes sense rather than as an in your face silliness. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
123. Support Our goal is truth. Our verifiability policy is one means to attempt to get to an objective truth, recognizing that it can be controversial. But that doesn't change the fact that our ultimate goal is to include true information. Gigs (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
124. Support Reasonable wording. "Not truth" is confusing and is open to misinterpretation. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
125. Support – I would prefer no mention of "verifiability, not truth", which has an Orwellian ring, but this is a reasonable compromise. Occuli (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
126. Support - It's better explained what Verifibility, not truth actually means.--В и к и T 17:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
127. Support. Though I agree with the principle of WP:VNT, putting harsh (IMO) wording like not truth in one of the core pillars of WP might be harmful and give a bad impression to new editors. I think its best that new editors learn the principle of VNT as they go along, and not get a lot to swallow at once. We should be proud of VNT, but we have never "advertised" it like we have done WP:V, and I feel its best it remains that way, because it might ruin the image of WP itself. Lynch7 17:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
128. I mostly support this proposal, it seems as though they have thought this policy through carefully but it still doesn't fully address the problem of when citations do not exist. Wikipedia still want editors to verify any information that is contentious which is not always possible. Shimmeryshad27 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
129. Support Absolutely remove "not truth" from the lead. Too easily misinterpreted as meaning that WP doesn't care whether our content is true or not, when we clearly do. Including the phrase later where it can be more carefully explained is a reasonable compromise. Awien (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
130. Support There is no single 'truth' only verifiable or unverifiable perceptions of truth. Marj (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
131. Support As a relatively inexperienced editor I find the proposed changes to be a helpful clarification. Meters (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
132. Support It's time for Wikipedia to stop pretending that truth doesn't matter. Truth is not the only thing that matters, but it does matter. Using this as a rhetorical aid even if it helps the encyclopedia in the short run will only hurt it in the long run. Those who think otherwise might be advised to step outside of the wiki-world for a time and consider how research and presentation of "information" or "knowledge" in the real world proceeds. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
133. Support, but why not do away with the sentence: In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth".? Isn't it now superfluous? Chrisemms (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
134. Support, "not truth" is confusing to readers, since "verifiability" means to seek the truth. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
135. Support, I agree with the above comment. Doug (at Wiki) 23:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
136. Support per Blueboar. This is one of the most important policies for Wikipedia and the policy should be clear to all. Haseo9999 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
137. Support. In combination with the proposed new additional first section, the new lead wording gives a much more balanced — and newbee-friendly — view on the policy. DVdm (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
138. Support in principle, however I believe that as a blanket statement, V not T gets the point across. "Not truth" is a problematic wording. However I'd rather change it to something like verifiability, not just truth which as a one-liner gets the point across without the risk of making it sound like truth and verifiability are in conflict. Nitro2k01 (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
139. Support Now, POV-pushing editors hunt for academic sources and para-academic "sources" supporting their erroneous views, whose deletion is hampered by Not Truth. As the ratio of incompetents/competents increases, people may stop referring to "The Sokal Hoax" and start referring to Wikipedia---unless "Not Truth" is reformed. The intelligent consensus of good-faith competent editors, based on higher quality/more reliable sources, should allow us to remove erroneous material from articles. (Gangs of incompetent or bad-faith editors trying to squash properly referenced information are rare, and should quickly be reformed or blocked, of course.) Concern about the wording of the paragraph, especially its last sentence, which will encourage the inclusion of more junk as attributed junk. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

     I echo your concern. But the proposal is a big improvement all the same. Passing the change would not prevent further discussions to refine the wording. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

140. Support, this would be a definite step forward. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 00:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
141. Support and how. One of the worst formulations in all of Wikipedia's policies, and one that has irked me for years. Truth is a basic presupposition of everything we do and have done; an encyclopedia is worthless without it. Chubbles (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
142. Strong support, without wanting to get into a philosophical ramble about the concept of truth, this whole recent drama was kicked off by a fundamental misunderstanding of this very sentence, and I'm still frightfully reminded of that editor who posted about something untrue from a vandalised BLP (can't remember which one) being reported in the press via WP "it's clearly not true, but now it's been published in several reliable sources, under Wikipedia rules it doesn't make any difference whether it's true or not". And you can't really argue with him when we have this ridiculous wording on a core policy. "Truth" is too vague a concept to throw around like this without elaborating. - filelakeshoe 00:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
143. Support this timely clarification of the wording. 101.171.149.26 (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

     Folks, this is a one-off IP delivering their only edit. Is this seriously to be considered among the support votes? I would sincerely hope not. Doc talk 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

144. Support Agreed, not all verifyable infomation is neccessarily true, and we are here not to promote paper and arguements but spread knowledge. Comprimise must be made though, please don't let this drag out for years.TheThiefOfEden (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 12.24 1/11/11 AEST
145. Support The obviously reasonable meaning should be that "just because something is true isn't enough — it needs to be verifiable". But the existing wording sounds far too much like the absurd claim that "if it's verifiable, we can say it regardless of whether or not it's true". Richwales (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
146. Strong Support Archolman User talk:Archolman 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
147. Support per Blueboar. A helpful, reasonable, and perhaps overdue clarification.--JayJasper (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
148. Strong Support Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
149. Support. I've opposed variations on this redaction before, because I consider the cognitive shock provided by "verifiability, not truth" to be valuable, but we can find other ways to accomplish that, and I accept that it facilitates people getting wrong ideas. It's time to let it go. —chaos5023 (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
150. Support. A good compromise that offers welcome clarification. Eusebeus (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
151. Support I've withheld opinion until now (except for my Perspective section post, below), reading everyone's comments, and percolating on it for awhile. However, I think the change is reasonable and needed, though I see it will cause some problems for certain areas like some of the scientific articles. It would seem that there is a need then for sub/co-policy that comes into play when those areas are challenged with V&T issues, and when the fringe theorists feel the wind in their sails. Sctechlaw (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
152. Partial Support. I support the changes to the lead. For the new section, I support all but the last two sentences. I think those need to be removed. Karanacs (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
153. Support Nothing is lost except the order in which information is presented. The reworded proposal reflects the way Wikipedia works more accurately. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
154. Support Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
155. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
156. Support Truly, "not truth" has nothing to do in that opening paragraph. Vladimir (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
157. Support per Occam's Razor. New wording of lead presents policy more simply. New explanation of difference between verifiability and truth is a more proper. -Drdisque (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
158. Support as a "step in the right direction": the impact of the Verifiabilty, not truth is stark and liable to mislead. Perhaps it would be sufficient to say "Reliable Verification, rather than Truth" and basically retain the previous statement. So far as the suggested new section on assertions and truth and untruth is concerned, creep could be reduced by saying the following: "It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. 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). Information supported by a reliable source should be discussed on the article talk page, in the light of policies like neutral point of view and due weight). Presenting the information as a claim rather than known fact can often resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.--Jpacobb (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
159. Support (qualified) The proposal seems well argued and appears to have been extensively discussed and on that basis I have no reason to oppose. I have been involved with editors—generally from an inclusionist angle—where the question of verifiability most often occurs. I have been in the position of preventing BITE on more than one occasion so any calrification of this policy is welcome. qualification—I am concerned with the wording of "Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information" where I believe should be reworded as "... the sources opinion ..." to prevent the policy being used to insert editors own opinions --Senra (Talk) 16:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
160. Support The prominent position of the "verifiability not truth" "maxim" implies that verifiability somehow trumps the truth (and hence every other WP policy). Demoting and explaining the "maxim" in context therefore removes this (undesirable) implication without swaying the policy from its (desirable) intent. --DaveG12345 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
161. Support The criteria should clearly be verifiability AND truth. The only problem with the truth part is that it is harder to check. The old wording gave the impression that people shouldn't bother with whether something was true or false. If it was published somewhere and hence verifiable then it passed the threshold. I once removed a clearly false statement, impeccably sourced to a drunken comedian. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
162. Support. Swarm ^X 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
163. Support The main point is verifiability and the 'not truth' part can be covered later with more explaination. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
164. Support, the wording should not imply that verifiability and truth are contrary to each other, but rather assert the threshold for inclusion. New wording does this much better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
165. Support, while true, removing this from the lede subtracts one of the things most off-putting to some editors. Nothing changes other than the presentation of the idea, and I support that. Dayewalker (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
166. Support - I'd like to add to this debate the following example/case study: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Halt_and_Catch_Fire. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
167. Support I have been feeling myself uncomfortable with the current wording for some time. It may give a false impression that truth and verifiability are incompatible, or even that truth is not welcomed in Wikipedia, while in fact both should go in an inseparable bond. Brandmeister t 21:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
168. Support I personally would prefer something even more restrictive than this alternative. Having worked in contentious areas and with unpopular movements ,I think the threshold needs to be much higher than the suggested improvement. However it is inherently a move in right direction. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
169. Support. If we're going to say "verifiability, not truth", then we ought to explain what we mean by it, because I can see how the old version could confuse people.Beth 84 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
170. Support. On the whole, a clear step forward. The relationship between verifiability and truth is clearer under the new language. Shanata (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
171. Support. Clarifies the intent of the policy, while retaining the language and making sure we don't misunderstand the policy. A good step forward. Yobol (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
172. Support. A good compromise and in my opinion an improvement to the wording of this policy. The wording change helps make things clearer. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
173. Very Strong Support This clarification is long overdue. I would even hope for stronger wording. The goal should be the closest we can come to what reliable and verifiable statements of truth or apparent truth (or falsehood) have been made. Obotlig (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
174. Support. This change is a good step towards avoiding misinterpratetions of the current wording.Dallasparta (talk • contribs) 09:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
175. Support. Seems reasonable to expand the meaning into the new section. This is a fair proposal that handles both sides of the argument.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
176. Support This clarifies, for the better, a bedrock policy. Wikipedia is a compendium of what's been published in reliable sources about a subject. If genuinely reliable sources are mixed, the page should not be about the truth of a matter, it should report what reliable sources say about the matter. If reliable sources all line up, the article probably is the truth. That's a happy by-product. But the goal here is to establish what reliable sources say, not whether they're correct. David in DC (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
177. Support. This is how Wikipedia already works. Arguments of the type, "yes, we all agree it's false, but we must claim it anyway because this formally reliable source says it, no reliable source contradicts it, and Wikipedia doesn't care about truth" can sometimes be heard, but usually lead to severe disruption and never win in the end. Hans Adler 12:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
178. Support. I support this change. Why would something be "not truth" just because it is verifiable ? The current wording is misleading and the change is a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbchurchill (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
179. Support With caveats about what might constitute a "reliable source," I support this proposal. In cases of controversial and not objectively factual material, it seems to me that fair treatment becomes a higher criterion than reliable sources. What I want to avoid, and what I would like Wikipedia to avoid, is having articles espouse as "truth" something that appears to have a preponderance of evidence that in fact, consist of the largest number of people who shout the loudest. I think it is important that controversy over material be documented and annotated. Norm Reitzel (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
180. Support. I agree with concerns that the new wording is longer than it needs to be, but it does seem to improve the clarity of what the policy is actually trying to say, which is more important. Plus what Hans Adler said. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
181. Support. While I think that "verifiability, not truth" is a nice catchphrase in retrospect, it may well confuse new editors. For these people, the proposed change clarifies the policy. ylloh (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
182. Support, but would like to see change from "verifiability, not truth" to "verifiability, not just truth", per Nitro2k01. Moogwrench (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
183. Support. While I generally support being succinct, I find that "verifiability, not truth" can mean many things to many people. This proposal makes it very clear what it is supposed to mean, and that's the point. The Haz _talk 18:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
184. Support. Not much to add really. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
185. Support. The new phrasing is more positive and clear than the "not truth" statement. -Fall Of Darkness (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
186. Support, for improved clarity.--Miniapolis (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
187. Support, But for heaven's sake - if this minor change sparks this sort of conflagration, no wonder WP is struggling with new editors. Please consider what the core mission is, a Free Encyclopedia, an Encyclopedia contains verifiable, vetted information - the "truth" WP:Truth is far more elusive. Jettparmer (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
188. Support. I have had trouble with stupidity in the past.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
189. Support. Although it makes it more complicated in the immediate context. This move puts some more emphasis on WP:RS which is the larger context. I don't like the absolutist statement "blogs are not a reliable source" or when it is similarly expressed about videos or whatever. The change makes this stuff somewhat more complicated, but I say nonetheless it is a good change. Sorry for the long rationale. DanielM (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
190. Support. The expansion of the lede dramatically improves the integration of the policy with other policies, as well as reducing confusion for new editors. There may be additional work on this policy in the future, but the proposed changes are a significant improvement. Tgeairn (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
191. Support. The notion that "Wikipedia doesn't care about truth" is an error based on a formalistic/legalistic approach. Of course, we want to say only things that are true. If there's significant doubt, we can still say that such and such sources say something, and the claim that they say them, is true. This does mean that not everything can be reduced to procedures, which I infer is what the objectors want to do. But you know, we just can't. There has to be room for contributors to discuss which sources make sense, and which ones are making dubious claims, and in that discussion there has to be some role for the expertise of the editors who know what they're talking about. --Trovatore (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
192. Support, pretty much as summarised in the proposal. It's a great compromise. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
193. Support This clarification greatly improves Wikipedia's stance on what should be included in articles. Reywas92^Talk 02:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
194. Support I was in two minds about this until I thought of a recent example of my own where I amended a person's year of birth based on a newspaper report, subsequently realising the newspaper had got its facts very wrong. I didn't go back and amend the WP article because I didn't have a neat proof of the correct YOB. In fact I should have done so and found something to support the correct date. The proposed change discussed here will emphasise that we Wikipedians are able to think for ourselves and interpret sources intelligently. Sionk (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
195. Support Quite strongly. In fact, I would suggest (argue?) that the issue of "TRUE" (or not) not be raised or even, ideally, mentioned in the guidelines. "Verifiable" is an objective standard, referential and testable by third parties whenever a dispute over material arises (save, of course, when the dispute meta-tizes over how worthwhile some source/referrence may be). "True", however, is a subjective non-standard - the seed of a monster of disputation lying in wait to devour in endelss argument any discussion regarding any statement on any controversial subject. "True" sounds nice, sounds so sweetly absolute and final - but here, I have to go all Pontius Pilate on the matter. Let's wash our hands of the issue of "true", which lies without our human capacity to resolve, and, instead, commit to "verifiabile", which lies within. JTGILLICK (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
196. Support Someone made a comment that the first sentence of the current wording raises cognitive dissonance that prompts the editor to read further. I think that is a valid point. However, I'm very suspicious of catch phrases that try to make difficult concepts seem simple. I agree that an explanation for casual readers contrasting what the term "verifiability" means generally and on Wikipedia would be useful. As a new editor, I understood the policy better from reading the new wording than the old wording. I'd make the change.Carmaskid (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
197. Support I always had a problem with the line. I am surprised there is as much opposition as there is. Rabuve (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
198. Support. "Not truth" is misleading. utcursch | talk 10:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
199. Support. Truth would be nice, but verifiability is feasible. "not truth" can be misleading unless you take the trouble to think about it. Some people don't. Catchy is not always a good substitute for unambiguous. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
200. Support - sensible.  Frank  |  talk  14:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
201. Support - For the lead, I think it's appropriate to phrase things in terms of what Wikipedia is. Make things clear. The nuances of contrast between verifiability and truth can be addresses more specifically further in. --EEMIV (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
202. Support We lose nothing by the change other than a catchy phrase which only sounds slightly fashionable. For most of the important topics not affected by the systemic bias, we get the truth right anyway. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
203. Support removing truth out of the mix seems rather appropriate. This approach also seems a nice simplification of the lead. I'm not sure how much this will result in any change in practice, but from a policy perspective it seems appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
204. Support While I don't expect Wikipedia to achieve truth, I do think it is incumbent on its editors to seek it. We are not just a bunch of robots indiscriminately cataloging both the sense and the nonsense of the rest of the media. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
205. cautious Support. Great improvement but the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is still there and not one of my favorite pillars of wikipedia. Do we need that phrase at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiez (talk • contribs) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
206. support the "not truth" thing is perhaps one of the most puketastic bits of wikipedia (though that's a hard fought title). A teeny step in the right direction. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
207. strong support have been trying to move in this direction fo a long time. see wikipedia:facts precede opinions Bensaccount (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
208. Support. "Verifiability, not truth" has always stuck in my craw. Obviously, we should seek "Verifiability AND truth" in the encyclopedia. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
209. Support, one would think this is a no-brainer. However, I've been tripped up on this subject before. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
210. Support. The new version is no worse than the existing version, and I want to see the change rammed down the throats of the cabal that resists any improvements to this policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
211. Support have always hated the VNT phrase as it is to me antithetical to all we are doing here as an encyclopedia (i.e. trying to write as accurately as possible about the world around us with the sources we have access to. For all those below who tell me it means something else, the glaringly obvious ambiguity in how the 300-odd people here view it should be a huge red flag in how subjective it the phrase is, and hence is relegated to more of some glib jingo than a proper mature discussion on how we write an encyclopedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
212. Support because I've seen the "not truth" part be used to argue that accuracy is subordinate to verifiability when I believe proper editorial discretion demands that the two are equals. Dualus (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
213. Support - "not truth" in the lede in fact impacts verifiability in an indirect manner -someone could assume that verifiability would not be true, when in most cases it would be close to the truth. There are other issues then - of whether truth itself is objective or relative, but that would be a digression towards making a moral statement. Shaad lko (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
214. Support - Prashant Serai (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC).
215. Support IMO better expressed what we are trying to say. I understand why we have the 'not truth' bit there and 'what is the truth' is something useful for editors to think about, but I think it's also something that can be confusing to editors so a better phrasing and explaination of what we mean is beneficial. I know some have suggested those who don't understand it shouldn't be editing but IMO this ignores the fact 1) They are. 2) People who don't understand it initially may come to understand it over time if we guide them there. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
216. Support Thanks for doing this. This truth business has always been a little off-putting, so I want to echo statement #158. Mabuse (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
217. Support as a reasonable compromise and a well thought out approach to address a wide variety of concerns. --Kanovski (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
218. Support. RDBrown (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
219. Support. SeelTheMan (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my statement above[2]. I am not wedded to having the slogan in the first sentence of the lead, but I don't like the proposed section on truth since it doesn't explain that wikipedia doesn't care about truth at all, only about significant and verifiable views. It is not the wikipedia editors job to evaluate whether claims published in otherwise reliable sources are true. That is the job of researchers and scientists who make science progress by critiquing the claims of other researchers - that is not what we do in wikipedia. If an editor finds that a claim in an otherwise reliable source conflicts with his view of reality then what she needs to do is publish a research article about the topic, not bring wikipedia in line with their own view of reality. Certain editors are already arguing here that certain kinds of OR is ok and that this policy should back that notion. In my view this argument is 100 times more damaging to wikipedia than the odd pov pusher citing WP:NOTTRUTH in order to include a fringe view. We would be turning wikipedia into a publisher of original thought. Here is the citation I go by in my relation to truth here on the encyclopedia[3] "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view." Jim Wales. I would support a proposal that makes it clear that verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for inclusion of information in an article AND that the decision of including a piece of verifiable information has to be based on whether the view is significant, not whether it is objectively correct. I think this can be done by including a description of what is meant by the V not T slogan after the first sentence of the guideline. Such a phrase should both deter usages of the slogan to keep insignificant sourced views "because they are verifiable" and it should deter the usage of the slogan to remove verifiable information "because its not true". I.e. it should clearly establish the kind of reasoning that is acceptable when arguing for inclusion or exclusion of information based on "V not T". Basically I think that it is impossible to avoid that some users misuse the essay in one of the problematic ways, but it is possible to make it very easy for others to spot when it is being misused, by explicitly stating how not to use it (i.e. neither to support original research based on primary sources nor to justify inclusion of insignificant/erroneous but verifiable views)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I highly commend Blueboar in particular for this well-reasoned proposal, but I feel that the current wording is fine and widely understood by the majority of editors: especially if they read beyond that sentence. I still think the only change that might help clarify the strength and meaning of that first phrase might be to put "truth" in quotes, but that was shot down. Doc talk 03:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Opposes:.

   adding "initial". Verifiability is the starting point of inclusion - it is the threshold. After the starting point we have other process that material may encounter in order to remain on Wikipedia, but they are not thresholds, because the starting point of verifiability has been passed. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" is a simple, clear statement that loses effectiveness when qualified with the tautological "initial". Verifiability is basic. It is the essential and major inclusion criteria. It all starts from that point. We need to drum home that unverifiable material should not be added. People can quibble about the value of the material later - but let's let people know that inclusion or formatting or editing discussions shouldn't even take place without the threshold of verifiability being passed.

   We're looking at the possibility of more tweaks to follow - for example replacing "threshold" (which implies that once you've crossed it, you're in) with something like "A fundamental requirement" (which clearly leaves room for other requirements, but is absolutely ... well, fundamental. Bear with us - these extra things are on our agenda. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

   adding "not a guarantee of inclusion" / "other policies and guidelines". The essence of this policy is that material must be attributable - discussions about how the material is handled, edited, formatted, questioned, etc, do not belong here and simply cloud the issue. It is inappropriate to try to cram the whole of Wikipedia into one policy. This policy page is about verifiability, not notability, which is a different page. Awareness that material may be subject to further scrutiny is covered by the elegant "threshold".

   removing "not truth". The phrase "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is simple, elegant, and powerful. As far as we are concerned, it doesn't matter that your local band exists, and that you are staring right at them: if there is no means to verify their existence, we don't have them on Wikipedia. While I agree that a section expanding on "truth" is worthwhile (and I support that section), removing "not truth" from the opening sentence removes a simple clarification, and removes a powerful phrase. We can change "truth" to "existence" or any other such synonym, if people are uncomfortable with the word "truth", but that distinction needs to be there, and it needs to be in the first sentence. We define things by what they are not as well as by what they are. We need to make clear that truth/existence by itself is not verifiability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   I believe that the new proposal "agrees" with and furthers all of the principles which you just described. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose per User:SilkTork. Roger (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   This proposal is trying to force this policy to do the job of WP:RS (and a bunch of other policies and guidelines). The supporters seem to be under the impression that this is the be all and end all of content policy. Roger (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Maunus: "I am not wedded to having the slogan in the first sentence of the lead, but I don't like the proposed section on truth since it doesn't explain that wikipedia doesn't care about truth at all, only about significant and verifiable views" Moreover I object to the wording of the first paragraph - what we are verifying is not that there is material documentation, we are verifying that it is a "significant view." Reliable sources (which are typically some kind of publication) are a means for documenting that it is a significant view, but what we are verifying is that it is a significant view. Note I appreciate the hard work Blueboar did and I think that these objections can be resolved with some relatively minor rewording of the text Blueboar wrote. If we can modify the text in lines with these objections - which I think affect just a few sentences - I would support it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   Slrubenstein, you are confusing a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE) with Verifiability. These are not the same thing. -- Avanu (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   No, they are not the same thing. But V derives from NPOV and they are linked, which by the way is true for NOR as well. I think you are confusing V with Cite Sources. These are not the same. I stand by what I wrote. It expresses the principal that has guided my editing since we first agreed on a V policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   First line of Encyclopedia: An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

   It's a sad state of affairs when apparently many editors seem to think that an encyclopedia is nothing more than a collection of opinions, biographies, views on historic events, politics and popular fiction.

   While I can understand the need for rules focussing on the areas where most problems arise, when "truth" becomes a dirty word for many editors, maybe some change is in order. I was going to comment on the absurdity of "verifiability, not truth" when applied to articles about mathematics, but I'll save that for another time. DS Belgium (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   This is sophistry. First of all, the line you quote does not mention truth. No real scientist claims that they know the truth or teach the truth. Second, everyone knows that if they want to read a great encyclopedia written the conventional way, by actual experts on the topics, they would be better off reading Encyclopedia Britannica. When WP was created, the idea was clearly not to emulate EB but to try a whole new model. As a "wiki"pedia there is no requirement and thus no guarantee that the editors be experts. WP:NPOV was the framework that would not only enable editors with conflicting beliefs to work together, but the principle that would distinguish WP from other encyclopedias. And that principle is neutrality, not truth. NPOV demands that we include all significant points of view. period. Even if we think one view is false, we include it if it is significant. Even if one view says another view is false, we include the other view if it is significant. This is how we achieve neutrality. And if we keep our NPOV policy, then we cannot take it upon ourselves to verify that the view is the truth, and most of us are not qualified even to judge one view as better than another anyway. The only "truth" we can verify is that "it is true that someone holds this view." This is what we are verifying, not that a view is true, but that the view is significant and accurately represented. If you do not like this you should have sought a job at EB rather than volunteer here. And if you want to change this, then we have to get rid of NPOV too. We would have to change it from "neutral point of view" to "truth point of view." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   Seems I was wrong, thinking you and the others were defending "Verifiability, not truth" because it was useful in keeping the wackos and fringe theories out and trying to make WP a trustworthy source. Looking at your user page, I realise you want the opposite, every opinion that is notable should be represented, because you believe in "great truths". And that's why you say "no real scientist" claims they know the truth or teach the truth, yet in the next sentence you acknowledge that "actual experts" would use such judgement to decide the content of an encyclopaedia! Since I don't think works of fiction and arts express some great truth, you see me as an idiot ("I think of those people who would answer "no" to my question whenever I read this passage from Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum: Idiot... How could you fail to kneel down before this altar of certitude?")who doesn't understand a thing ("If the person answers no, I know that they understand nothing."), so there's no use in talking to you any further. I just hope you stay away from science topics, especially maths, if you think formal proofs are based on opinions, and the truth or falsity of conjectures can never be determined. DS Belgium ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   I certainly am defending "Verifiability, not truth" in order to make WP a better source of knowledge. Moreover, one reason I think we should keep some kind of "not truth" formula is precisely because I think the real solution lies in clarifying and elaborating on what we mean by verifiability, the criteria for reliable sources (which must include other criterion besides publication or even publication in a respected venue) - better guidance concerning fringe views is precisely one of the ways I think we can do this. Yes, I do believe in "the truth." But for reasons that Jimbo and Larry laid out a long time ago, and that are still central to our NPOV policy, I do not believe that my own view of the truth should ever influence my editing. If you think that is the meaning of my user page. I will not discuss my user page here as it is not the appropriate venue but if you actually cared about what I think you can ask on my talk page. Suffice to make three key points: first, I never called you an idiot and that you feel a need to put words into my mouth says more about you than about me. Second, you clearly do not understand the quote from Eco — the capacity for so many WP editors to believe that they understand what a quote means when taken out of context is in my view one of the major problems with Wikipedia (eliminating "not truth" will not address this problem and I think it will actually make the problem worse). Third, I never said formal proofs are based on opinions, although I do know that they are based on axioms and I appreciate the implications of that fact. Would I ever argue against including in an article a statement like "Mathematicians agree that Euclidean geometry provides a proof for the Pythagorean theorum, or a proof that the sum of angles a, b, and c of a triangle is 180 degrees? No. But – and this is the key point – "verifiability, not truth" in no way can support removing such a statement from our article, and, indeed, our policies in their present form help us write great articles that include just such statements. So I do not think your comment is rational (and no, I am not calling you an idiot), and it certainly is not constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose – to me, the proposed version seems more cumbersome than the current version, and it seems like we're trying to make this more complicated than it should be. –MuZemike 14:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Slrubenstein, Maunus, MuZemike. Obfuscates rather than clarifies, and places undue prominence on whether sourcing exists, not what is verified by that sourcing, if you follow. I would support a modified version of the 1st paragraph second suggested edit, but strongly oppose the change to the nutshell verbiage opening paragraph, which has lasted for many years for excellent reasons - because it is clear and concise. I see no reason to change it so that it is neither clear nor concise. . KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   Question for KillerChihuahua... the proposal does not call for any changes to the nutshell... but perhaps you were referring to something else... could you clarify your comment? Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   This is what happens when I'm editing in three windows while on the phone. Apologies, I have corrected my statement. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks... your views are much clearer now. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   They would have made sense before, if I'd actually typed what I was thinking. Sometimes I have a brain=keyboard disconnect. Thanks for asking for clarifying so politely. :-/ KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

8. Oppose, and indeed absolutely, utterly oppose. Avoiding the statement that "Wikipedia is not about truth" will open the door to untold of headaches and debates on many, many pages. My real concern is that the Wikipedia community is by and large unaware of a scary phenomenon that is creeping up on us: "we may soon run short of editors who are generally familiar with the policies". In most systems, there are usually underlying processes that drive the system and Wikipedia is no exception. Some time ago I came across a paper based on a thesis by a student about Wikipedia and he had done some studies that made sense. As I recently searched again, I only found a summary of the thesis here, but his main argument, supported by various graphs was that as the number of Wikipages and Wikiusers increase, reality will catch up with us, and he predicted that there will be:

   an untenable trend towards progressive increase of the effort spent by the most active authors, as time passes by. This trend may eventually cause that these authors will reach their upper limit in the number of revisions they can perform each month, thus starting a decreasing trend in the number of monthly revisions, and an overall recession of the content creation and reviewing process in Wikipedia.

   So as more and more IPs require comments, the level of effort to support them may become a burden. If those IPs feel that "they know what truth is" and try to do good by setting the record straight in Wikipedia, the effort to explain things to them will be tremendous.

   It is essential that the millions of new IPs coming in be told upfront that what they consider to be "truth" will probably differ from what someone 3 blocks away from them considers "truth", let alone someone three continents away. It is essential that the idea that "your truth may be different from the next guy's concept of truth" be stated upfront to save us the effort of repeating t again and again to new IPs. I personally feel like a broken record player repeating it again and again.

   And I would go further and point out to the new readers/editors that in some fields "there is no truth". Period. A suitable case is monetary economics where truth is all but elusive. Nobel laureate A says X and Nobel laureate B says Y and usually X and Y are not equal: there really is no "concept of truth" in monetary economics, just ideas and references. And Wikipedia can not even begin to pretend there is truth therein. This must be explained to the new editors upfront.

   We must remind users upfront that Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiability, to save the explanation efforts again and again. That effort is really needed elsewhere: improving content.

   I would, however, also keep something like the 2nd paragraph to repeat the same.History2007 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

9. Oppose does more harm than good. There is wikilawyering where people use sources to push known untruths. But a much more prevalent problem is editors bickering back and forth about what they know to be true, and never checking what a reliable authority would say on the matter. You're focusing on the small problem to the detriment of the bigger problem. You saw the dam leaking, so you decided to tear it out and replace it with a towel. If there's a problem with the occasional wikilawyer, put an explanation in the body of the policy. Don't obfuscate the intro to the policy which has worked well for years. Dzlife (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
10. Oppose Adds more verbiage contrary to WP:CREEP. The policy should be simplified, not bloated. Warden (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
11. The creepier our policies, the harder it is to edit. The proposed changes do not make it any easier for any inexperienced user to edit, and only add verbiage to be parsed by axe-grinders. No. -- Y not? 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
12. Oppose. The possible benefit of this particular addition is definitely outweighed by the negative effect of the instruction creep it introduces. Shorter is better. —Mark Dominus (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
13. Oppose the new section "Assertions of truth and untruth". Too much emphasis on the term truth that would be better referred to as majority or minority viewpoints. No need to open up a remote possibility it will be misinterpreted to squash multiply-sourced, minority viewpoints on the grounds that it is not true. WP:UNDUE already does a wonderful job with only one instance of the word truth. I am OK with proposal in the first part for changes to the opening paragraph. Willing to reconsider opposition if truth is removed or de-emphasized.—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
14. Oppose as unnecessary. The best proposal I've seen was to link "verifiability, not truth" to the essay that explained the topic quite adequately. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I concede that the "not truth" maxim can be taken the wrong way. So can anything if one does not want to take the point, but the point here is clear enough. My real objection is that the proposed new section is a CREEPy digression to wade through before getting to the nuts and bolts of sections on when a citation is required and what sources are reliable. To the extent that issues in the proposed new section need to be raised at all, they would belong in the "other principles" section at the end of the page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
16. Oppose I think the new wording is less clear and actually moves us in the wrong direction with this policy. This is not the place to say that we don't include everything in every article. And I really prefer the idea that just because you think it isn't the truth you still need to source it. I think the current wording does that better. Hobit (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
17. Oppose. The discussion below (at my previous neutral comment) makes it clear that this would be a major change in policy, wherein a statement could be challenged or removed not because it was inadequately sourced, and not because any reliable source contradicts it, but simply because an editor claims it to be "untrue". This is a complete reversal of the way our policy has worked for many years. I'm shocked that we would trust some Wikipedian's assertion of "truth" as a reason to censor or exclude sourced content, and more shocked that so many Wikipedians would approved of such a change. The Italian Wikipedia recently shut itself down rather than submit to a proposed law that would mandate removal of material based on an unsupported claim that a statement is detrimental to someone's image. But when it comes to the English Wikipedia, do we really want an unsupported claim of inaccuracy to be a reason for removal, as S Marshall clearly supports below? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    I did not say that an unsupported claim of inaccuracy is a reason for removal, and that is not my view.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    There's no change proposed to the policy, just the wording! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

18. Oppose I think you are right Quadel. I think the great danger to Wikipedia’ usefulness is unfaithfulness to reliable sources because we know the truth. This leads to two blights on the project unsourced statements in articles, and misrepresentation (and ignoring) of sources in articles. At least where an untrue statement is sourced, the reader has the tools to review reliability for themselves. Sourcing requires uncommon effort; anything that denigrates that effort should be rejected. “Verifiability, not truth” is a strong reminder that Wikipedians, for all their ego, still need humility. We are not tellers of truth; we are faithful recorders of what others "out there" have studied -- we merely claim to understand it enough, so that we have recorded their (those out there) truth faithfully.

    Verifiability is the ability to verify -- in the current policy, the ability to verify that a reliable source has said something. Truth is not the ability to verify, it has no ability in it - it's an assertion, an ipsa dixit. In the scheme of what editors are doing, it makes sense that we first require them to come to agreement that a reliable source has said something, and agree what that something is (no misrepresentation or mistake because, we know the truth). This is the humility required of us -- we must first take the source on its own terms, even when (especially when) we agree or disagree with it because we know the truth, because in most (all) cases we don't in fact know the truth, and we should in any case assume we and our readers do not, when first approaching the source. Moreover, in practice, and by the dictates of this policy, one editor cannot convince another editor that they have the truth (don't tell me the truth, that's irrelevant, convince me with reliable sources). Only then can editors proceed to agree on correct representation of the source, relevance to the topic, POV and other considerations for putting it in or leaving it out of an article. Unfortunately, the present proposal does not promote these values, it is increased license for editors to promote and propagate unfaithfulness (as if such license were needed) to reporting on reliable sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    "We are not tellers of truth"; true, Wikipedia articles are tellers of WP:NPOV, which is a reasonable approximation most of the time, and probably the only practical one for a tertiary source. A more appropriate mantra would be «NPOV, not "truth"». Plenty of WP:V-verifiable information is consciously excluded from Wikipedia based on editorial judgement guided by WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, etc. So, while the humble Wikipedians may not actually decide what is true, they often decide what is untrue, or perhaps more accurately, Wikipedians routinely decide what information is [probably] far from the truth. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    "'We are not tellers of truth"; true'" Yes, right. As for the rest, you misstate Wikipedia policy; WP:V requires RS; and WP:NPOV is not to be read in isolation from WP:V -- "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs)

    Which of my statements misstate Wikipedia policies? "jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles" implies that verifiabilty alone may not be enough for inclusion. Which is what I said. Are you saying that excluding sources is not permitted by the WP:OR or by the WP:NPOV policy? I very much doubt that. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Where you fail to faithfully summarize policy is in suggesting that WP:NPOV operates without WP:V. WP:V also excludes things from being in articles. All the core policies both include and exclude. Wikpedia articles don't only "tell" WP:NPOV, they also tell WP:Verifiable (as well as, the other policies) Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

19. Oppose. "traditional" working "verifiability, not truth" concisely says what is required. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Current wording is pithy and iconic. The proposed wording is longer, less clear, and hides a significant policy change. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    Curious what significant policy change you think the editors of this proposal are trying to hide in change? how do you believe this policy change will be misapplied? Crazynas ^t 21:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

    There's no change to the policy, just to the wording! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

    Please do stop commenting on the "oppose" threads with identical messages, Pesky. It's... annoying in a very pesky way. Doc talk 07:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

21. Oppose. We only trust experts to do research, we trust editors to summarize what the experts have published. By "we" I mean the editors, so we could safely assume that many editors can be trusted to understand the opinions of the experts. If an expert makes a mistake, how does it come that one has to rely upon original research instead of finding another expert who points out the mistake of the former expert? My understanding is that according to Popper scientists constantly work to reject (falsify) the work of other scientists. So it is very improbable that the bulk of experts who read scientific papers for a living cannot see a gross mistake and a Wikipedia editor is needed to cry "The king is naked!" Perhaps this is a bit too exaggerated, but I guess you see what I mean.
    
    An example: in string theory there is simply no fact yet discovered, so we cannot say that even a jot of string theory is proven true. As S. James Gates, Jr. said, "string theory is applied mathematics, it isn't physics yet." And we generally assume that physics is the most reliable of all empirical sciences. So there are clearly areas in physics wherein there lies not a single truth, but they are filled with opinions expressed by scientists. All such opinions could be deleted from Wikipedia "because they aren't true". This would mean proposing the whole string theory article for deletion. Obviously, these opinions aren't true, but this does not mean that they aren't informative. Above I have simply bracketed the idea that one cannot prove truth, but one can only prove falsity (according to Popper). The idea is that scientists have to prove the falsity of string theory, this is not the task of Wikipedia. Experts have to agree upon what counts as falsified in a discipline, and we render their views.
    
    By adopting the idea that truth matters, we open largely the doors for relativity theory denialists, see here. There is a whole society of fringe theorists who claim to have proven Einstein wrong, using plain mathematical calculations (often limited to the math one learned in high-school). The same way, all sociology articles could be deleted, since no sociological theory is consensually accepted as the true one by sociologists. And psychology consists of many competing schools of thought, so one could erase psychology articles, too, since there is no school consensually accepted as the true one. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I think it's better off the way it is; since it 'gets to the point', readers don't have to read the whole page just to find the core principle of the policy. WikiPuppies! (bark) 07:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
23. Oppose. The sort of editor who needs to be sent to this page really needs the "not truth" to be in the first sentence and in bold. That's because the concept is so very counterintuitive. I know, because I was one of those editors. I was send here after one of my first IP edits and I really needed to be hit over the head with`verifiability, not truth. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

    Even though I am mildly supporting the proposal, I agree with that, a lot. Assuming the proposal is adopted, I think that it's very important that the new section be easily linked and easily seen. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

24. Oppose on the whole. I would, on balance, support adding something very like the new paragraph without removing not truth from the lead. Let's see how that looks and works for a few months and then see whewther we only need to say "V not T" once. (I say "very like" because, for example, some errors in reliable sources - such as the wrong year - can be so obvious that correcting them and adding a footnote will be sufficient, rather than cluttering the talk page. A good idea, but this is too hasty an implementation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

    One sign that this proposal needs more editing before it is consensus is that we cannot agree (and this even applies to people with the same !vote) whether it changes policy or not. I accept that Blueboar does not intend to change; but is that what the proposal says? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

25. Oh, Lord, how I oppose this idea! The present lead is perfectly understandable, and much shorter, too. Thank you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
26. Oppose It's not broke, don't fix it. This policy is already long enough without having to add more. If someone wants to type this up in a user essay, that's fine, but I don't think it's a good idea to change the policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
27. Oppose I do not think the proposed change is an improvement. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
28. Oppose Cannot really see why this is causing a fuss. There are plenty of statements that are true but not reliably sourced, and just because something appears in a reliable source does not mean that it has to be in Wikipedia if it fails other guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
29. Oppose This has always been a badly expressed statement, mainly because there is not a genuine consensus about the policy. My view is that Wikipedia aims for accuracy by means of verifiability, in that statements which are challenged or are likely to be challenged need to point to evidence for their accuracy; in such circumstances the simple truth of a statement is not enough. Other think that nothing which is not cited is acceptable and (at the extreme end) most things which are can be. The proposed wording moves too far in the wrong direction for me and looks designed to merge this policy with RS.--Rumping (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

    The current form is shorter and easier to understand. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

    Oppose. I like the idea of refactoring the sentence to deter disingenuity, but I don't like the wordiness (and) (so) (many) (clauses) (in) (brackets) of the above proposal. I would have it simply say "For inclusion in Wikipedia, all information must be verifiable." I don't think it needs to even go into how truth is also required, or how verifiability not truth is key; it just leads the policy into unecessary tangents and repeated clarifications. fish&karate 13:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    I believe the proposed change is a step towards your main points, albeit with compromise type wording. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    That's fair to say. I think things are heading in the right direction, so I will strike my "Oppose" but still would like my point to stand that I believe this is an overcomplicated and brackety solution, albeit better than the current status quo. fish&karate 12:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

30. Oppose. "Verifiability, not truth" has kept Wikipedia safe for years. It makes clear that our articles must present an overview of the relevant literature, and that editors' opinions about the contents of that literature play no role apart from deciding whether the sources are reliable and appropriate. Making clear that "truth" (as seen by Wikipedians) is not the aim keeps fringe views out, and also protects significant-minority views from being overwhelmed by Wikipedians who disagree with them. The counter-intuitive nature of the phrase helps to underline this for new editors, and as many have said over the years, helps them finally to "get it." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    Also, "initial threshold" makes no sense, and is odd writing. Something is either a threshold or it isn't. The point of the threshold concept is that "verifiability, not truth" is the necessary condition, the minimum requirement, for entry into Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    It's worth adding that several of the proposers of this have made it clear that removing "verifiability, not truth" is a first step ("baby step," as they put it) toward removing it entirely from the policy. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what happened with this RfC. I just noticed that the RfC bot tags weren't added, so it's not clear where this was advertised so that everyone saw it. There was an agreement that it would be wiki-wide because it was a key change to a core content policy. I would suggest leaving it open longer than the 30 days to make sure people get a chance to comment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    The RfC tags were there, and it was properly listed, from the start of the RfC until a few hours ago, when the RfC was, at least temporarily, closed. Anyone who looked at the RfC-policy listing, or at CENT, could have easily found it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you. I see it now on the RfC policy page, but I can't see it on any other. Blueboar promised a wiki-wide RfC, and one with two sections, one of which would ask whether the current first sentence is fine as it is. Neither of those things happened. A little extra time for the RfC will help with the first. Not sure what can be done now about the second, if anything. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

31. Not truth is far too important of a concept to leave out. It needs to be there as a clear succinct point.--Crossmr (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
32. Oppose. Having read the changes and the proposed new section, i cannot help but find the new section more complex and unclear as the original statement. The current lead contains the - for me - most important aspect of the entire verifiability policy, being that all article's are based on verifiable sources rather then basing them on (claimed) truths. In one line it manages to inform the user that any content must be backed by reliable sources, that an encyclopedia is always based on and dependent on other sources an that while someone may be correct, it may still not be included. The new lead on the other hand would seem a tad unclear if i try to think as a new user. For me, it raised some questions: What guarantees inclusion if this "verifiability" doesn't guarantee it? What are these other "Policies" that are mentioned? What does "Specific material in a specific article" mean? Without knowing about the existenceWP:GNG policy, the content specific notability policies and some others i believe that people would only get confused over those references. I have similar issues with the new proposed section; it may be due to the nighttime at which i am reading this, but i feel like reading a typical law that references all over the place. Just have a look if i rewrite the section while replacing some of the words:
    
    "When party A(editor) commits crime A(Mistake) to Party B(Editor noticing mistake), Party B should file a report if Crime A is not supported by evidence A. Dependant on the the type of Crime A a report must be filed to place A(BLP Violation - remove) or B(Random statement - Tag), which is detailed in statement A (Linked burden section) below. If on the other hand Evidence A is present party B should should move to place C(Discuss it somewhere) to discuss the issue with Party A, stating why evidence A is not valid due to for example Law A (NPOV) and Law A.1 (Due Weight) among the other possible laws. In these cases altering crime A to conform to Law A and others is often enough to legalize crime A.
    
    The above states more or less the exact same thing as the porposed section, but the amount of references elsewhere and the amount of IF THEN ELSE statements make it quite a bad read, at least at this time of night. Besides, i cannot shake the feeling that the section seems to trail into other policy terrain trough the extensive explanations. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
33. Strong oppose, "verifiability, not truth" is a perfect and longstanding way to clearly and succinctly get a key and extraordinarily important point across; as others have more eloquently pointed out above. Dreadstar ☥ 23:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
34. Oppose Verifiability, not truth, is indeed the first threshold for inclusion of content and sources. At some level I think it's ok to say there's only one truth, but we see or understand only wee slices of it and these do shift, narrow and widen all the time. Hence many sources (even scholarly ones) are riddled with mistakes. Verifiability of the cited sources (that it's true they can be found and checked, not that they are "true") is the only means open to both readers and editors for handling these. Anyone who tries to game this and knowingly put "untrue" information into an article, whatever the sourcing, is editing in bad faith to begin with. I see no worries with this longstanding wording. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
35. Oppose The order of relevant information matters. Information presented first is more influential, not least because people are more likely to recall information presented first. I don't understand why someone would want to move the wonderful catchphrase Verifiability, not truth down in the policy. When I first read the policy, verifiability, not truth was the only thing that stuck in my mind. Plus, how many editors who don't understand WP:V right away will read further than the first paragraph? I know I did not when I started. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
36. Oppose - What this proposal boils down to is "Too many editors are too obtuse to figure out what verifiability, not truth means so let's dumb it down". Leave it the way it is; if you can't understand it, then you shouldn't be here. Tarc (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    We are talking a lot about the newbie editor wanting to add stuff they know first-hand without citing a source, who needs to have the counterintuitive "verifiability not truth" hammered into them. Fair enough. That wording is still there in the proposed change, and is sufficient basis for keeping OR out. But we also have to be cognizant that over the years, an equally pernicious tradition has grown in Wikipedia that has editors quoting "verifiability not truth" – at newbies and others – to keep stuff in an article, even if it is plain rumour mongering, or contradicted by more reliable sources. It doesn't matter if it's garbage or true, you see? Newspapers in particular inevitably and regularly get biographically and encyclopedically relevant details wrong, given their tight deadlines, and their need to present a catchy story. There has to be an end to using "verifiability not truth" as a kill-all argument preventing further source-based research and debate. Saying that editors who use the phrase that way "shouldn't be here" fails to take into account that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can -- and does -- edit. --JN466 18:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    That is the function of WP:RS WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. I have said it elwhere but it bears repeating here - This proposal is trying to force this policy to do the work of other already existing policies and guidelines. This policy is not the "be all and end all" of content policy. Roger (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    Frankly, throughout this nine-month discussion, it has been my impression that it is those wishing to keep the status quo who want to use WP:V to do the job of WP:NPOV/WP:DUE, by including a policy statement in it that enables them to prevent anything verifiable from ever being deleted. And I have multiple times pointed this out in exactly the terms you have just employed: that they are wanting to coöpt this policy to do the job of other content policies, and in a way that, frankly, contradicts them. This policy spells out minimum requirements for what may be included; it does not specify what must be included. Yet this is the use that "verifiability not truth" is most commonly put to: to argue that something must be included, just because it is verifiable, and that it simply does not matter whether it is true or not. "Verifiability not truth" was never intended to mean that, but that is how it has increasingly come to be used, and understood. Now, we do not include everything verifiable. We delete poorly sourced rumour and innuendo, tabloid coverage of the latest cure for cancer, or things that were demonstrably written in plain error, in full accordance with policies and guidelines like WP:BLP, WP:IRS, WP:MEDRS and others. Blueboar's proposed version does not make this policy do the job of the others; it refers readers to other policy considerations that may apply, and that is exactly as it should be. Regards, --JN466 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

37. Oppose. This proposal is a recipe for edit war. "Yes, I know four reliable sources say this is true, but I know it's false, so there." --GRuban (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    I don't see how "Yes, I know four reliable sources say this is true, but I know it's false, so there." can be consistent with the proposal, which says: "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. 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)." Count Iblis (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    Just as it says. "Even though four reliable sources say something is true, that's not a guarantee of inclusion, so my objection can keep it out if I fight hard enough." That's a terrible policy. We're here to be the sum of the world's knowledge. Not to be the sum of the world's knowledge except the parts we really really don't like. --GRuban (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    Merely saying that you know that something is false, is not going to keep material out of Wikipedia, that's not what this proposal is saying. Obviously you do need to make a convincing argument that while four sources are saying that something is true, we should still not include it in Wikipedia. And, we do need such a provision, otherwise a lot of nonsense that does regularly appear in reliable sources would have to be included in Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. This proposal is a blank check to all the POV pushers. "If I can just make a convincing argument, I can keep this information out of Wikipedia." Trust me, they all think their arguments are convincing, and they will keep arguing until hell freezes over. Right now, we can at least say - sure, Dr. Plutonium, you sound convincing, but it's not good for you to convince us, you need to convince Science magazine or some other Wikipedia:Reliable source - and at least some of them do go away to try to do that. You're telling them they just need to stay and argue harder, right here, that if they can convince Wikipedia, that's enough, they don't need to convince anyone else. Terrible idea. --GRuban (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

38. Oppose per Guy Macon, Gwen Gale, and Tarc's comments above. Compromise is often a good thing, but never when it dilutes or obfuscates. The truth vs. verifiability distinction has long formed a fundamental tenet of WP policy on content. It's extremely important, and it should be up front where new editors and potential editors will see it immediately. If it confuses them, they'll either read on or ask for clarification and learn something—or they won't bother. Those who don't bother are unlikely to be productive editors. Rivertorch (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
39. Oppose per Rivertorch. Many users directed to this page are those who, acting on good faith or not, intuitively edit to their versions of the truth. Not everyone habitually reads a page in its entirety from start to finish. As such, removing the crucial distinction between verifiability and truth from the lead may mean that those who most need to grasp the concept won't ever end up reading it. I do not oppose adding the proposed clarification about verifiability to the lead, but it should not replace the "not truth" text that is already present. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
40. Vehemently oppose. Per GRuban. "Verifiability, not truth" is the absolute crux of content evaluation, and is essential to editing. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 05:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    I couldn't disagree more. Your "absolute crux" means accepting every piece of spam and nonsense that got printed/published somewhere. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

41. Oppose - I like the existing phrase at the start; I think it sums up the essence in very few words - as such it's not comprehensive or perfect, but I think it's good. I can appreciate how some may misinterpret it, but I don't think the change is a net positive - some people can, and will, misinterpret anything. I think the additional paragraph has the potential to cause more confusion than elucidation.  Chzz  ►  08:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
42. Oppose - The proposed wording does nothing to clarify the issue. It merely makest harder from the reader to understand the concept. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
43. Oppose per Slrubenstein, others above. Verbige creates more opportunities to game it. There's nothing broken that this change fixes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
44. Oppose Almost all the arguments in this section have merit, but Tarc's comments hit it on the head for me. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
45. Oppose Makes extant policy dance on its head. (COI note: I wrote WP:KNOW dealing with the base issue.) Collect (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
46. Oppose Those advocating a change claimed the current wording (paraphrasing) seems to prohibit contributors casting doubt on verifiable references which assert something they know or believe to be untrue. It seems to me that challenging verifiable references would be a clear lapse from the other core policy that prohibits the publication of original research. Consider two notions that were, at the time, represented as ideas "everyone" knew to be true -- (1) the Earth is obviously flat; (2) it is not a sin for American plantation owners to use African people as slaves, because God made them subhuman.

    In 20 years, 50 years, our grandchildren will look back and scratch their heads at our crazy notions, because, count on it, our current notions of what is true, will turn out to include notions that later seem to be laughably obvious falsehoods.

    The effect of this major change in our wording, would be a major change in our policy -- a very bad change. We aren't experts. I don't want us, any of us, to be allowed to challenge published, verifiable WP:RS, unless they are doing so by neutrally presenting opposing ideas from other WP:RS.

    Consider continental drift -- when first advanced it was considered a kooky notion, and is now widely accepted. This proposed policy revision would allow wikipedia contributors, non-experts to insert their own challenges to ideas like this. Given that we are not experts, it is far better for us to stick strictly to previously published ideas. With an idea like continental drift we would be far better to include the proponents and opponents of ideas, and let time tell as to which are correct. Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    I don't think the proposal prohibits contributors from casting doubt on verifiable information (an assertion of untruth)... What the proposal does is clarify that when you do cast doubt, you should support your challenge with a) contrasting verifiable information, and b) make reference to all the other policies that relate (NPOV, NOR etc.). Both of these are already SOP, but for the first time we are actually saying it in the policy. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

47. Oppose. I appreciate the well-intentioned revision efforts, and in practice I agree with much of Blueboar's formulation, but ultimately I feel that the current formulation is more appropriate, succinct, and workable as policy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
48. Oppose. It is far, far easier to point a new editor to a policy that makes it clear in the opening sentence, in 3 simple words, what the policy means. Verifiability not truth chimes. The proposal begins to bury the vital message. By all means tweak the sections but doubling the number of words in the opening para. is not helpful. Leaky Caldron 20:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
49. Oppose Not to wax too philosophically here, but what is "truth?" I ask the question rhetorically because truth is something that many people believe they hold, and that often times conflicts with what is verifiable. The practical application of the truth clause is that it can be used to explain to POV pushers that even if something is true to them, and they are convinced it's absolute fact, unless it's published in RS it's not relevant. I commonly use a reducto ad absurdum involving the color of the sky to demonstrate the importance of V over T. For example, I'll say something along the lines of "We all know the sky is blue, this is truth to us, but if every reliable source on the subject said that the sky was red, then that is what we will publish." Without the truth clause, it makes it a bit harder to explain to people a core value of WP. Also, just for the sake of the AN/I discussion, I didn't know about this RFC until I saw it there and that's why I'm here. nowON^oformation ^Talk 22:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
50. Oppose: I see an argument up above arguing that the original intent—to discourage WP:OR from editors inserting unsourced material that they claim is true—to no longer be necessary. I strongly contest this point and have rarely seen a heated debate on a controversial topic that did not feature editors making arguments based off of truth instead of verifiability. I have often seen "verifiability, not truth" quoted to combat this, and believe it still serves its purpose well. Additionally the proposed wording seems to hack out the core of this message and replace it with a more convoluted, less straight forward message. The message already clearly confers to the reader that we take what a reliable source thinks to be true over what an editor thinks is true, and this new wording distracts from that.AerobicFox (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
51. Oppose The idea that people trying to add OR to articles is not much of a problem anymore is laughable. If someone is too dense to understand the difference between verifibility and what they believe they are too incompetent to edit here and rewriting policy to dumb it down to their level isn't going to fix that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    We don't have to say what verifiability is not, we should stick to stating what it is. And if we want to emphasize that people should not write what they believe to be true, then it's this "belief" that is the real problem that we should emphasize that, not the "truth". If people know something to be true, and they are correct then obviously, they can point to reliable sources that prove this. If they can't, then it's just an assertion of a truth, the problem being that the assertion is then not verifiable. So, however you look at it, the problem is never "truth", it's always the unverifiable belief in a truth. Count Iblis (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    Disagree. The truth is the problem because people go around inserting truth into articles, without regard to anything else. And why shouldn't they? This is a wiki that anyone is invited to edit. Verifying is too much work, when you know the truth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    The proposal has no change with regard to the verifiability requirement. It just explains that "not truth" means verifiability rather than the other common wrong mis-interpretations. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    But you said explicitly several times that removing "verifiability, not truth" from the lead was a "baby step" toward removing it from the policy entirely. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    I would strongly resist removing the wording "verifiability, not truth" from the policy, as it has provided an essential "Aha!" moment to hundreds of newbie editors, including myself. However, I do support this proposal, because it does an excellent job of explaining what "verifiability, not truth" means – i.e. that unsourceable statements and original research have no place in Wikipedia. At the same time it prevents a common misinterpretation and misuse of this phrase – i.e. that it does not matter whether what we write is true or not, that it does not matter whether a source is competently researched or not, that WP:DUE policy does not matter as long as something has previously been published in a reliable source, and that it does not matter whether we violate BLP policy or not, as long as an anonymous rumour included in Wikipedia has previously, verifiably, been published in a newspaper. Such misrepresentations of "verifiability, not truth" have become too common. They are in direct conflict with other key policies, and they are as harmful to this project as the original intent of "verifiability, not truth" is useful. The proposed change removes the ambiguity that opened the door to these misinterpretations. It makes as clear as ever what may be included in Wikipedia, and puts questions of what should be included in Wikipedia back into the purview of the core content policies that were written to deal with these issues, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, as well as associated guidelines such as WP:IRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS and others. Editors wishing to defend sourced material in an article against other editors wishing to delete it on the grounds of incorrectness will just have to get used to saying, "This is a significant view from a reputable source, and therefore it stays", rather than saying "This is verifiable and Wikipedia does not care whether it is true or not, so therefore it stays." --JN466 17:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    There being no change to policy, there is no reason to change it, but most agree that the purpose of this policy is to stress the importance of verifiability, not truth, and the proposal does not support that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

52. Oppose — The current wording serves its purpose well in that it is very strong statement, condensed into one phrase; it is the most useful one there is to repel those who simply "know" stuff. It's those people whom this phrase is for, and in most cases those are the ones who need it clear, simple, and blunt. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
53. Oppose per Maunus and all others who see 'not truth' as vital to the project and essential to keep it to the fore. I also endorse Seb's comment immediately above. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
54. Oppose agree that "not truth" is a cornerstone of this project. Removing it would undermine what Wikipedia is all about -- a neutral reporter of what has been reliably published, not what its contributors believe or think is "true". This is what sets Wikipedia apart from the common internet blog or forum, and what made it a success. Crum375 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    Please note that the proposal is not about removing "verifiability not truth" from the policy, but about moving "verifiability not truth" to a separate paragraph, and explaining it there. --JN466 15:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    Removing it from the prominent position it's in is demoting it; that phrase is critical to what Wikipedia is about, and should not be relegated to some footnote or lower section. Crum375 (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

55. Oppose. I think the current wording is more powerful, with the emphasis that Wikipedia is not seeking "the truth". I remember that made a major impression on me as a new Wikipedian. I don't see the concerns outlined as too major, as there is always the potential for conflict between policies. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
56. Oppose.The phrase "verifiable not truth" has enormous impact first because of its placement, it opens the policy, and second because it is highly succinct and memorable. Many newer editors especially, won't read much further than the first few lines, so it should be placed first in the policy. If we were advertising this policy as if it were for example, Corn Flakes, where would we put the phrase that summarizes everything we're getting in the box where it can be seen and understood immediately. Right away. Embedding the phrase in text further in the article will deaden its impact. At the same time I am very well aware of the gaming that has gone on using the phrase "verifiable not truth" with out the contextual word threshold, and as a way of giving permission to include anything just because it has a reliable source. I don't see that moving the key phrase later in the article and embedding it in a lot of text will improve the misue of the phrase. Obviously, as a first step the other policies cannot be ignored and we should be pushing harder in situations where supporting policies should come into play, in concert with this poilcy. I would also bold threshold so it can't be overlooked and will seem to carry the same weight as verifiable and truth. And while this hasn't been proposed in this RfC, I would add to the first proposed text, part of the second so it looks like the below:(olive (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC))

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. 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).

57. oppose per Maunus, Doc9871, Cwenger, and Quadell, among others. Verifiability not truth is the main thing that prevents the project from falling into a completely war. You believe that God exists? That's not. WP:V. You think that religion is a lie made by the powerful to keep the masses in check and that's the Truth? That's nice. We care about verifiability. You think that 9/11 was an inside job? You think that 9/11 conspiracy claims about the bombs were made by a shadowy branch of the government so no one would look for the real conspiracy? You think that cancer can be cured by homeopathy and acupuncture? You think that the Democrats or Republicans is the source of all evil in the world? Etc. Etc. Watering this down is not a good idea at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
58. Oppose per Doc9871 and others above. I think "verifiability not truth" is an important cornerstone of Wikipedia and is important enough to stay at the beginning of the policy for everyone to see. As JoshuaZ says above, watering this down is a bad idea. I'm open to add some elaboration about "truth" and "untruth" to some explanatory part of the rules but the main message that everyone reading this policy should see is "verifiability, not truth", not "mainly verifiability". Regards SoWhy 21:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
59. Oppose: the simple phrase "verifiability, not truth" is one of the handful of iconic phrases that define Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors, and virtually all readers, do not read the minutiae of our policies, nor should they have to. Simple phrases like "verifiability, not truth", "citation needed", "neutral point of view", "assume good faith", and so forth, are the memorable foundations that guide real editors in their real edits for the vast majority of the time. The 'soul' of our project is defined in those handful of words, not in the endless paragraphs of supporting text. Happy‑melon 21:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
60. Oppose. This proposal conflates two unrelated changes: (1) taking out the "not truth" part, and (2) adding wording clarifying that verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. I support the second change but not the first. We haven't yet escaped from our problems with editors who think that their beliefs are "the truth", especially on highly charged subjects such as religion and politics, and the language in this policy is important as a way to help control those problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    In religion or politics one can usually find sources to state the version of the "truth" desired. So, "not truth" isn't really helping much with that, but NPOV is. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

61. Oppose. Changing the opening sentence dilutes the whole message. Every day one of us has to cope with someone saying "Never mind your sources, this is how it really is." We need to be able to point to that emphatic opening sentence in WP:V. Scolaire (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
62. I Oppose any suggestion that removes "not truth" from the lead. Such a removal undermines the foundations of an encyclopedia, that we document the world as neutrally as possible, that we don't include or own perspectives nevermind how true we think them to be. I'll acknowledge that "verifiability, not truth" is sometimes an over simplification; but that's its strength: it is simple enough so that even the most novice of editors will get it. Rami R 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
63. Oppose. The core phrase should stay, as it summarizes that part of the policy in a very short and distinctive way. If new editors really are confused about this phrase, a clarification as offered in the second paragraph could be useful. GermanJoe (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
64. Oppose - "Verifiability, not truth" is a phrase so important to this project that it justifies its current inclusion in the lead. So often have I found new editors getting the wrong end of the stick about content and writing articles based on "truth", with been unwilling to read through policies properly. I have found the "verifiability, not truth" phrase to be an important but simple way to get through the spirit of verifiability, neutrality, and the ban on original research in one go. CT Cooper · talk 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
65. Oppose the change to the lead but support the new section of explanation. The current lead gets straight to the point of the policy; replacing it with lawyer-talk will only confuse people. Also, I think the problem of people adding non-verified but true information is a lot more common than people adding non-true but verified information. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
66. Oppose: In my opinion, the phrase "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is more easily comprehended and less complicated than "The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". I agree with SilkTork's comment that it is a powerful phrase and that "truth" or a similar synonym should be there to make that distinction, and with Maunus' rationale that it is important to establish that Wikipedia does not make any judgments or evaluations of what is true, which is why "not truth" is important. Jfgslo (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
67. Oppose. "Verifiability, not truth" has been the policy for over six years. It is an important principle which should be placed prominently in the policy. Many new editors do not understand the concept, and seek to add the "truth", regardless of what's verifiable.   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    If some statement about the World is not verifiable, how could the person making the statement possibly know that it is true (barring exceptional circumstances like the person being an eyewitness)? So, a solid claim for something being true about the World always implies verifiability from reliable sources. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, but that covers only part of the equation. Editors should only add material which is verifiable, but they don't need to also prove that it's true. This comes up when an editor protests that material must be excluded because the sources, no matter how reliable generally, are wrong in this case. They may even demand that editors prove the information is correct, above and beyond the already provided sources. It's even more of an issue on topics where some people believe there is only one truth, meaning every other view is untrue. The point is that we may add sufficiently verifiable material, regardless of whether it is true or not. We can report what high quality reliable sources say even if we also have contradictory information.

    That may sound shocking or cynical, but as a project we have no way of knowing what is true. Arguments over truth are difficult to resolve to everyone's satisfaction, and often become contentious. So this text says, right up front, that we do not include or exclude information on the basis of truth.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    This is the wrong policy to say that. This policy says, in a nutshell, that "Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It defines a minimum standard for inclusion. The policies governing exclusion of verifiably published information are WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Allowing editors to use the potential ambiguity of "verifiability, not truth" as an end run around WP:BLP and WP:NPOV is not helpful, and sets core policies against each other. --JN466 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    As Wikipedia editors, we have no way of determining truth. There's nothing in the existing language which conflicts with NPOV or BLP. NPOV says we should include all significant points of view, with weight according to their prominence in secondary sources, and without endorsing any view. BLP says that all assertions about living people should be well-sourced. No policy requires us to determine "truth", nor does any policy suggest how we could do that across millions of articles created by anonymous editors. Suggesting that editors seek to subvert other policies or good editing practices seems like a wholesale assumption of bad faith. There's no clear evidence that this policy, properly applied, has caused any problems.   Will Beback  talk  11:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

68. Oppose. Comments on the proposed rationale:
    • On the Background: The proposal incorrectly assumes that interpretation of "verifiability, not truth" depends on the context. It does not. In all scenarios, verifiability is the bar, while truth is not.
    • On the first Concern: This paragraph starts with a ridiculous sentence. It is totally inconceivable that from "verifiability, not truth" one can reasonably derive that verifiability guarantees inclusion. This becomes particularly ridiculous given that, as readily acknowledged in this paragraph, other policy and guidelines statements already invalidate such interpretation.
    • On the second Concern: The rationale presented in this paragraph conveys a complete lack of understanding of what truth is to Wikipedia—by itself, truth means nothing. Using verifiability as a standard nullifies the value of truth as an accompanying standard, and hence the phrase "verifiability, not truth". In this context, not discussing truth is the intent. Truth is discussed, as argued in the Counter Concern, only because it can reflect the conflict between ideas. This latter point is definitely not at the same fundamental level as verifiability.
    • On the third Concern: It is not introducing the concept of "truth" in the lede that is distracting and confusing, particularly for new editors. Using verifiability as a bar for determining worthiness of inclusion is /not/ a common phenomenon in a world where people primarily argue over truth. "Verifiability, not truth" is a differenting feature of Wikipedia. "Not truth" should be emphasized in the lede, instead of being diluted.

    A proposal purely based on unfounded concerns is worth nothing. Kxx (talk | contribs) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

69. Oppose The "verifiability not truth" phrase needs to be in there and it needs to be prominent- near the start when people are still paying attention. It's succinct, it makes an important point and it makes new-ish editors like me stop and think. It certainly helped me when I started writing articles- knowing that it wasn't enough that something was "obvious" or "common knowledge" helped me avoid the pitfalls. Taking this phrase out could lead to a lot of sloppy editing.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
70. Oppose. The slogan (being "pithy and iconic") has become a rallying cornerstone of this community, and the fact that it sounds counterintuitive encourages people to think, read further, and understand the pillar and its necessity. The proposal diminshes the appeal and convolutes the readability in the policy. On its own, the word "verifiable" is ambiguous (in common language it is equivalent to "true" - hence it is so critical to distinguish those) and in practice it is also likely to change how the policy is interpreted, hampering the major issue of material that contributors think they can "personally verify" (i.e., unsourced "truth", original proofs and arguments, etc). "-not truth" is also a powerful tool for avoiding a great deal of disagreement on articles of any extremely controversial topic. The minor problem of incorrect sources is comparatively rare, and of course, should only be addressed by again finding further sources which assert that the others were incorrect (whereas downplaying "not truth" begins to open the door to trying to judge untruth by our own original expertise. I'll concede that cases can occur where all known sources are believed by most editors to be in common error - but these are likely resolveable with the first and fifth pillars).Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
71. Oppose. No evidence or statistics have been provided that show that the current wording causes problems for anyone but sophists and those who choose to feign ignorance of its meaning. I am not persuaded that a problem has been shown to exist. The proposer does not provide a list of editors or edits illustrating the problem. Therefore, I believe the problem is largely imaginary. That "verifiability, not truth" is a catchy phrase has been claimed to be a fault, when it is in fact a benefit. All attempts to rephrase or expound upon it are doomed, without focus on brevity and clarity of thought. The larding on of more words before it not the answer: first, the title of an article is usually not delayed by exposition, it is stated straight away, second, the explanation should flow naturally after it. This RfC is an unnecessary distraction from much more urgent matters here. In my 8000 edits I have encountered:
    • only one new editor who believed "verifiable, hence must be included", and they were educated about that by referral to WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT.
    • zero editors who believed "verifiable but untrue, and therefore not discussable"
    • most editors and even most non-Wikipedians seem to immediately "grok" the idea of "verifiability, not truth" as being comprehensible, memorable, and a useful benchmark for Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general. --Lexein (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
72. Oppose The proposal is more cumbersome and seems unnecessary. 'verifiable' is tacit in differentiating between what someone knows and what someone can prove. Everton Dasent (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
73. Oppose The first sentence needs to catch attention, hold attention, and have one strong, clear message that will remain. It may not be quite right at present, but the alternative is not better (20040302 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC))
74. Oppose Whereas there are legitimate concerns for this proposal, I fail to see how it would solve the perceived problem. WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV do regulate the inclusion concern, it may be more appropriate to amend these policies so to state clearly that some views (fringe theories, minority opinions amongst scholars) do not merit inclusion at all. I don't see how this would conflict with the "Verifiability not truth" concept since it is a general principle that comes with other policies in practice and not a guarantee of inclusion to whatever that has been published and I think it has always been applied that way, in most cases. The drawbacks of this proposal is that some knowledgeable editors can and might successfully argue against the inclusion of certain views on the grounds that it is wrong which they can demonstrate using their expertise and thus impose their opinion, this would be particularly the case in articles where only a handful of editors participate and where there isn't much scholarly material to begin with. When scholars do not agree, wikipedia cannot allow itself this kind of practice. I hope I did not misrepresent the proposal but that is my main concern with it, I've already seen cases where some editors cut out some verifiable material while using their knowledge to demonstrate how it is wrong, I think this change would only comfort this practice and get us into endless discussions about the details and merits of each view. Stuff can always be shown wrong if you get into the technicalities, so it is vital to keep the "Verifiability not truth" part, it is also a clear warning to readers on how to use Wikipedia properly i.e. even if it is cited to a rs it doesn't mean it is true. Tachfin (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
75. Oppose, but... I agree entirely with the view that the "Verifiability not truth" part of the existing policy is so important that this phrase should be at the very start of the article. So if the only choice is between the existing and revised versions, then I'm in favour of the existing version. On the other hand, the addition of "initial" is important; verifiability is clearly not the final threshold for inclusion. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
76. Oppose - 'verifiable, not truth' is a threshold. This is the verifiability policy, not the notability policy. It is not an 'OR clause', it is not a 'XOR clause', it is an 'AND clause' - things have to be verifiable ánd notable enough for inclusion. I believe that the 'not truth' part of the introduction is an essential part of WP:V, and that anyone who argues for all non-notable information 'but this should be included because it is verifiable' should be publicly trouted for Wikilawyering. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
77. Oppose. V not T gets the point across quite simply. I've had to use it more than once when new editors were pushing unverifiable info that they "knew" was true. Taking out the "not truth" will make it harder to get the point across. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    I can understand your point, but there is another phrase "... Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion" - there to balance it. -- Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

78. Oppose - Per Coemgenus, what I was going to write is fairly similar to what he said. The way it is now is simpler to get across to newbies. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
79. Oppose, per Coemgenus and Sergecross73 above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Comment It seems that a number of the editors above (Coemgenus etc.) are !voting on a different proposal; the actual proposal is not to delete "V not T", but to explain it. Uniplex (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Comment - No, we just feel the explanation is unnecessary, and only complicates it's message. (Or that's my take on it, I can't speak for the other ones...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

80. Oppose - If any change is warranted, it's elevation of "Not Truth", not subjugation. This will, invariably, strengthen the hand of exclusionists/censors at the expense of article breadth. I might be able to live with something akin to "Not incontrovertible truth" but the concept currently resides precisely where it belongs. (P.S. I had NO idea this was under consideration until the recent mention at the top of my watchlist.) JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Perhaps you should put this policy, and any others you care about, on your watch list... then you would know what is "under consideration" sooner. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    That's just being WP:POINTy - and it's uncalled for. It was your communication strategy that was ineffective. Leaky Caldron 14:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Leaky Caldron, please do not pour fuel on the fire. Blueboar made a good-faith effort to publicize it. Some people think it was not publicized widely enough, and they took measures to do so. We all make mistakes or overlook things, which is why WP has to be collaborative; we rely on others to fill in. So there is no point in blaming Blueboar for the original communication strategy. If you haven't followed the past few days' discussions this has become very acrimonious. JakeinJosey had a right to explain why he came to this vote several weeks after it was first announced, and that comment gives Blueboar a right to respond. Blueboar made a constructive suggestion and I do not think it was meant to be dismissive or disparaging. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

81. Oppose - Anything I say would be a repeat of what has already been said by someone else. Spidey104 14:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
82. Oppose - but with regret. (Switched from neutral) Kudos to all those (particularly Blueboar) for putting this proposal together. However I can't support it as I think the proposed section (==Assertions of truth and untruth==) is confusing - rather than clarifying the issue it complicates it (in my view needlessly). Furthermore on reading the long discussions here I feel strongly that keeping the 'not truth' phrase in line 1 is a good idea. Again while i sympathize with the motivations behind this suggestion I don't believe it is the right move--Cailil ^talk 14:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
83. Oppose. I could support the new paragraph, which reads well, but I don't want to drop the VNT wording from the lead. It's extremely valuable to have that front and centre, as others have noted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
84. Oppose because already too easy to lob off WP:RS info for POV reasons. However, more specific language like this might be added to paragraph: Verifiability is not a guarantee of inclusion because other policies and guidelines like LIST THEM might affect how appropriate material is for the article." CarolMooreDC 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
85. Oppose. The original wording is brief and bluntly clear. Such bluntness is very helpful to the project. The proposed wording is not as clear. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
86. Oppose - seemed fine to me the way it was, and I definitely don't like the implication of WP:NOTE trying to WP:CREEP its way further into policy. BOZ (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
87. Oppose - I like the straight forward simplicity of the current wording. The new wording introduces ambiguity. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
88. oppose - Just because something is verifiable does not mean that it is true. There are many cases where truth is In the eye of the beholder. Neither WP nor the editors are arbiters of truth. WP should just report what is, according to reliable sources. What is is not necessarily truth. SmittysmithIII (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
89. Oppose. I decided to check this out after getting the notice. Wow! Didn't realize this was such a deeply felt issue.

    So I read through it all with the intent of actually casting a vote, as I think we all should where such a core policy is concerned.

    The more I did, the more I saw a solution in search of a problem. There are some legitimate concerns, but the most frequent ones seemed to, as suggested above, rely on an assumption that this is the only editorial policy that can possibly govern content. To give some examples:

    • From Crazynas: "I think this page addresses two classes of users, Garage Band X and The Truth™er's. For Garage Band X with a listing in Podunk Daily, this proposal nullifies their ability to say see, put it on it's verifiable (the policy change nips a certain SPI argument in the bud)" I don't know how much experience with garage-band editors this reflects, but it's certainly not mine, because I would say it's unnecessary: WP:BAND would not support the inclusion of a band purely on the basis of one writeup in a local newspaper (and I believe we also used to cite regional notability not being sufficient grounds to have an article on, say, an otherwise unsigned band). I also don't see what SPI argument we're talking about ... just what does sockpuppetry have to do with this?

      As for The Truth™ers, if you really think they'd be deterred by just a slight policy tweak, or even if you think they'd be deterred at all, then I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.

    I meant SPA not SPI... struck out and changed, thank you for pointing that out. Regarding the first class of users, I feel that the change since this is the only policy likely to be read before a user hits save (since it's the only policy linked in the edit window), the wider the userbase this addresses the better. Saying it fails BAND is true, but if this (...is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee...) stops one percent of users getting ready to write (and waste time writing) an article only to have someone (waste time), notifying them and AFDing or CSDing it, because the content creator read the current lead and said "well I have this newspaper article, I'm good to go" the change will have been a good thing. I'm not saying there isn't going to be willful ignorance of the policy, even in the best formulation, however if the purpose of our polices is to formulate best practices and to instruct others in building a better encyclopedia, then I think this will help.

    Regarding the second class of users (Truth^TMer's) I guess I wasn't clear, but I feel that the new wording won't negatively impact them, although I don't see it as an particular improvement for them (see also my additional comment under my support about section linking). Crazynas ^t 22:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

    • From Short Brigade Harvester Boris: "It addresses head-on the old "it's been printed in a newspaper so it's gotta go in" argument that we hear so often". OK, it does, but, as I suggested with the more specific example above, there are other policies that can filter that sort of thing—is the newspaper reliable, is the fact relevant, is it in violation of BLP, etc. The only thing possibly sadder than an editor who thinks that "verifiability, not truth" trumps all is the editor who lets that editor get away with it.
    • From Pichpich:"It's not atypical for a newbie to be scolded about his edits and asked to read WP:V. These editors come here, conclude that Wikipedia doesn't care about truth and leave" Uh, it almost seems too ironic, but ... is this verifiable? Do you have something to support this? This is the sort of thing we put {{fact}} on in articles. As such, we should not be relying on it to make policy decisions.

    I do see one legitimate concern: that, as worded, the policy suggests we must keep inaccurate information in articles even when it is very obvious that the sources are wrong (we call them reliable sources, not infallible sources, after all. I have had personal experience with this in writing NRHP articles, where the nomination form may be several decades old and out of date, or just get things like the name or number of a road or the side of a house confused. In many cases other information in the article (like a contemporary photo) or linked to from it (like the GeoLinks) will be enough to support the correct information. I'm hardly suggesting something like this will work in every case, but I am suggesting that a global policy change is not yet needed. Perhaps we need a subpage on what to do when a reliable source is clearly wrong or out of date and yet no other source can be found. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

90. Oppose VnT was an easy way of explaining what verifiability was. It also meant that Wikipedia-normal views did not simply come into being as verfiability means that a piece of information can still be included even if a large number of interested editors really dislike the piece of information. JASpencer (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Just want to be sure you are aware that the proposal does not remove VnT from the policy... The proposal includes it in the second part. If this does not change your opinion, no problem... it just sounds like you were misunderstanding what the proposal was saying. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

91. Oppose, this looks like rewording a policy to accomplish UNDUE POV via attribution, similar to what was seen years ago in the failed ATTRIBUTION debate.(Redacted) Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information. This view holds that if we attribute verifiably untrue information, even in the face of higher quality sources that reveal the information to be false, then we can still include the information-- hence accomplishing POV via attribution. (Redacted)This looks to me like a backdoor approach to accomplish what the ATTRIBUTION debate of years ago could not, and it will allow us to POV articles as long as we attribute undue weight and false statements and opinions to the authors and advocates who make such claims, even when they are UNDUE, even when they accomplish POV, even when they are verifiably untrue. <span title="Content was removed for the following reason: See the FAC for Female genital manipulation, objections that it overattributed statements in order to include false data, and particularly the talk page at that FAC, and notice the attributed claim in the article that 10% of women who undergo female circumcision die from it. When asked for a medical source to back that claim, and when it was pointed out that no medical source appeared to support that data, SlimVirgin withdrew the FAC nomination rather than NPOV the article. This has happened before; see the discussions linked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#SG: Timeline showing FeloniousMonk and SlimVirgin actions. What is curious to me is that this attempt looks like a genuine attempt to make Wikipedia more reliable, but in fact, it can easily be manipulated to result in the opposite-- opinions which are false included because they are attributed.

    This is a new and clever presentation of the ATTRIBUTION page that was defeated several years ago, because it allows for UNDUE POV via ATTRIBUTION (that is, opinion that is potentially false).">(Redacted) And, by placing the argument on the article talk page-- rather than at the Reliable Sources noticeboard-- the burden to get the false opinion out of the article is higher, because the article guardians predominate at the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Sandy, I think you may have misunderstood. I oppose the proposed change. Not entirely for the same reasons you do, but for some of the same. I think the relationship between the current policy wording and NPOV works well, when both are applied carefully together, rather than reading them in isolation from other another. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Ugh, redacting my mistake, apologies forthcoming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    And now that I've fixed my mistake, I oppose the sentence about attributing opinions that may be false (it opens the door to POV via UNDUE), and switching the burden to article talk, but agree that "not truth" should go. So I guess that makes me a partial oppose, partial support. If the final "attribution" sentence can be cleaned up, I'll support. "Not truth" is a real problem, but the devil is in the details here, and we need to be very careful about what we add to the page when we get rid of that dinosaur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    Sandy, I believe you need to read the proposal and its rationale more carefully. Part of the reason for the proposed change is that the present wording is even more liable to be used to keep unreliable material in an article. I won't comment on the specific example you gave, but in general terms, if an editor like you says that a source making a scientific claim is unreliable and in conflict with the academic literature, they will often have the present lead sentence quoted at them: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". In other words, "You may have a PhD in this field, and know the peer-reviewed literature backwards, but we don't care what you think! The Daily Bugle printed this, and therefore it stays in. Because according to policy, Wikipedia doesn't care whether something is true. All we care about is that someone has written it before." It means that anyone daring to suggest that an article on a medical matter in some newspaper might be nonsense, and in conflict with the entire academic literature, is automatically accused of a policy violation for caring about "truth" rather than verifiability. The proposed change is a compromise that mitigates the problem you are concerned about, and tells the reader that other policies and guidelines may apply. So, please have another look at Blueboar's proposal and reconsider its underlying rationale. Cheers, --JN466 00:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    But Jayen, that's only half right. The current policy does make clear that material is not added just because an editor who says he has a PhD believes it. But it does not say that just because the Daily Bugle publishes something, it must go in. The "threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" means verifiability is a necessary condition (the minimum). But it's not a sufficient one. As Sandy says, there are other issues to consider: whether the source is the best and most appropriate, how we balance the sources per NPOV/UNDUE. V and NPOV always have to be read and applied together. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    You're right, but I find that the wording "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" is too often interpreted wrongly. People take "threshold" and "not whether editors think it is true" as an iron-clad guarantee that they get to include anything they can find in a nominally reliable source, and when they quote or link to that sentence, it sounds plausible and cuts discussion short. (I think that's the reason why Blueboar spoke of an "initial threshold", to make clear that verifiability isn't an iron-clad guarantee of permanent inclusion.) I would like to add that I don't agree with some of the support rationales, but I feel the proposal itself is as sound as it can be, for now at least. --JN466 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

92. Oppose. The proposal doesn't fix the problem. I would support replacing the existing with "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is reliable sourcing so that readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a dependable source". The verifiable v true debate is meaningless considering the number of thesauruses which indicate they virtually have equivalent meaning. Moriori (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
93. Oppose. Every so often, WP:OTRS gets complaints that Wikipedia is "distorting" the truth on this or the other, and the appropriate reply is that we represent "verifiability, not truth". I feel that our claim that we verify facts, but don't claim to present any one "truth" is a core value and should remain in focus. It's an essential reminder both for editors and readers. Asav | Talk 00:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    I sincerely hope that is not how OTRS is handling complaints about errors in the encyclopedia. If it is handling them this way, then your oppose comment should influence hundreds of supports in order to change this flawed policy. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    I obviously was't talking about factual errors, but about correspondents who claim the WP generally misrepresents the "truth". Assume good faith, even in discussions! Asav 13:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    No that wasn't obvious at all. In fact what you wrote suggests the opposite. You wrote on this or the other implying specific instances not general criticisms. So AGF right back at you. What Vriditas understood is what I understood as well.Griswaldo (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

94. Oppose "Assertions of truth and untruth" is a mess, even if it wasn't, I'm not sure about the first half of the proposed change. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
95. Oppose Truth is entirely relative on this encyclopedia. Changing that in any way is insane. I don't want my views presented as 'fact', nor do I want those I oppose being presented as 'fiction'. This is an encyclopedia, not a debate club, as would inevitably arise from compromising a core principle. Toa Nidhiki05 01:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    Hey there. Then you should love the proposed version since it states,

    "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"."

    --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    The argument against is twofold: (a) removing an iconic expression from the lead weakens the policy, like removing from the lead of NPOV that all articles must be neutral; and (b) it's a stated aim of the supporters to eventually remove it from the policy entirely. They say moving it out of the lead is just a first step. Those are the two concerns.

    Plus it's not clear what an "initial threshold" is, as opposed to a threshold, and the cognitive dissonance of the phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" helps new editors understand that they shouldn't add their own opinions to articles, or remove opinions they don't like. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

96. Oppose. What we regard as true sometimes takes a backseat in Wikipedia. "Verifiability, not truth" is short and clear and emphasizes this. The low priority of truth, versus reliable secondary sources, should be front and centre as a core value and reminder to all editors. New editors, especially, benefit from this mantra. --Ds13 (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
97. Oppose - I don't see the need to cahnge anythign. The emphasis on Verifiability, not truth is an essential part of WP, and should not be watered down. - BilCat (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
98. Oppose. I find Silktork's argument on elegance persuasive. It is the grabline that encapsulates the policy. Further explanation should come later, we don't want the lede swamped with the small print. SpinningSpark 09:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
99. Oppose The most honest thing WP does is admit it is not able to arbitrate on what is, or is not "the truth". -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
100. Oppose Primarily because removing "not truth" and the issues (arguments) that will bring, and because the new version seems to be more vague and open to interpretation. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
101. Oppose The first concern could be addressed by the simple change from "The threshold" to "A criteria" and the second concern can always be thrashed out on the discussion page if a need arises. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
102. Oppose I support the goals espoused, but do not think that the proposed change achieves them. Instead, it dilutes a pithy statement of policy by burying it under a subheading. Anoyatu (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
103. Oppose. The proposed change weakens a statement of principle that is core to the success of the project. Most importantly, it also dilutes a simple message that readers should understand. Thparkth (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
104. Oppose. I'm not exactly the most familiar with the policies, here, but that's sort of my point - the existing wording is clear and concise and I immediately knew what it meant, even taken out of context (I checked after), context which is already really... long and scary. The proposed revision, on the other hand, actually seems less clear to me, and just makes it even longer and scarier. Before reading through some of the arguments/comments/things, I wasn't even sure what the new thing was trying to say, and after, I'm inclined to agree with those saying that it's too much. Removing the 'truth' thing from the start removes a distinction that needs to be made, but while the meaning of it seems rather self-explanatory to me, perhaps it really isn't to a lot of folks... but in that case, why not link it to another page explaining; an essay or something like someone mentioned up there? Somewhere. *gestures vaguely* Safeguarding every interpretation of what's being said needn't (and shouldn't) all be on one page, either, and the more it winds up on one, the more likely new users and readers and other less serious folks are to simply be scared off by the thing and not read it at all. I should know. Although I've been scared off by single sentences before, but still. -— Isarra (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
105. Oppose The current wording is accurate and its conciseness is very useful. However, I won't lose sleep if this is changed as the proposed compromise is a decent one. ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
106. Oppose' — this removes clarity from the lead for no benefit. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
107. Weak oppose. While I agree that perhaps this oft-used saying needs clarification, I oppose the proposal of removing it from the lead. Maintaining a hard line on this standard provides an easy deterrent to those who would use unreliable sources and original research to advance fringe viewpoints which compromise the integrity of the project. Having dealt with such individuals in the past, I can say that being able to categorically say "verifiability, not truth" and have it backed by the intro to this policy carries a distinct weight, and I personally should like to be able to retain said weight. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
108. Oppose. The phrase has been there at least since I became active in 2003 and it's a good one. The concept of verifiability is often difficult for newcomers to understand. It takes a while for a newcomer to become acculturated enough to read policy pages in detail. "Verifiability, not truth" is a perfect introduction; it captures the essence of the policy succinctly, and it has a certain shock value that is helpful in getting people to understand that it's not an obvious thing. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
109. Oppose. The current wording conveys what needs to be conveyed to the sort of person most likely to be sent to the page. While the welcome templates and how-to documents point users to the core policies and guidelines, I think that most users learn the policies and guidelines through use—other editors point them towards them. I think the opening paragraph ought to be structured so that it conveys what most people will need to know once their are directed toward the policy. The reason "verifiability, not truth" was moved further and further toward the beginning is because most errors occur on the side of "I know it's true so I put it in." While there is the concern that someone might say "it may be false but it is verifiable," I have not run into that as frequently. I would say that the frequency and seriousness of the misunderstanding ought to determine the wording of the policy. I think this proposal has things backwards. The concerns that the compromise seeks to address should be dealt with further into the policy, while the phrasing "verifiability, not truth" should be retained up front where everyone can see it in big, bold letters. The phrase may sound paradoxical, but it should be a bit jarring. It is part of our attempt to break a misapprehension about how Wikipedia works that is widespread among new editors. It is not arcana that editors needs to learn only once they become more engaged in the project, but the core of the project. Moving the phrase further down into the policy is more likely to obscure the importance of the distinction between what you can verify and why you feel is true from the very editors who most need to be made aware of that distinction. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
110. Oppose I really don't see a problem with the existing text, it's clear, concise and to the point, which is what we need the opening paragraph to be. The proposed text seems ambiguous by comparison. It is hard to explain to newcomers who don't don't see why "I know it to be true" is not sufficient whereas the existing text rarely needs any further explanation. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
111. Oppose Though I have to admit I don't spend a lot of time mulling over policy and guidelines, I've always liked the bluntness of this one's current wording. As Indiana Jones said, if you want truth, the philosophy class is just down the hall... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
112. Oppose. "Verifiability, not truth" is wikt:pithy and gets the point across clearly. The truth is that a substantial proportion of the people who are sent to read that page will never read past the lead; why in the world would we move the "nutshell" version of the point below the fold? The contrast of "verifiable" and "true" is the point here. The concerns cited in the rationale above strike me as somewhat post-hoc rationalizations. Squinting and saying "yeah, but someone COULD read the word to mean this other thing" as a rationalization for removing a meaningful word seems a bit silly; if people are concerned that readers might take "verifiability, not truth" to mean "we must include everything, ever," then it would make more sense to change the word "verifiable" to "reliably-sourced", or to add the proposed "while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion" comment to the lead. Removing "truth" from the lead would decrease, not increase, the policy's comprehensibility. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
113. Oppose. The current wording is succinct and clearly summarizes a core principle of Wikipedia. It allows me and others to clearly present to newbies and pov-pushers the consensus of the community that the editors of wikipedia are (in the context of Wikipedia editing) not the ones who should worry about the truth but about the verifiability and how to fairly represent all significant views. This has nothing to do with notability as it is covered elsewhere. I'm concerned that changing the policy in the proposed manner will lead towards unnecessary and complicated disputes. The interpretation of the general policies must be as concise as possible. There's no need to discuss the basic principles on every article talk page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
114. Oppose. Take for example: "really did throw up all over himself in the debate". That is neither literally true nor pleasant, but it is verifiable, widely noted, and a good indication of where the lamestream flows on a certain issue. Therefore it needs to be included. Hcobb (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
115. Oppose: "verifiability, not truth" is a vital concept on Wikipedia and means exactly what it sounds like in a handy, concise way with no ifs, ands, or buts to dilute it. Wikipedia's rules need to be simple and to-the-point if we're to expect anyone to possibly follow them, particularly new editors, young editors, and editors for whom english is not a first language. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
116. Oppose VNF is an easy-to-understand way to introduce and summarize the main point of the policy. Of course it's not complete - that's what the rest of the page is for. It belongs in the lead sentence, bolded, because of tl;dr. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
117. Oppose If something is to be changed, I would make it "... not simply truth" or "... not just truth" and I endorse the phrase "reliable verifiability". Softtest123 (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

     Unfortunately, resolving this is not as simple as one would hope and might first think: there have been many months of discussion without revealing a simple fix that is broadly acceptable. The suggested change is deliberately a compromise, a best effort to get as many people on board as possible, with the view that conciseness, a smaller problem, can be worked on in due course. Uniplex (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

118. Oppose - the new wording complicates things and I think the original wording is clear enough. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
119. Oppose - The change seems too Obfuscated; too wordy; succinct and simple works as it is. The modifiers might still have to be re-worded and re-expressed to encompass the issue...Modernist (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
120. Oppose - Our policy of not getting involved in deciding what is and isn't true is extremely important. This proposal doesn't seem to change that policy, it just tries to de-emphasise it and make it harder to find. I don't see anything to be gained by that. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
121. Oppose - While I agree with the removal of the unnecessary reference to truth, I oppose the addition of the phrase "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).". I have not seen clear rationale for why this sentence needs to be added, and I think it highlights the weakest and most open-to-manipulation of all wikipedia's policies - i.e. WP:N. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
122. Oppose The current statement is clear and strong in its assertion that an editor's job is supplying information supported by reliable, verifiable sources, not deciding what the "truth" is, even if that "truth" is a simple factual matter. There is simply no way of determining "truth" without doing OR and any change in wording that even slightly encourages editors to start making their own decisions about facts or opinions is problematic and I think that obfuscating the clear precept we have now will do exactly that. Some of the statements I have read in the Support section above only convince me that the policy that editors are not here to decide on the "truth" needs to be emphasized as strongly as possible since several presumably veteran editors don't seem to have absorbed that simple "truth". Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
123. Oppose One of the concerns listed for phrase "Verifiable, not truth" is that new editors can be confused. Well in my mind, this is one of the the big, hard lessons about Wikipedia, because life has taught us that the inverse works, truth, not verifiable (how many times did you have to verify your answers on tests, especially standardized ones?). It needs to stay in the lead, in bold. Birdman1011395 (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
124. Oppose The original is clear and succinct. I find the proposed new version actually kinda confusing as it refers to some vague "other policies and guidelines". I also think the new version conflicts with the core policy of a Neutral Point of View. If a fact is verifiable and conflicts with another fact, both should be presented with the proper weight to maintain a neutral point of view. This seems to be clouded to me by the phrase "not a guarantee of inclusion". dissolve^talk 02:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     Facts conflict all the time. Editors can often (but not always) resolve the contradiction by evaluating the source(s) and checking for accuracy, currency and other criteria. If we have, let's say, two sources, one of which claims Pluto is a planet and another which does not, we will discover that the latter is more current than the other and eliminate the former. We would not, in this example, present both with proper weight. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

125. Oppose. I actually like the rest of the language, but I totally oppose the removal of "truth" from the first line. "Verifiability, not truth" is the battle cry in the fight against the very tiresome truth-bearing SPAs that always seem intent on enlightening us with our mistaken views on (article name here), whether we like it or not. Trusilver 04:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
126. Oppose. I hold strong views on many subjects, and i know that there are many untrue articles on Wikipedia currently. But the reason why they remain is exactly because the editors managed to bully everybody else into submission by saying that regardless of the research on the subject, their views are true, and researchers are pushing some agenda or what-not. While there should be a project for publishing original research articles, this project should not be Wikipedia. Beta M 05:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beta M (talk • contribs)

     The proposal doesn't weaken the protection against including "true but unverifiable" material. Not even slightly. What it does is clarify that we don't want "false but verifiable" material. --Trovatore (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

127. Oppose as reducing clarity, and using the most bureaucratic and WP:CREEPY of solutions to address a relatively minor problem. Could easily solve the same problem by saying "Verifiability, not just truth". This is an instance where the cure is far worse than the disease. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
128. Oppose Evaluating truth claims should never be the business of the editors. Untrue verifiable information can be included as well as true verifiable information depending on relevancy not truth/untruth evaluation because truth/untruth claims can never be evaluated or settled. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     This, imho, warrants a Bingo! Thank you...and I'll add "dogmatics" to the list of those whose position will be strengthened by this suggested revision. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

129. Oppose While the phrase's form might be abrupt to some, to me the original is an easy-to-remember summation of a complex concept. After all, look how many words all of us have written in our various posts about the three words "verifiability, not truth" on this page. --Shearonink (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral (Switched to oppose, above.) I agree with some of this. I agree that verifiability is an "initial threshold for inclusion" (while sometimes verifiable information may not meet other thresholds). I agree that verification is not a guarantee for inclusion (though that fact is mentioned elsewhere, so I'm neutral about its inclusion here). My concern is that the proposed wording intends to de-emphasize the fact that truth is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion -- but it could effectively remove that criterion by basing it only on an essay that will no longer be accurate. See my question below. I might switch my comment to "support" if my concerns are adequately resolved, or to "oppose" if they are not. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but as the primary author of the proposal, I can assure you that my intent isn't to "de-emphasize the fact that truth is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion" (I firmly agree that it is not), my intent is to address the opposite side of the coin: whether untruth is an acceptable criterion for exclusion.

These are two sides of the same coin... The "unverifiable truth" side of the coin has a black and white answer... if the material isn't verifiable, we shouldn't include it, no matter how true it may be. But there isn't a clear black and white answer to the "verifiable untruth" side of the coin... sometimes we should exclude verifiable material that is untrue, and sometimes we shouldn't. It's a case by case determination... and the determination is (in most cases) based primarily on policy concepts other than verifiability. The problem is that the current policy doesn't mention this. It only discusses one side of the coin. The point of the proposal is to address both. It may not do a perfect job of doing so, but at least we try to address it. Does this resolve your concerns? Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I misrepresented your intentions. I want to be clear here... it sounds like you're saying that there are times that verifiable statements might still need to be deleted based on the claim that they are untrue, and that this wording change is designed to facilitate that. Am I correct in that? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly the case. An example that the working group came up with, in discussion, was the statement that "Pluto is a planet". That statement is verifiable and I can prove it by reference to otherwise-reliable sources, but it's also been false since 2006 when the definition of "planet" changed. The proposed wording allows for that kind of situation, and more controversial ones too.—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the truth of that statement matters, in terms of whether it should be included. It's a matter of the weight of the sources. Certainly statements should be challenged if more recent sources contradict it, if corrections are issued, etc., but not merely based on a claim of untruth. To make a simplistic example, if I claim "Cromulent widgets tend to be blue", and I provide a reliable source, and Joe Blow claims the statement is untrue (without providing contradictory sources), his claims are null here. The current wording makes this clear. The proposed wording, while having some advantages, seems to open the door to the possibility that Joe's claim of untruth has weight. If so, I can't support it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Quadell's comment, "Joe Blow claims the statement is untrue (without providing contradictory sources), his claims are null here. The current wording makes this clear." - Not really. The current wording discusses what is necessary for inclusion, not what is sufficient for inclusion. In other words, the current wording doesn't say whether or not something can be excluded based on a claim like Joe Blow's. The present wording only says that something can't be included based only on a claim by Joe Blow that it is true. Both the current wording and the proposed wording are neutral on the issue of excluding material from a reliable source because someone claims it is not true. The current wording says nothing about it, and the proposal says it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page, with reference to other policies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposed wording, on the other hand, does address this somewhat... it says to discuss the issue on the talk page with reference to other polices and guidelines. Yes, it is passing the buck to those other policies and guidelines, but at least it is more than is in the current version. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Quadell, I submit that there are three flaws in what I believe is implied your "Joe Blow" statement. One is implying that Joe Blow could unilaterally remove the statement over objections based just on his claim of falsehood. Nothing new or old supports this. Second is is that a simple "I say it's false" unsupported claim of falsehood is a sort of straw-man rarity....inevitably such a claim includes something to support its veracity. The third is overlooking the more realistic option which is simply that Joe Blow's statement of falsehood is allowed to enter into the conversation (doubtless gauged based on what Joe includes to support his assertion) that the editors are having about potential exclusion of material. Currently a common mis-read is often used to completely exclude that from the conversation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you whether you can support it, but I want to say that I completely disagree with you. Jimbo expressed my view very well when he said: "We are not transcription monkeys, merely writing down what sources say. We want to only write true things in Wikipedia, and we want to verify them." My position is that wikipedians are educators, and there's something sinister about an educator who doesn't care about the truth. We absolutely can, do, and must, make judgments about what's true. Oh, sure, we can put it in terms like "weight of the sources" and try to judge which source is "most reliable", but in fact what we mean when we say that a source is "reliable" or "deserves weight" is that that source is "likely to be true". Thus we put a semantic layer in between article content and truth. But when our judgment about what to include depends on which source is the most likely to be accurate, then the difference between that and making judgments about "truth" is semantics and nothing but. And my position is that we should be intolerant of those who wish to introduce lies into encyclopaedia articles.—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. When we say that a source is reliable and has weight we do not make a judgement about its presumed veracity, but about the degree to which it represents current consensus in the relevant field. I must say that I am surprised at Mr. Wales in my view rather naive understanding of what truth is. To make judgments about what is true is the job of specialist researchers - not wikipedian editors. It is implicit in the word "editor" that we make editorial decisions - of what to include and what not. But editors do not overrule professional researchers conclusions even if they disagree with them, they leave that to the scientific community. You are trying to give wikipedia a function of knowledge creation in addition to its role of knowledge transmission. That could be fine given that that is what a majority of wikipedians feel it should do, but it is not what I signed up for. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, where there's a controversy in any field, Wikipedia prefers the mainstream academic consensus. It's right that we do that. We present the mainstream academic consensus in the simple indicative ("Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor...", quoted from Evolution) and the alternative views as reported speech ("Some advocates believe that major differences in the appearance and behavior of two organisms indicates (sic) lack of common ancestry", quoted from Baraminology). From my point of view, the reason to use reported speech is because the addition of "some advocates believe" turns what would be a false statement in the simple indicative ("The major differences... indicate lack of common ancestry") into a true one. And from my point of view, the reason to present the mainstream academic consensus in the simple indicative is because we default to believing that the mainstream academic consensus is the correct view. But if you take away the value judgments about "truth" from this process, then actually there's no reason to treat the mainstream academic consensus about evolution any differently from baraminology, so either both belong as reported speech, or else both belong in the simple indicative (presumably the latter, since if we don't care about truth, the simpler construction is to be preferred).

This is why I believe the what is truth? view is logically inconsistent and fails to document good practice as well as a truth-based view.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea that "verifiability" does not include a brief review of whether something cited by a source is accurate or not, is and always has been an erroneous POV. Verifiability implies much more than confirming that a statement can be found in a reliable source. It also implies that such a statement can be evaluated based upon other, corresponding criteria, such as the authority of the author, the reliability of the publisher, and the relevancy and currency of the statement. In the Pluto example, such a statement fails the currency criteria. We can verify it, but it is no longer current, and this means, it is no longer accurate. This is very simple to understand, so I am unable to grasp its opposition. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But it is quite easy to see how editors come to the conclusion that Verifiability is nothing more than confirming that a statement can be found in a reliable source. WP:SOURCES (ie What counts as a reliable source) covers the authority of the author and reliability of the publisher issues but makes no comment regarding accuracy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Abstain. (Moved from Oppose until final opinion is formed.) Verifiability, not truth may be a slap in the face when reading it the first time – it certainly was to me because it gave me the impression that the Wikipedia community does not care about the (objective) truth but only about verifiability. But you quickly start to understand the rationale behind this, and the meme becomes a powerful and appealing one. While I understand that not truth provides futile grounds for wikilawyering and a more clarifying version is therefore welcome, I am missing what our current meme delivers so clearly, that "truth" by itself is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion. I am willing to support a version that addresses the issue about truth in its lead paragraph, but not this one. Nageh (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   I think there is a trade-off between the current wording and the proposal. The current slogan is powerful in that it makes newcomers immediately clear that "truth" by itself is not a criterion for inclusion. The proposed wording attempts to address the concern that editors purposefully add false information that is presented in a reliable source. The end result for both wordings is the same: whether to include some material is a matter of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Maybe it is the latter part that should be clarified. In the end, it seems all a question of which version is more likely to be misinterpreted. Nageh (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

2. I don't really have an opinion on proposal (2) because the definition of verifiability found in this policy is rather confusing. "Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source." Is a piece publicly displayed in a museum something "published by a reliable source", for instance? What if it's on public display only for a limited time? Can we write in an article that a piece is found in said museum while the public display condition holds true, but we'd have to delete it thereafter? Also, a I think a policy should not link to an essay inline in its text. Perhaps Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth should be linked only in the "See also" section. I think that simply adding WP:DUE as an example in the first sentence "(especially whether specific material is included in a specific article, e.g. due weight)." would be a less verbose way to mention a concern that is not central to this policy. Proposed addition is in bold here, but I don't suggest actually using bold in the policy text. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

   Generally, things made available to the "public" have been "published". The words are very closely related. You might find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Published. On the specific example, the answer is yes for most circumstances: signs or items that are displayed in a museum (or street corner) are published. The items on display are primary sources, so you have to be very careful how you use them. However, if the exhibit is closed later, then they are no longer accessible and thus ineligible (exactly like a book is no longer eligible if every known copy is later destroyed). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

   As someone training in the museum profession I should point out that in general museum exhibits have source material for what information they provide so a museum exhibit is NOT going to be your only source for information. If the information is so obscure that the source the museum used cannot be found then you have to ask if it meets Wikipedia:Notability. For example I would love to have an article here on Doane R. Hoag's "Random Time Machine" articles that ran in several papers for nearly a decade starting in the 1970s but other than the paper it appeared in there is nothing on it and so because it fails Wikipedia:Notability we don't have an article on it and likely never will.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

   Verifiability applies to far more than "shall we have an article entirely about this subject" (=notability). You could use a museum exhibit to support, say, a single sentence in an article about fossils or history if you wanted. It might not be the best possible source, but it's probably adequate, and you must WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, even if better sources might exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I agree with the sentiment of this change, but I don't think it will work. The verifiability, not truth mantra will continue, as it is effectively true. Mark Hurd (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

   The mantra is not true, it's verifiable... (sorry I couldn't resist). Crazynas ^t 21:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

   Mark, the purpose of the proposal was never to discontinue the mantra... but to explain it better, so that people understand what it means and use it appropriately (and not use it inappropriately). Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Just a comment: I've had more than one person I know who is the subject of an article try and fail to correct basic facts (in once case, his own birrhdate) because some newspaper or such got it wrong in print, and be rebuffed because they hadn't published anywhere. The verifiability criterion in combination with an extreme interpretation of NOR can be a real problem. - Jmabel | Talk 21:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

   Is it that real (big) a problem? And even if it was vast, what would you do about that. Would you think a rule that says, 'anyone with special knowledge can correct errors known only to them,' would work? What would you propose? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

   In that case, couldn't they use the instructions at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) and contact info-en-q@wikimedia.org about the issues? Shearonink (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral (with regret). (Switched to Oppose) Kudos to all those (particularly BlueBoar) for putting this proposal together. Unfortunately I can't support it as I think the proposed section (==Assertions of truth and untruth==) is actually confusing. Moreover I feel keeping the 'not truth' phrase in line 1 is a good idea. Again while i sympathize with teh suggestion I don't believe it is the right move--Cailil ^talk 20:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Neutral - I appreciate the work that went into this, but the new proposed section ==Assertions of truth and untruth== in its attempt clarrify the proposed change to venerability, not truth only makes it worse. This is why we have WP:CREEP. If it were just the rephrasing of that one paragraph it would be enough, but with the added section it just muddies the water.∞陣内Jinnai 21:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
6. Neutral only in so much as the solution clearly has not yet been found. Sure everything must be verifiable, however something can be verifiable yet be untrue, i.e. inaccurate. We are all human and we all make mistakes. Including reliable sources. Wikipedia should not require something that is untrue. If something is verifiable yet inherently false and wikipedia editors recognise that then there should be a discussion on the appropriateness of the inclusion of that information. Wikipedia editors are not robots. We can think for ourselves and make decisions. We should always question sources and information, verify it and strive for accurateness and truefulness. The idea that something that is verifiable is automatically suitable for inclusion is naive, since we should not be in the business of promoting false information. Never trust sources, even ones that meet the criteria in WP:RS. Strive for truthful knowledge, strive for perfection. Any policy that includes any idea that untruthful information is acceptable in wikipedia since it is supported by some "reliable sources" is a poorly formulated one. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Neutral. Is it worth considering retaining "verifiability, not truth" while otherwise modifying(expanding) the lede? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
8. Neutral. The section on Assertions of truth and untruth is too poorly written for me to agree with the proposal.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
9. Neutral. I agree with both Nageh and Polyamorph in that the current wording may be strange, but the proposed solution is not ideal either. Really, the current wording is fine, but the proposed wording is fine too. I agree with both, and therfore am neutral. Mathmitch7 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
10. Neutral. While I am not against the idea of change here, I don't see from the proposal how the suggested change would be a change for the better. Perhaps it's better to deal with the wording and improve it before making the change. Cloudz679 (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
11. Neutral. The rewording of the first sentence is more in keeping with WP:RS, but I'd like to see verifiability, not truth restored. The proposed section, however, doesn't address what's problematic in that formulation, and that is the distinction between questions of truth (which aren't our business to decide) and questions of fact (which are). The relativism of truth claims that can never be universally definitive is already addressed by policies on neutrality, undue weight, fringe and so on. Questions of fact are those that can be answered, or could be answered if sufficient evidence existed. Question of truth: What caused the American Civil War? (range of interpretations in RS, some contradicting each other, to be represented in article). Question of fact: When did the American Civil War end? (answerable depending on how you define "end"). We already recognize that WP should not perpetuate an error in questions of fact even if it's "verifiable" in some sources (see for instance List of common misconceptions), nor allow editors to decide questions of truth—but the wording of WP:V should be improved to reflect this better. So I do support the effort. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
12. Neutral. The proposed phrase "initial threshold" is a tautology. Threshold means a "minimal requirement. So, "initial threshold"= "initial minimal requirement". I would support if it were removed. Ruslik_Zero 09:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
13. With every word added to a policy, we reduce the number of editors willing to read it. In light of that, I'm not convinced that the increased clarity of the currently proposed wording will pay off. (In case anyone replies to this, please, inform me about it.) Goodraise 21:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
14. Neutral. Neither proposal is satisfactory in my mind. There is a world of options to consider beyond the wording that is on the table. People have stated that adding words will steer readers away. I don't agree with this. Things that grab our attention and maintain our attention is what works, length is one factor not necessarily the overriding one. Neither proposal offers good guidance to settle dispute. They both claim the threshold (i.e., "the point at which a stimulus is of sufficient intensity to begin to produce an effect"[4]) is verifiability, but fail to give clear advise on what to do when you cross that threshold. The second option suggests that there are other guidelines and policies, but that just leads to more questions and endless debate. What do you do when you cross the threshold? I like to think that we are guided by our tenacious and collective pursuit of truth and reliability using the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates.Thompsma (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

    I would also like to see this start over again. Many have stepped in only recently into this debate that affects us all. I see this point has been raised below and I support that initiative. This is a global wikipedian issue, give time for people to join in and set the threshold before the question is asked. "A majority vote of X will mean that this will pass. The date will be set from..." The rules need to be set in advance so that everyone can agree with the results of the outcome.Thompsma (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Linked essay bases itself on the current wording

• The proposed wording for this policy links to the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth in order to explain that truth is not enough for inclusion (a clearly important concept). But that essay bases itself on the current wording here; it's initial sentence is "Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, defines the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as verifiability, not truth." How will this discrepancy be resolved? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, clearly, by editing the essay. We need to see what the consensus wording for the policy will be before we can fix the essay, though.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Does it make sense to propose a change to a policy's wording that would both link to an essay and make that essay inaccurate at the same time? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, it makes perfect sense. Essays are not rules... however, one of the main purposes of essays is to explain the thinking and intent behind the rules. The essay in question is a very good explanation of the the thinking and intent behind the phrase: "Verifiability, not truth". Linking to it will help readers gain an deeper understanding of what we mean by that phrase. Now, we will need to amended the essay slightly if this proposal is passed, but that does not mean we should not link to the essay at all. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Although this isn't exactly responding to Quadell's question, I'd like to suggest that, assuming the proposal passes, we have a shortcut that goes directly to the new section about truth. Currently, WP:NOTTRUTH directs to the top of WP:V. I'd very much like to see it target, instead, the proposed new section. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Unless I'm missing something, the proposed wording does not link to that essay. The rationale does, but it is not a part of the proposed change. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The case where a reliable source is wrong in their statement

• How do you propose to resolve the case where a reliable source is wrong in their statement? I remember a case where a statement was made about Wikipedia by a reliable secondary source that was directly contradicted by the primary source of the page histories. (I'd give more details, but I don't feel like digging through archives until I remember). Easily verifiable, but in contradiction to the way we're supposed to be working here. I don't think the old version addressed the issue any better, but the new version hammers more on the published RS side of things.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If a source is demonstrably wrong it is ipso facto not a "reliable source" - that is explained in WP:RS. I really wish people would stop trying to force this policy to do the work of a different policy. Roger (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Where in RS is there any guidelines on that? I think RS does a very good job in explaining who to judge a book by its covers, and that's what is needed most of the time, but nowhere in Wikipedia, even not in this proposal, is there particularly helpful advice on what to do when a secondary source is contradicted by primary or raw data sources. Vesal (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes actually have a clear policy on that: What we need to do if we find that a peer reviewed publication is contradicted by primary sources is that we write an article about our interpretation of the sources arguing that previous interpretations are wrong and submit it to a peer reviewed journal.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And how is checking a primary source to see if it aligns with a secondary sources description of it not Original Research? Are we not in effect saying that our skills as researchers trump the ones of peer reviewed professionals. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem everyone here is grappling with is the misuse of reliable sources. The simple fact that something is published in a book or journal article is not always sufficient to establish that this is an appropriate source or that the view it expresses is significant. I think everyone would agree about this. But whatever our solution is, it cannot be one that promotes original research, I agree fully with Maunus. I think the problem is that people have turned publication, which was a minimum criterion for verifiability, into the maximum criterion. The problem is that we need more information to know whether the source is appropriate or the view is significant. This requires more research, but not original research as Maunus describes. It means reading enough secondary sources to understand what exactly makes any given book or article important and to whom, perhaps. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about conflicting views expressed in secondary sources. Sarek's question is about when a reliable source is contradicted by a primary or raw data source. To simplify the example, assume The New York Times, and a bunch of outlets repeating it, state that Jimbo Wales edited the entry of president Obama to say Obama is a really nasty piece of work, and you check the contribution logs and see this edit was made by an impostor, such as User:Jim Wales. What would you do? Wait until New York Times retract their statement? No other views are published in secondary sources, so it is up to you to decide whether you want to repeat untrue information. What kind of research, based on secondary sources, would help us here? What kind of NPOV considerations? Vesal (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an editorial discussion and decide whether the statement in the Times is significant enough to be notable- If we decide that it is then we write "On february 10th the New York times published a piece accusing Jimbo Wales of dissing Obama". And we do it because that is a fact. When Wales then decides to retort via the press then we include his statement as well. Any other approach would be Original Research. (you could for example write your finding in a letter to the editorial staff of the times - thus making them retract the statement)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that is a pretty good answer, although perhaps my example was too harmless and does not adequately reflect the situation that Sarek was referring to. Still, I would not say any other approach is original research: there is no attempt to include something in the article, and one should try to avoid repeating libelous information, even attributed, until of course the situation reaches such degree of notability that it can't be avoided, but instead Wikipedia is one of the first places that reports, and escalates, such controversies. Vesal (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that we handle it this way. The Wikipedia log is a primary source, but in this hypothetical case its reliability trumps the reliability of the secondary source The New York Times. We should always use the best and most reliable source when we try to verify something, and if that source refutes the allegation that Jimbo Wales vandalized the Barack Obama article, then that is the version we should go by. The next questions are "Is the NYT allegation notable?" and "Is it notable that someone impersonated Jimbo Wales?". If the answer to these questions is "no", then I would probably exclude that content altogether. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal attempts to deal with all of this in two ways... first, by noting that Verifiability is a requirement for, but not a guarantee of inclusion... and by noting that we should look to other polices and guidelines to make the determination as to whether to include a specific bit of verifiable information. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

But the policy needs to state specifically that untruth is not in itself a valid reason for exclusion, we can include untrue statements if they are notable and attributed to their specific source, and weighted with any contradictory statements according to significance. For example we can include in the article about Monical Lewinsky that "President Clinton stated I did not have sex with that woman", and no one can remove that statement because it is a lie - because it is vrifiable fact that he made the statement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a true statement. President Clinton did state "I did not have sex with that woman". Therefore the policy supports its inclusion.—S Marshall T/C 18:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It is also true to write "the national inquirer wrote that Leonardo di Caprio has been analprobed by aliens". The reason we don't include that is not that it is untrue, but that it is insignificant. For that reason the question of "truth" is not relevant - only the question of verifiability and attribution. User BruceGrubb is for example arguing that we have to remove a statement by a recognized professional making a claim about the first usage of the word, because he himself has found an earlier usage. I say if the statement is significant we include it attributed to its source, regardless of whether BruceGrubb's or another editors original research suggest that the statement may be factually incorrect. Similarly we don't remove Clinton's statement because an editor happens to have a photo of a sexual act betwen Clinton and Lewinsky, falsifying Clinton's statement. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This kind of example got discussed to death by the working group over a period of about eight months. The situation is that if an editor writes, "Clinton stated, 'I did not have sex with that woman'," then the statement is true; but if an editor writes, "Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky" then that statement is very arguably false and certainly needs to be refactored. Even though it's sourced to the President of the United States himself. The proposed policy wording clarifies how to deal with such situations.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it does. On the contrary it suggests that wikipedians can remove statements that they "know" to be untrue regardless of whether there are any reliable sources supporting that conclusion. This undermines both WP:V and WP:NOR.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, the case you are talking about is now part of the WP:Inaccuracy page and is where Peter Knight's direct statement "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909" could be proven wrong as the phrase "conspiracy theory" could be shown to have appeared before 1909 with the earliest RS The Journal of mental science (1871)--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Inaccuracy is intended to be a response to this type of discussion.  This essay currently says, "Ultimately, with allowing for due weight considerations in how the material is presented, and notwithstanding copyright violations, the only reason to exclude verifiable material from the encyclopedia is because it is insignificant."  And

* Levels of exclusion regarding potentially inaccurate material

• We don't use Wikipedia's voice to say it, instead we use inline attribution.
  
• We mention the anomaly in a footnote.
  
• The potentially inaccurate material has so little prominence (WP:DUE), that we don't mention it at all.

Unscintillating (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This policy with which I was not familiar should be integrated much more prominently in the proposed text of WP:V then.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This essay is purposed as a guideline to be linked from WP:V and WP:NPOV.  It is new and needs more eyes.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Elevating this would go a long way towards alleviating the problems that are driving this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Reply to the original question: there is a statement in WP:PRIMARY: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
    • We need to stop using "secondary source" to mean "good source". Secondary sources can be truly lousy: biased, inaccurate, incomplete, non-independent, and more. If the primary source is more likely to be correct than the secondary source, then we should go with the better source. A secondary source might tell you whether a given piece of information is important (DUE), but it is not automatically the best possible source. For example, if you're quoting a line from a poem, it's often better to cite the original publication, not the (possibly mistaken) second-hand reproduction in someone else's book. We all know how the telephone game works, and anyone who doesn't recognize the problems that secondary sources have with quotations should be sentenced to cleaning up errors at Wikiquotes until he or she becomes achieves enlightenment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I fully agree especially when "secondary source" = "good source" is used to curb stomp NPOV issues such as those seen in the Jesus myth theory --BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)article.

If the iconic-phrase is divisive, meaning that some fear it has unintended side effects but there will not be a consensus to bury it, this RfC should nonetheless have successfully brought to light together the strong variety of mechanisms already available for countering those feared side effects. Moving forward, it looks a consensus could be built by proposal that, without burying those three words, inserts below in the document a prominent section or passage directly countering those side-effects (e.g., explicitly decreeing those are not valid interpretations, and advertising the specific other policies to use for countering such misapplications). Keep the icon but rid the fears? Cesiumfrog (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Need explicit wording

1. The casual reader needs some help to make the distinction between two definitions of verifiability:

• common: The ability to determine if a claim corresponds to truth.
• Wikipedia's: The ability to determine if a summary of a claim corresponds to its appearance in a published reliable source. patsw (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

2. I would also like to see an explicit denial that as a collaboration we are indifferent to truth. My own contribution along these lines is here: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#Editors are summarizers not truth finders patsw (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

On point #2 - I agree that such a statement would be beneficial... but I don't think WP:V is the right place to put it. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Both points are common misunderstandings of WP:V. We're not indifferent... appears in the essay. If I see the accusation that Wikipedia editors are indifferent to the truth on- or off- Wiki again, I will bring it up on the talk page. patsw (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that the WIkipedia meaning of verifiability is different from wha tis at least one very common understanding and we should make this clearer. I also acknowledge that the definition of the Wikipedia use of the term is wording that the V policy has had since the page was created. I am sorry I didn't argue against it at the time, but I think that this wording has caused us a heap of trouble. It is not wrong, but it skips a step and insodoing turns reliable sources into ends when they are means to an end. I think the missing step is: we are verifying that the claim that we represent is a "significant view" meaning that the claim is not one of our own invention but rather one that is universally held, widely held, held by a majority, held by a notable minority. "Reliable sources" are the means by which we verify this. But what we are verifying is that it is a significant view. Without making this clear, to things often happen: (1) many editors misuse sources, using hat may in some context be a reliabl source inappropriately and (2) observers of WP conclude that we include anything that has been published on the web. What we are verifying is that it is a significant view giving due weight to its significance. It is only in relation to this principle that a source can be deemed reliable and be used effectively. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that most would consider this to be pretty overwhelming, far beyond beyond a consensus already. North8000 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to close?

Time to close? It received a large number of responses, the results look pretty overwhelming. New responses have trailed off, quantities for the last few days have been:

"Support"

• October 23 2
• October 24 1
• October 25 0
• October 26 0
• October 27 1
• October 28 6
• October 29 16

"Oppose"

• October 23 1
• October 24 1
• October 25 0
• October 26 0
• October 27 0
• October 28 5
• October 29 18

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's very reasonable. Normally, RfCs have to run a minimum of two weeks, and this is well beyond that. You could, perhaps, put a neutrally worded request at WP:AN for a previously uninvolved administrator to do the closure. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that North8000 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I did that. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is time to close or to announce an immanent close. But I do not consider the results to be decisive. When changing policy we need to reach a consensus. That more than a third of the people who commented are opposed or neutral shows that we are quite far from a consensus.

Many of the comments, pro and con, provide important and constructive feedback, which is a principal aim of an RfC. The question is, how to draw on the critical comments in order to craft a proposal that will generate a consensus? Answering this question may take some time, but that is something we have plenty of. I certainly think that this consensus is achievable. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

From the policy WP:Consensus in the lead of the section What consensus is,

"Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the results are pretty overwhelming, and for the specific proposal. Far above and beyond the norm for a consensus. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I would point out that the RFC was about specific wording proposed after literally months of long discussion in the attempt to find common ground. I sincerely doubt we will get unanimity on any wording, and as evidence of that I point to the fact that there are two camps of opposes in the RFC who fundamentally disagree as to why it is important to oppose the suggested wording. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Bob K31416, North8000 and Nuujinn. There's been more than eight months of discussion followed by a long, long RFC that have attracted a lot of interest and a lot of contributions. I'm looking for a decision now—not a compromise, not the start of a new kind of talking shop, but a relatively final outcome so we can finally make progress and move on.—S Marshall T/C 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I never used the word unanimity and I did not think anyone here would misinterpret "consensus" to mean unanimity. I do not think we should seek unanimity. But this is NOT an article. This is a policy. The threshold for change to a policy is much greater than it is for an article. And usually, changes to this page are made through consensus. the fact that we have had an RfC does not mean we abandon that pricniple. The purpose for a request for comment is ... to request comments. The poll does indicate that This issue needs attention, and it indicates that Blueboar has some good ideas. The fact that there are so many people opposed is also significant polls are not up/down votes. I agree that people disagree for different reasons. i also point out that people agree for different reasons. Collaborative editing means, working through all the constructive criticisms and suggestions to make a good proposal even better. We may never get unanimity and that certainly should not be an obstacle to change. But thoughtful criticisms can be applied to revising the proposal, just as thougtful support should never be dismissed.

This is a request for comment. The comments are the point; it is not just a vote. We should disregard everyone who registered support or opposition without reasons, and there may be comments that are empty of meaning, or unthoughtful or unconstructive. Whatever is left is what a request for comment is supposed to generate: thoughtful comments. I see no reason why Blueboar's proposal cannot be imporved upon, and I think many of the comments suggest ways that it can be improved. That is what an RfC is for. It is a stage in the development of a consensus through collaborative editing, in which specific comments are solicited as a way to have very focused feedback. Well, we got those comments. Whether they are in support or opposition is not the point, what matters is that they are thoughtful and constructive. That is what makes an RfC a success.

I find it hard to believe people do not think Blueboar's proposal cannot be improved upon (even if it is used as our base/starting point — please do not misrepresent my comment to mean we should abandon it). The question is, did the RfC produce comments that could help us improve it? I think it did. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC's are more than just comments, they are also are THE venue for decisions and gauging a consensus. And this one is on a specific proposal. "Further improvement possible" is something for after the change, not a rationale for blocking it. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein said: "I find it hard to believe people do not think Blueboar's proposal cannot be improved upon..." - Actually about 1/3 of the participants in the discussion believe the best way to improve it is to drop it. Roger (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Clears throat. The opening post of this sub-thread asked whether it was time to close the RfC and how to do so. It wasn't a request for editors who already participated, either supporting or opposing, to try to tell the closing administrator what the decision should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted the premature RfC closure. There is no reason, with a key policy change, to close the RfC before the 30 days is up. In addition, it's not clear to me what the consensus is; not clear that the RfC was a proper wiki-wide one (I was hoping for something not on this page), and it would be appreciated if more than one (completely uninvolved) admin would agree to interpret the consensus. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: I was hoping for something not on this page... Um... where would an RfC on a proposed policy change go if not on the policy talk page? Blueboar (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I had hoped you would open a wiki-wide RfC, along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Verifiability, not truth, with watchlist notices, etc., as you recall we did for ATT. That would have attracted more input, and that was what I understood by "wiki-wide," rather than just another RfC on this page -- of which we've already had several, which opposed change. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and in regard to We should disregard everyone who registered support or opposition without reasons, with respect, no, we should not. Simple !votes indicate an editor's position on the question at hand, and while they should not carry as much weight as a well reasoned argument informed in policy, they should be accorded some weight. But I do not think there has been insufficient exposure to the community--the matter was discussed over the last several months in multiple venues, and the drafting of the RFC was public and took a good long while, too, this has been a long and open process. In regard to the duration of the RFC, waiting a few more days seems appropriate, as does a multi-admin closure. I'm unsure of how one would request the latter, but my gut feeling is we should ask for uninvolved admins from pools of admins who handle mediation or dispute resolution, as they have a knack for helping move discussion forward. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We never were in a hurry; even the "time to close?" question was open for several days with nobody against. But I am absolutely angry with and sick and tired of the "more of the same" strong arm, ownership and double standard stuff that I am seeing here. Whenever someone doesn't like the outcome, they invent new rules. The barrier for a change that they are in vavor or is incredibly low, and the barrier for something that they don't like, their personal incrediblyly high standards get invented. We need to take a stand against this. It should stay closed unless there is a consensus (not just a few strong-arm people) to reopen it. North8000 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

When you see comments on an important RfC petering out, one that will change a core policy, you ask for more input, you don't rush to close it early. Leaving it open for a few more days or a week will make sure people get a chance to speak.

And North, seriously, you have to stop accusing people of ownership issues here. You have posted about this issue more than any other editor, nearly a thousand posts on this page alone since July 2010 (plus on several others), making you the third highest poster overall, though the first two (Blueboar and myself) have been posting since 2006 and 2005 respectively. So it just isn't reasonable to accuse anyone else of ownership when it comes to this issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• SV, you are heavily involved. It was inappropriate for you to revert Sarek's close without even discussing it with him.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a general impression. The RFC has become quite chaotic in the last couple of hours. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

An RFC on a policy change should last for the full term as described in WP:RFC, which is 30 days. I don't see any reason to close this early. Dreadstar ☥ 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus may arise from this poll; I myself offered one compromise which may eventually result in a consensus quite like the proposal. But if I see another claim that this discussion is consensus for this wording, I will seek dispute resolution with that person. We would not confirm an admin with this ratio of supporters to opponents; to impose this text, instead of, as WP:Consensus requires, modifying it to attract disssentients while retaining proponents, is to run by majority vote. WP:Voting is evil. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, can you clarify? --Nuujinn (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

To those for whom that is not clear, no explanation will make it clearer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that's a less than helpful response, esp. given that I'm honestly not sure about the antecedents of your thises. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, with respct, yesterday I actually quoted the relevant part of the guidelines, below. But if I may follow up on PMAnderson, I would ask you to read the essay linked on voting is evel and more important, to reread the guidelines on RfC. I respectfully suggest you missed part of them or misread them and I am courteously just asking you to reread them, it is just one page.

As to when to close the RfC, the normal practice is 30 days after the RfC was opened. If Blueboar (or whoever started the RfC, I think it is Blueboar) believes that the RfC has produced a consensus earlier than the 30 days, Blueboar can close it sooner.

I think SlimVirgin's suggestion that the RfC should have had its own page is a reasonable point. However, I do want to note that Blueboar advertised this RfC on other policy pages and perhaps elsewhere as well - so I do think Blueboar and others have made a serious effort to let a wide range of editors know about this request for comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

North proposed closing on the 26th and Sarek closed it on the 28th. That is NOT a lot of time to discuss how best to close the RfC. Maybe this is the time to close, but let's have some discussion before railroading a premature closuer. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This RfC will close one month from when it started at the very least (November 5th). Any sort of "premature closure" isn't on or warranted. It's not time to close yet - no need for a coup de grâce yet, ladies and gentlemen. Be patient :> Doc talk 12:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If it closes that early, I'll try to reopen it. There have been a number of missteps, and we should wait until the activity drops off again before closing the RfC. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A question

I would like to make sure that everyone who commented in the previous RfCs/polls over the last few months is aware of this new one. I don't want to start leaving notes on user talk pages, in case I'm accused of canvassing. I'd therefore like to get agreement here as to how these editors should be informed.

The reason I feel this is needed is that this talk page became so bogged down over the last few months with constant polls that I think lots of people gave up and stopped looking at it (e.g. me). So I think we ought to alert people to this latest one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the people who have commented in the previous RfCs have already commented in this one. If you can think of anyone who has not, I would be happy to notify them for you (which should avoid any accusations of canvasing). Blueboar (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, then it would be you canvassing, not me. Can we agree some wording for a notice? My concern about the one you put up was that it didn't say what the issue was. I would prefer something like:

"There is an RfC here on whether to remove from the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The RfC is likely to close in a few days, so if you want to comment please do so soonish."

You said you thought it was more complex than that, so what would you want to add, or how would you phrase it? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you try to summarize the proposed change you will inevitably create a biased one such as you wrote above and have been putting elsewhere. Yours gives the initial impression that the change is taking "verifiability" and everything else in that sentence out of the lead. Any neutral notice would say simply that there is a proposed changed in the lead and let people come here and see the proposed change instead of being told a particular person's summary of it. North8000 (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a neutral and accurate description of the proposal:

There is an RfC here on whether to change the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy as follows:

• 1) Change the opening paragraph:

From: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. 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. 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).

• 2) Insert a new section 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 (i.e., 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). Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.

The RfC is likely to close in a few days, so if you want to comment please do so soonish. --JN466 14:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It has to be more succinct than that. This has been the problem with this RfC; it lost people before they had even commented, just as (in my view) the point of the proposed policy will be lost on people before they get to the end of the first sentence. I will come up with a compromise between your suggestion and mine. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

In particular, in what circumstances would it be admissable if an editor is able to state from their own pesonal experience that something is not true. In particular I am currently involved in a dispute regarding the pricing policy of a supermarket chain. This morning I had the opportunity to visit a branch of the chain concerned and the visit showed gave overwhelming proof that the pricing policy as described in Wikipedia had either never been implemented or had been discontinued. Is it sufficient for me to state exactly what I saw, where I saw it and when I saw it on order to prove untruth? Martinvl (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your personal experience is not sufficient to "prove" anything... but it is sufficient to start a discussion on the talk page about it, and raise a concern. And that talk page discussion might well result in a consensus that the text of the article needs to change (or not). Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A heads-up. The editor in question wishes to remove material about a supermarket policy statement about experimental pricing strategies made half a year ago. This issue is currently in mediation. The editor has been repeatedly criticised on the article talkpage for going to various fora and describing disputes both non-neutrally and without the courtesy of informing other parties to the dispute. (Informing others is not obligatory, but if they complain the first time, it's common sense to inform thereafter).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another example of invoking "verifiability, not truth" to override NPOV

Talk:Evolution/Archive 58#Statistical species. [I have !voted in the RfC as "Have mörser, will travel". My account was renamed since then.] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Current announcements of RFC

How is the RFC being currently announced? Please give links to the announcements so that anyone can view them. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Page number specification

In that verifiability depends on tracing a quote, point, or other material back to its source, and that such trace-backs are greatly facilitated by citing the specific page, section, or paragraph, the common opinion that page numbers (etc.) should be cited seems quite reasonable. Yet it seems there is no definite statement that they should be used, or even required. Should there be a definite statement that citations should be as specific as possible, to the level of page, section, or paragraph? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Citing sources? This goes into the details of what should be included in a citation and how to format them. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. At best it says page numbers "should" be given for books. Overall it just gives the impression of something nice if you want to go to the trouble, which many editors take as being entirely optional. In being found in the context of citation it does come across as a style issue. Whereas the few statements for greater specification generally reference WP:Verifiability. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with requiring page numbers is that there are situations where a statement being made in the Wikipedia article is supported by an entire book or an entire chapter. And I can not cite a page number if the source does not have page numbers (an audio recording, for example). We can (and do) say it is "good practice" to supply page numbers, and we encourage it where appropriate, but we can not require it in all cases. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything Blueboar wrote and would add that this standard is just as likely to encourge people to quote whatever they can read via google snippets rather than actually reading whole books. But there is a convention for how to address Blueboar's points: if the point made is the explicit and primary point of the whole book or journal, we cite it without any page numbers. if it is an argument made in a chapter or section of a book or article, we provide the entire page range. if it is a point made on one page we cite the page. If this is not already in the CS guidelines, it ought to be. But too often I have sen editors take quotes out of context and while citing page numbers is nice, it is at least as important to verify that the quote or page citation is being used properly which usually requires one to have read the whole work. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Something else to consider... The Policy is that material should be verifiable (ie able to be verified). But we don't require that every statement be easily verified (actually, we don't even require that everything be verified... just material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged"). A citation without page numbers satisfies the requirement that the material be verifiable... it is just more difficult to actually verify.

Also... Policy pages on Wikipedia should focus on explaining broad principles, and avoid getting into too much detail (policy creep). "Correct" citation format is not really a policy issue. It is a style issue... and style issues are best discussed on style guide pages... such as WP:CS. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that for topics that go back before ISBN became standard page numbers don't really help as there is no way to set down just which version of the book you are referring too.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• • I would be sure to use page numbers for 1) direct quotes or 2) citing to something that might be likely to be challenged by another editor. If you are citing to a more general thought supported in the book, consider citing a chapter or section. If what you are citing is the general thrust of a book, then citing the book as a whole is probably OK.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Folks can challenge the includer to show that the material is supported by the source which then forces them to be more specific. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's always a judgment call: More general points need more general cites, while more specific points need more specific cites. If the book is entitled Sky is Blue by Dr. Light (i.e. the citation is to the general thrust of the book), then I don't think it's necessary to have a page number to support the assertion that "Dr. Light believes that the sky is blue." --GrapedApe (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a theme here that we cannot require page numbers because sometimes a general reference is appropriate. (Or even that some sources are not paginated.) Look, I quite understand that general refererences are sometimes appropriate (though mostly for "further reading"). But the reality is that the overwhelming majority of citations within most articles do not have page numbers – but should, as they refer to specific points or quotes. And all of that is condoned because sometimes a "general" reference might be appropriate?

And most of you responded to the wrong argument. Look again: I did not suggest that we "require page numbers", let alone require them for all sources in all contexts. I asked if we should have a more definite statement -- perhaps even to requiring -- "that citations should be as specific as possible, to the level of page, section, or paragraph". GrapedApe seems to understand this, but I seem to have caught the rest of while you were asleep.

Nor am I suggesting that "every statement" should be "easily verified". That is covered by this policy, that "requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." (And reiterated at Wikipedia:Citing sources.) Moreover, the WP:BURDEN of doing this "lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (emphasis in the original). If the originating editor is required to add a citation, why shouldn't s/he be required to add a complete citation, grabbing the specific page (section, etc.) while it is at hand? After all, s/he knows where it is, wheras someone attempting to verify the point would otherwise have to search the entire work. Because we condone letting editors make verfication harder we undercut our most basic principle.

The closest any existing statement comes to encouraging specific location (and then only for page numbers) seems to be that at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Which is, as Blueboar describes, in the context of citation technique and format. As the policy here regarding citation is largely "feel free to roll your own", that statement has the clout of a bird fart (as in "who noticed?").

Providing a specific citation (page number, section, chapter, whatever is appropriate) is not just "nice", not just a basic requirement of scholarship, but fundamental to Wikipedia. Why are we not encouraging it?

_ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• We are encouraging it. WP:CITE is very clear. There is enough wiggle room for exceptions, that's all.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to J. Johnston. Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to alternate between saying it should be encouraged and saying it should be mandated. I think that several examples were given against mandating. I might add another one. This is where the same work is used many times on the article for material that is not challenged or controversial. A common practice is to just cite the overall work multiple times. Requiring page numbers would terminate that practice and force it into IMHO overkill scenarios for that particular situation....repeating the full reference many times (except with different page numbers) or else go to a more complex 2 level referencing system which is difficult/confusing for new editors. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me. I am not proposing to "mandate" anything, I am proposing to more strongly encourage appropriate specification. (Perhaps you were mislead by the bolded excerpt from WP:BURDEN? That is an existing policy!) These objections to "mandating" ("requiring") are irrelevant as that is not what I am suggesting, and I am mystified why you all keep making this invalid straw man objection.

Regarding your "common practice": current policy is that if material is "common knowledge" and not likely to be challenged, then it doesn't even have to be cited in the first place. But if something is to be cited (e.g., all quotations), then it is much easier for the original author to include the page/section/etc. while it is at hand than for a subsequent editor to search for it. This "common" practice of balling up a bunch of citations into one general reference is a very poor practice, even sleazy, and ought to be terminated. Your fear of "overkill scenarios" arises from the very confusing situation here regarding citation generally, and should not excuse sloppiness. (There are ways to do page numbers easily enough, but that is a different issue, and likely an extended discussion.)

As to encouraging "it": hardly. WP:CITE says nothing about specificity of citations. As to page numbers, it says that for books and journals they are "typically" or "usually" included (though I challenge that); a subsequent "should" fails to bring this descriptive factoid even to the level of a faint suggestion, let alone encouragment. And for newspapers: "Page number(s) are optional." In actual reality it is the inclusion of page numbers (etc.) which is the exception.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on several points. But as a point of clarification, when, on 2 occasions you say that "should" is not strong enough, that gives the impression to some (including me) of implying the typical next step up which is mandating. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What? I am saying that current statements regarding use of page numbers, including a single instance of an express "should" buried in WP:CITE under "typically included" and "usually included", are not strong enough to encourage their use. I say that that particular "should" is not strong enough. I am amazed how you can jump from that to an "impression ... of implying ... mandating." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake then, albeit an easily-made one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It might help clear up any misunderstanding here if you suggested a specific edit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is quite common for readers of our policy and guideline pages to confuse "should" with "must". "Should" is a fairly strong encouragement... "must" is a mandate. I can not think of a word that is stronger than "should", but not as absolute as "must", but perhaps someone else can... so I agree with Bob... we would need to see a proposed edit to move further on this. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully that is now cleared up? Specifically, that "should" does not mean "must" (a word I actually abhor), and most certainly does not imply any element of coercion? (E.g., we might lean on people to do the right thing, there might even be social pressure, but no one is going to be knee-capped, or their work purged, if they simply omit a page number.) Perhaps there was also some confusion in the question I proposed. Note that the first instance ("Should there be a definite statement...") applies to us editors, and is in the nature of "the statement is such a good idea we will be knee-capped by Jimbo ... just ought to do it", while the second instance is about the appropriate use of page numbers (etc.).

I haven't proposed a specific edit because I think we still have general issues to sort out, and that there may be more than "a few simple edits". Assuming we are clear on "should", I am going to pop this out and list some of the possible issues. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Having clarified that "should" does not mean "must", I would like to clarify some other points of possible confusion.

1. "Should" means strongly desireable, but is not (e.g.) a mandate to remove non-compliant material.
2. "Should" is constrained by "as appropriate". E.g.: page numbers are not appropriate for sources that do not have page numbers.
3. The implicit policy issue is whether citations should be as specific as possible. (Alternately: as specific as desireable.)
4. "Page number" is used here as the most common kind of citation specification, but is understood to include all specification of sections, paragraphs, or other sub-divisions of a work, whether numbered or not.

There are other points I will argue, but the points here are for clarification. I pause to see if everyone is clear on these. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Where a statement is sourced to a particular conclusion in a work, the conclusion's position in the work must be indicated for verification purposes. This can include text searching, paragraph numbering, lines of code or law, page numbers (with an edition specified including the city of publication). Where a statement is sourced to the primary motive of an extended work, this should be cited against the introduction, thesis, conclusion with the position in the work indicated. Where a work is cited multiple times for different matters, on each occasion the place in the work needs to be indicated. Where a work is merely cited as existing at all, "Kevin published a book, "On ducks,"" only then is it legitimate to cite the work as a whole. Even then, I'd suggest citing the bibliographic page. The idea that the "vibe" of a work is contained in the work as a whole, but never made explicit by the author, and so the work as a whole should be cited is a very bad one leading to original exegeses of the meaning of the work. Authors who make claims with their whole work, usually take the pain to do so with an introduction or conclusion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to go with Fifelfoo's level of "must": enough information must be given to allow location of the source statement(s), to the degree that the work permits this. If the work doesn't permit much localization, well, we have to live with it, but anything that suggests it is permissible to give no indication of where to find the cited information in an 800 page tome allows people to give themselves permission to include unverifiable references. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

From the section Anything challenged or likely to be challenged of WP:Verifiability, "Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Fifeloo has propounded the point well: it is a bad idea (and a bad practice) to cite a source generally for some point or "vibe" that is never made explicitly. I would add as a very bad practice the "common" one suggested earliar, of leaving off specific page numbers (etc.) where there are multiple citations of a source. (If adding page numbers and such is too difficult, then one's citation technique needs revision, and I strongly urge getting weaned from named refs. But that is a discussion for elsewhere.)

However, I would be cautious about bandying around "must", for all the reasons we covered above. "Should" implies an obligation, as in one ought to do something, but "must" has intonations of compulsion. I would tell editors that they really ought to provide specification, lean on them heavily, even make GA status contingent on specification. But "must" gets too murky, even electrifying; "should" is (I think) sufficient, and generally preferable. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I would add that named refs that are broken into References and Notes sections work well and are not hard to manage. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the caveats (regarding "should", "appropriate", and "page numbers" as proxy for specification in general) are clear, so I return to the implicit policy issue: should citation be specific? (Don't forget the caveat of appropriate.) That is, given the existing policy that sources should be cited, does that extend into specifying the location within a source?

I argue yes, on the grounds that it is 1) a basic requirement of scholarship, and 2) fundamental to the Wikipedia principle of verifiability. In anticipation of some previous arguments being recycled I would further argue that supposed difficulty of adding a specification (e.g., page number) originally is of very little weight, and much outweighed by the difficulty of subsequently trying to find an alleged point. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So possibly no one objects to the notion that citation should include specific location within a source?

It may be useful to think of citations as having two parts: the first part pointing to the source (think of it as a link out to the external world), and the second part pointing to the specific location within the source. The issue I am trying to address is the general neglect of the second part. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What you and Firefloo have said makes sense to me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that citations should specify the location within the source (e.g., a page number), the second part of my argument is that this has not been effectively encouraged. There are three broad indications of this. First, the infrequency of specification when citation is done anywhere adequately. (Which is problem it self – just take a romp through random article and see how many have more than urls for sources.) Second, the frequency with which the need for page numbers is questioned in various Talk Pages. Third, lack of specific authority or documentation that proponents of specification (page numbers) can point to; one is usually pointed either to WP:Verifiability generally, which is unsatisfactory, or to something like WP:Citing sources, where (as I said earliar) any expectation or obligation to cite page numbers is diluted with "usually" or "typically". Furthermore, the location of this minimal statement suggests it is a mere matter of citation style, and therefore entirely optional.

If that argument is accepted, then my suggestion is that the point needs to be made clear at the level of WP:V that the requirement for citation (the existing policy) means complete citation, including page numbers or other specification as appropriate. Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC), 22:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific proposal re "specification"

There being no objections in principle, I propose the following change at WP:V#Anything challenged or likely to be challenged:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable. Citations should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page numbers, sections, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found.

At this point it might be useful to make reference to WP:Citing sources "for further details." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 22:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully support what you are trying to achieve here. But I think it is only in the cases of books and audiovisual material where we absolutely need information about the location in order to verify information. In many other cases (e.g. newspaper articles) it is highly desirable, but maybe not essential. In many further cases (e.g. webpages) it may not be possible. --FormerIP (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If citing a video a time stamp may be the appropriate location indication. I think that this proposal makes it clearer that the point is to aid verifiability, rather than to create slot that needs to be filled.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How so? It seems to require that a location should always be given. --FormerIP (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but "should" is not "must".   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that how you normally define "clear"?? --FormerIP (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is that editors should provide whatever information is needed to make the material readily verifiable.   Will Beback  talk  12:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might find this colloquy to be anecdotal to your observation. It frustrated the hell out of me. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We are not asking for the impossible (which I thought had been clarified above, please read point #3). What I am trying to address is the general disdain to providing any such minimal aids to verfication ("because it's not required!"), without which WP:Verifiability is hollow. I am fine if anyone wants to make this point more clearer; feel free to offer an improved formulation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 18:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Use original version with added wikilink to WP:CITEHOW and added phrase "for example"?

"Cite the source clearly and precisely, for example with page numbers where applicable."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the RfC

The RfC is now closed. I thought that in cases like this it is up to the person who initiated the RfC (Blueboar) to close it, but I don't think we are going to attract many more comments.

But I am concerned that some people think it is an up-down vote. According to the policy, *"Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines."

• "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes."

Well, we succeeded in soliciting a good deal of thoughtful comment. Apparently there is no consensus, but I interpret the comments to mean that (1) the current explanation of "Verifiability not truth" needs work and (2) Blueboar's proposal represents an important step forward. Nevertheless, it is still up to us to discuss how best to make use of the proposal. I believe that with some ammendments, we may be able to address most of the criticisms of the proposal, while also responding to the need for better clarification and guidance.

First, I think it is clear from discussion that V cannot be reduced to RS. Therefore, I would propose changing Blueboar's proposed first sentence to:

• The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia represents significant views that have already been published by a reliable source. 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).

The following paragraph links this policy to NOR. But V and NOR are only two of our three core content policy, each of which supports the others.

Second, I think that there is considerable support for "not truth" but a need to explain it more clearly. This is where there is a need to explain how this policy relates to NPOV. I think if we do this, we clear up much of the confusion over our long-standing slogan. Therefore, I propose adding to Blueboar's proposal a new second paragraph:

• The essense of this policy is traditionally summed up as, "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia does not claim that any of the views in its articles are "true," we only claim that they are significant views (which if need be can be specifically attributed), presented in a neutral way. In order to include a view in WP, we avoid arguments over whether they are true or false and instead seek to verify that they are indeed significant, and that we are giving each view due weight, and that we are providing accurate accounts of these views. And in order to verify these things, we look for reliable sources.

Some significant views make explicit claims about what is true or false, or what is fact or opinion, and we include these as views of the truth or the facts. We also avoid distinguishing between facts and opinions, because there are no universally held definitions for these terms, what some consider fact others may consider opinion, what everyone considers fact may turn out to be opinion tomorrow, and because the difference between the two is not black-and-white. Instead, we try to assess and acknowledge degrees of controversy. Some propositions are so uncontroversial that we can put them in without citation or attribution. Some things are so controversial that not only must we provide a citation, but a quotation and specific attribution. And between these two extremes may be many degrees. In all cases, it must be possible to verify the views expressed by the article.

Finally, in the new section that Blueboar crafted, I would suggest changing "Assertions of untruth" to "Assertions of inaccuracy" and generally consider changing "truth" or "untruth" to "accurate" and "inaccurate."

It is my hope that combining these proposals with Blueboar's will move us much closer to consensus, without abandoning the work and thought Blueboar put into her proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We also avoid distinguishing between facts and opinions, because there are no universally held definitions for these terms, what some consider fact others may consider opinion, what everyone considers fact may turn out to be opinion tomorrow, and because the difference between the two is not black-and-white.

This is false. See WP:ASF.

69.86.225.27 (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this the appropriate time to close?

• I object strongly to your reversion of Sarek's closure. There has been discussion, there is consensus by a very broad margin – and reversion rather than improvement is, frankly, disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  Absolutely and strongly agree with Tryptofish. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is clear that there was a fairly strong consensus in favor of making the changes I proposed (I would not classify the consensus as overwhelming, but it was a clear consensus), and I thank Sarek for closing the RFC and implementing those changes on my behalf. Now... does this mean we must stop working on the policy?... No, of course not. And if Slrubenstein wishes to propose further changes, he is welcome to do so. That's how a collaborative project like Wikipedia works. However,I would respectfully suggest that after almost 6 months of debate, and having finally reaching a consensus on compromise language, now is not the time to consider further radical changes. I think it best to let the issue sit for a while... see how the new, compromise language works in practice... and then, in a few months, we can return to the issue with some perspective and see if we can improve upon what we now have. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Blueboar, consensus does not mean "unanimus" but neither does it mean "majority" When one third of the people who responded to the RfC do not support the change, it is just folloy to make the change. But I do welcome your point that collaborative processes are ongoing projects. I proposed some changes to wht you wrote, and some additions, but I was also trying to wok with what you wrote. My changes were meant to respond to the comments of the 33% that SarekofVulcan ignored in making her changes to the policy. I understand that some people feel frustrated that, after months of discussion, we have not reached a consensus. But this does not mean that we look for some short-cut, to impose a change without consensus. There is wisdom in keeping the policy as it stands until we reach consensus for a change. Maybe a more efective approach is to break down your proposal to specific parts, and discuss each part separately — yes, I understand that your parts fit together, but the point is we have still not reached consensus and if the RfC did not reach a consensus, we should look for other processes that miggt lead to a consensus.

• • What you call "the new, compromise language" is a radical change. And I do agree with you that we should not be making radical changes. That is, we should not be making any substantive changes without consensus. The purpose of the RfC is to invite comments and we received many comments. Our guidelines tell us it is not a vote. our comments tell us that after we receive commnts, we should discuss the comments to see if they help us reach a consensus. Let's stick to our guidelines. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish and North8000, I can't stop you from repeating, :I JUST DON'T LIKE IT. But your complaints would have some value if you would explain why you don't like it with reference to policy. I quoted the WP:Rfc guidlines. and I am also following our WP:BRD Principle. SarakofVulcan was pretty bold in violating our guidelines in closing the RfC and unilaterally changing the article. I reverted. Now let's discuss. But if you want to discuss, try providing atual reasons' based on policies and guideliness' I quoted the rules, above. You have yet to explain why you don't like editing according to our rules. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am editing according to our rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• The RfC should stay open for 30 days, and there should be final push to make sure it is properly wiki-wide, as you promised it would be, Blueboar. Also, it should be closed by more than one uninvolved admin who is willing to read all the comments. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's been advertised wiki-wide, in the centralised discussion box, linked from here, linked from AN/I too I see. I'm afraid that I don't think waiting to raise this objection until after the discussion's been open for two weeks, extensively discussed and finally closed by an uninvolved administrator is appropriate conduct at all. We have a clear consensus.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• • If the close has been reverted then surely the subsequent edits to the policy should also be reverted? Roger (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• For what may be the first time I've ever agreed with S Marshall about WP:V, I agree with S Marshall. It looks to me like just two editors are popping up after discussion has been going on for a long time, with listing on WP:CENT, and discussion petering out, to stomp on what many editors have been discussing constructively. And there's an ironic symmetry, considering how some editors who have argued for change were not long ago told to shorten the discussion. But, that said, sure, let's discuss this some more. I doubt that consensus will really change, but there's no harm in more discussion. I say this as someone who was never enthusiastic about making a change, but as someone who also respects consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• And it's been open for a lot more than two weeks. It opened on October 5. It will be the full month in just a couple more days. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• The timing of the revert and the sudden shift to purely procedural objections are fascinating. Now that it's gone this way, any attempt to close it before 5 November will be a violation of WP:WW, and the insistence on a multi-admin close increases the likelihood of dissent and a no-consensus close, preserving the status quo. It's frustrating, but you also can't help admire it, seeing this game played by a master.  :)

  But I don't think this can succeed. What's another two weeks? Consensus can change in that time, but I'd be amazed (and very, very suspicious) if there was a sudden flood of opposers now.—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I first reverted the closing not because Sarekof Vulcan had closed permaturely (although this was clearly the case) but because Sarek closed in an inappropriate manner i.e. by stating her own interpretation of the outcome as if whe were an uninvold party. This is not the proper way to close an RfC on content. Uninvolved parties summing up the outcome is the procedure for RfCs on conflicts between two editors, not comments on changes to content. With changes to content, an RfC is typically closed thirty days after it was opened or earlier, if consensus has ben reached, and by the person who initiated the RfC.

It is clear that RfCs on content are not substitutes for reaching consensus. They are requests for comments from outsiders, in the hope that these comments will help people working on the talk page to reach a consensus. Once the RfC has closed, our guidelines tell us to discuss the comments, to see if they can help us reach consensus.

We have clear guidelines for how to close an RfC. I just want us to follow those guidelines. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• When you see an important RfC about core policy drawing to a close with fewer and fewer comments (suggesting people may not know about it), you ask for more input, you don't rush to close it early. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SlimVirgin. This is a crucial RfC about core policy that has not been announced widely enough. I didn't know about it until just now, and I've been moderately active. I'm sure there are very many editors that would be shocked this is about to change. --GRuban (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's still not being widely advertised. I added it to several other RfC pages, but the RfC bot is listing it halfway down all the pages it has added it to, because of the Oct 5 date. That is, even though it has been freshly added, the bot is reading it as an old entry. But I don't want to change the date and complicate things. So we do need to get the word out further. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• And now there's a sudden flood of opposers, and accordingly, I'm very suspicious. Response rates in opinion polls don't behave like this. In the three weeks up until this afternoon, we had 66 supporters and 31 opposers for an overall 32% oppose. This afternoon, after the definitely-not-canvassing measures we've seen, we have had 5 supporters and 8 opposers join the debate, or 61% oppose for that period. This could be a statistical fluke, but if it continues, I would see it as a very loudly quacking WP:DUCK for targeted off-wiki canvassing by an editor or editors unknown.—S Marshall T/C 03:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no off-wiki canvassing, and please stop these allegations. What happened is that people didn't know about it, because it was not advertised widely enough. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Slim, on Oct. 6th (the day we "went live" with the RfC) we advertised it at the Village Pump, at WP:NOR, and at WP:NPOV ... how was this not wide enough? What did I miss? Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You remember what we did for ATT? It was more that kind of thing I had in mind. Certainly at least asking the RfC bot to add it to more pages than just the policy one. And then following up several times whenever you saw comments drying out, to make sure people had seen your notices. And actually telling people in the notices what the RfC was about. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're confident there's been no offwiki canvassing, SV. AGF is not a suicide pact, it doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to the obvious. Blueboar's messages of 6th October led to a consistent 32% oppose rate. Today that's suddenly doubled. Therefore the messages are reaching widely different audiences. You don't exactly need to be Sherlock Holmes to see this, do you?—S Marshall T/C 03:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I find your alleged evidence of off-wiki stealth canvassing to be sadly lacking in AGF. Seriously lacking. Doc talk 11:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• That's not surprising, because it was seriously lacking in AGF. Seriously lacking. My assumption of good faith has been overcome by evidence of bad faith. SlimVirgin's consensus re-engineering exercise has been plain for all to see and she hasn't even tried to deny it. The shift since she did this has been noticeable: from 68% support for the proposal when Sarek closed, it dipped to 32% support among the votes immediately after her actions. (It stands at 59% at the time of typing.) This is not proof positive of offwiki canvassing, but it certainly activates my sniff-test. I do not allege that SlimVirgin personally was responsible for any offwiki canvassing, but I do believe that it has taken place.—S Marshall T/C 19:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  To repeat a note I posted in another section, I am one of those who has recently opposed. I came here because of the watchlist notice and have no knowledge of canvassing actions by any editors. I think it likely that a substantial number of those recently supporting and opposing are here because of the watchlist notice. I would speculate that those who, like me, don't have WP:V on their watchlist are perfectly happy with the status quo and are hence more inclined to oppose what they see as significant changes. That could account for your observations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Going from a proportion of 8:5 to 5:8 does not seem a big swing - it just indicates that there's a soggy centre. Whichever way round the ratio is, it does not represent a genuine consensus. Rather, it indicates a lack of consensus. If, after all this fuss, we don't have a clear outcome, the matter should be closed as no consensus and we should move on. Warden (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

North proposed closing on the 26th and Sarek closed it on the 28th. That is NOT a lot of time to discuss how best to close the RfC. Maybe this is the time to close, but let's have some discussion before railroading a premature closure. Colonel Warden is absolutely correct: we do not have consensus. I think the real question is, which of the comments that we received raise constructive points that might help us to reach a consensus? This after all is the purpose of an RfC. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The notice was very broad. But folks who don't like the outcome will say that it was required to hire skywriters to post it in the skies of all of the major cities of the world. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No skywriters could be hired on this budget. It is, after all, run by volunteers. Doc talk 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Blueboar made a good-faith effort to publicize the RfC. But we have not reached a consenus. The purpose of an RfC is to invite comments from outsiders that might help us reach a consensus. As Blueboar points out elsewhere, the RfC mostly reveals that many people are uncompromisingly for getting rid of "Verifiability, not truth," and others are uncompromisingly opposed. Blueboar's interpretation means that the comments we received do not suggst a path to consensus. I word it this way not because I mistrust Blueboar, but because I have not read over all the comments carefully. I believe that the wuality of the comments is more important than the quantity - North8000, in her support, commented that many people express support or opposition without comments because the reasoning has already ben provided elsewhere. Well, that is a good point - but it still means we can disregard those people (on both sides, support and oppose) and focus on the comments that are constructive. I would still like to think that within all those comments, there are some that point towards a way to reach consensus, but Blueboar seems to think not.

This leaves us with a simple choice: (1) we continue the RfC and try to attract more outside comments in thehope that some outsider might actually make a constructive comment that could lead to a consensus involving people on both sides of the issue, or (2) we end the RfC for the simple fact that it is not helping. It was worth a try and I am glad we tried, but if it didn't work, so be it. Tht means we who watch this page just have to seek another path to consensus.

If the question is "remove/keep this iconic phrase" only divides us and does not point to consensus, I propose we change the question. I have suggested that we change the question to, "Can a better explanation of this iconic phrase address the concerns of those who don't like it well enough that we can reach consensus?" If no one else thinks this is worth trying, I invite people to propose other questions we can work on that might lead to consensus.

I have to say I am geting tired of some editors simply shooting down or attacking any suggestion I make. I am not here making any demands. I am making reasonable observations and showing that we have a number of choices in front of us. Is it possible for us to discuss thse choices in a reasonable and respectful fashion? I will agree to any choice people here agree to, as long as it points to the possibility of consensus rather than an attempt to intimmidate people into accepting any change to the policy that is not supported by a consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A few comments... first, if you have not done so, please read the rational that accompanies the the proposal. This RfC is an attempt to change the question away from "remove/keep this iconic phrase". And it is an attempt to create a "better explanation of this iconic phrase". You have made some good suggestions... and I agree that they should not be "simply shot down" or "attacked". But this RfC is designed to gauge project wide consensus on a different set of suggestions. Its a case of one step at a time. We can examine your suggestions once we determine what the consensus is on this proposal.

Second, may I suggest that you should actually read the comments. When you do you will discover that the "opposed" comments are fairly evenly split between those who think the compromise goes to far, and those who think it does not go far enough. What that split indicates is that the lack of consensus is among the minority who oppose the compromise. There is no corresponding lack of consensus among the majority who support it (ie the opposed comments tend to cancel each other out... which, I think should give more weight to the support comments). Closing an RfC is not simply a matter of counting heads (although a simple head count is useful information). Actually reading the comments is important. And when you actually read the comments, you discover that there is (currently) a much stronger consensus in favor of the compromise than a simple head count indicates. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate characterizations of the opposes. Who disagrees with who in the oppose column? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

An 'oppose' is an oppose, no matter which direction it goes in. If you want to 'compromise', then a newly worded RFC needs to be put into place. Perhaps one that is actually a 'compromise;' instead of this inaccurately worded RFC...it's not a compromise. It's 'out with the old, in with the new". That's not a compromise at all. Dreadstar ☥ 23:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Any change, however minimal, amounts to "out with the old in with the new." People seem unwilling to discuss any proposals that move the phrase "verifiability, not truth" out of the lead. That's a legitimate position to have, but if it is honest it admits to an unwillingness to compromise, regarding that issue at least. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You really need to read and understand the comments preceeding mine, there are two purported positions in the 'oppose' votes, that's where the compromise is being discussed but not in the 'official' RFC, which denies both sides that are being identified above. Both those purported positions are being ignored in favor of this "out with the old and in with the new" non-compromise. Dreadstar ☥ 00:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The compromise was between the folks who wanted "not truth" completely out of the policy and the folks who wanted the status quo on that. The statement about a division in the "oppose" folks was saying that there is a group within that group who support the core change but opposed the specific proposed change for other reasons. North8000 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily close the RFC, give people the time to read and discuss and then re-open the RFC

SlimVirgin has been posting notifications about the RFC, asking people to vote soon because the RFC is going to close in days. I think there is a problem here. This invites people to vote based on their gut feelings instead of considering the discussions and thinking deeply about the issue. Particulary the people who would rather keep the "not truth" statement will feel that all is not lost if they are quick to oppose.

But this would undo all the work that BlueBoar has put in to find a good compromize. There is nothing wrong with opposing if you have considered this compromize seriously and then still come out against. But I don't think this is going to happen. We have to remember that an RFC simply on removing "Not Truth" was held previously and that doesn't have consensus, instead you're then stuck in a 50-50 quagmire. The consequence of that was never ending discussions on the talk page.

So, I think the best thing to do is to close the vote for week to allow for new discussions and then re-open the vote for, say, two weeks. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I would rather suggest that we ask some completely uninvolved editors/admins to help us sort out what to do--anyone who has participated in discussions should probably just sit tight for a bit until we can get some feedback. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Iblis, its not like we're discussing rocket science, world peace, or the G-Spot here. It is just a discussion about a policy change in an electronic encyclopedia. I am quite confident in people's ability to read the RfC and weigh in with an informed opinion in less time than it takes to boil an egg. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

An RfC is not a vote. It is a discussion. It does not have to be closed for people to discuss. --GRuban (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case, we have discussed, and discussed, and discussed... for almost 6 months now... the RfC was essentially a poll to see what the broader community thought of the compromise that came out of those endless discussions. I would say that the results (as of Sarek's closing) showed that the broader community approved of that compromise. The oppose comments seemed evenly split between a) those who disliked the compromise because it went too far, and b) those who disliked it because it didn't go far enough.

In other words, if we actually read the comments (instead of just counting heads)... the opposition was split between the hardliners who want to keep the "V not T" phrasing in the first paragraph, and the hardliners who want "V not T" completely eradicated. I think this would have been clearer if I had set the RfC up as a three way choice... but I had promised Slim Virgin that it would be a "change or no change" choice, and I do try to keep my promises. Blueboar (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That was not my understanding, BB. You promised a wiki-wide RfC, and a separate section that said "keep the current lead sentence," and listed it. It was very important for neutrality to list that as one of the positive choices people could make. See our discussion here. It was after that that I bowed out of the situation, and only when I saw Sarek try to close it today did I realize that neither of these things were done.

I'm sorry to say these things to you. I know you worked hard on this, but I think this was not well set up, not properly advertised, and it was closed early by an admin who had expressed a view on the key issue during the RfC itself. So this is unfortunate all round. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem... I don't take criticisms personally. I am sorry that you don't think the way I set this up matches your understanding of what we discussed. All I can tell you is that I saw the way I set this up as being what we discussed. In any case, you could have spoken up sooner about this you know. You knew this RfC was in the works well before we went live with it... The phrasing of the RfC and the rational were extensively discussed on the sub-page... so you had plenty of opportunity to "remind" me of what we discussed, and object to the way things were going before we "went live". As for promising you a wiki-wide RfC... that is one promise I definitely kept. This was (and I suppose still is) a wiki-wide RfC... exactly as promised. It was also well advertised - at the Pump, at NOR, at NPOV (see the archives of those pages for October 6th). Blueboar (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

When I see "wiki-wide RfC", I immediately think Centralized discussion. Did you add it to CD? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Cunard added it to {{cent}} on 6th October, so it's been linked from the box at the top of all the centralised discussion pages since then.—S Marshall T/C 10:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's see. SV, you were aware of the discussions and I'm surprised that you did not even look at this for the last few weeks--when I've taken breaks from these discussions, I have not completely ignored it. I'm assuming good faith, but Blueboar has a good point that you did have plenty of time to make your concerns known and did not do so. I am also confused by your assertion that there is no "keep the current lead sentence" option--since the proposal is for a specific change in the wording, and lack of consensus or consensus against a change is, de facto, that option. You do have a point about the closing, and I do see that this may take multiple uninvolved admins to achieve a close that will not piss off a very large number of editors. And in general I'm very concerned about some of the heavy handed discussion that has suddenly emerged in these last hours. I find it very frustrating that a process that involved so many editors trying their very best to put forth something that might be an achievable compromise for so long a period of time should be criticized at the last for not having done it right, when there was ample opportunity to make those concerns known early on. But so be it, water under the bridge, and we have to move forward.

The RFC has been advertised widely, and I think the last minute rush is not helpful. Discussions took place over months, and discussion had pretty much died down. It has just been advertised widely again, but I think it unlikely that the editors that have come here in the last few hours have really had sufficient time to look through the discussions and thoroughly consider the various points, and it is certainly the case that the there has not been time look through their thoughts and weigh them.

So, I propose that we let the RFC run for at least another two weeks. That will give everyone time to go through the arguments, weigh the options and we'll see what happens. It addresses the assertions that the RFC is for discussion of general issue (with which I strongly disagree given the length of discussions prior to the forging of the RFC and during the forging of the RFC and the simple fact that the RFC was specifically tailored to try to put these extremely long discussions to rest), and allow time for amelioration of any possible canvassing. If the center is soft, as CW asserts, we have more time to find that out, if consensus is really against the proposal, the extra time should make that clear, and if the needle swings more to the change side we'll see that and have a better notion of what to do. But I think a close after a sudden rush of additional voices would be a bad thing. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two different issues here and they should be discussed in separate sections: (1) was the RfC advertised sufficiently widely. (2) when should we close it. The guidelines say that it should be closed after 30 days or sooner, by Blueboar, if we have reached consensus. If we agree that it should be advertised more widely, then I would agree to delaying the closure.

But I am more concerned with the fact that, as Blueboar points out, there is no consensus on the key change. It does not matter whether we have discussed it one month, six months, or a year - if we do not have consensus, we do not change the policy.

But I would like to propose a constructive alternative: if there is no consensus about removing the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" perhaps we can keep it in the opening but come up with a clearer and explanation of the principle with more practical guidance about how to apply it. After all, Blueboar's proposal was not simply to remove the phrase from the lead. It also included more explanation. I do not entirely agree with her proposed elaboration but I DO think her effort to provide a better explanation was important and points to an alternte path to consensus i.e. do not remove the phrase, but improve the explanaton.

If efforts to reach a consensus have failed, it just makes sense to try another approach, and that is all I am suggesting. Either way, we won't change the policy without a consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The RFC was clearly and explicitly on making a particular compromise wording change. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Um... Slrubenstein... when you say I pointed out that there is "no consensus on the key change"... what are you talking about? I agree that there is no consensus to completely remove V not T... but that isn't what this RFC is about. This RfC is about my compromise language that explicitly (and in bold letters) retains V not T. As of the (perhaps premature) closing, there was clearly a consensus in favor of the compromise. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, I apologize. I think I misread what you wrote. I thought you had pointed out that many people are adamantly for getting rid of the phrase and many are adamantly for keeping the phrase. But if this is not hat you man, I was wrong (and I struck out the mention of your name). For me, the larger point is that we didn't reach a consensus.

The purpose of an RfC is to invite outside comment, in the hopes that it produces a consensus or points to a consensus. We have not reached that consensus and I thought that you had noted that we did not receive any particularly constructive comments, constructive meaning reaching a consensus. But if you did not mean this, I apologixe.

I recognize that your intention was to find a compromise. I hope nothing I have ever written expressed otherwise. I just do not think that there is a consensus for your compromise. That is why I see your compromise as a starting point but one that we must continue to revise ... until we reach a consensus (this is my view, but I think it follows the guidelines for RfC and for editing policy pages). I hve tried to propose changes to your proposal that builds on your tempt to reach a compromise, but by tacking a bit in an attempt to move foreward. If my suggestions are not constructive, I hope others will make more constructive suggestions.

What is clear is that our RfC guidelines say that when the RfC closes, we are to discuss the comments. If the comments help us find a consensus, great. If they do not help us find a consensus, well, we just try to find another approach.

None of these comments should be read as questioning your intentions or the importance of your efforts. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe any of us involved in the discussion believe that the compromise will address all concerns, nor that it will fix the policy in stone. As you say, many people are adamantly for getting rid of the phrase and many are adamantly for keeping the phrase, and this proposal is an attempt to bridge those groups. I guess that some of us, and certainly this is my feeling, are a more than a bit frustrated by this last minute bruhaha just as things appeared to be winding down after months of work (and I did not do nearly so much work as Blueboar, North8000, and Tryptofish and other editors who have been deeply involved for a very long time). And from my point of view, characterizing this RfC as a beginning after so much preparation and discussions seems odd. For example, your suggestion, if there is no consensus about removing the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" perhaps we can keep it in the opening but come up with a clearer and explanation of the principle with more practical guidance about how to apply it was one made a number of times, but rejected by those who find the phrase problematic, and that's why the first part is not in proposal, but the second part is. Any number of us supporting the proposal disagree about the core issue, but have come to agree on a compromise to attempt to satisfy others with whom we do not agree, in order that we can move on to other issues, or further refinements of wording.

But given where we are, I repeat that I think we should let the RfC run a while longer, in order to avoid even the appearance of any intention in this recent increase of activity to push the conclusion one way or another. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I thank you for striking. Here is my take on the situation... leaving aside the issue of whether Sarek closed prematurely or not, I think he had justification for saying that there was a consensus at the time he closed. First, a strait head count indicated a 2:1 majority in favor of the compromise under discussion. While not overwhelming, this is more than just a simple majority. Second, if we go beyond just a simple head count, and actually read the comments, we discover that the opposed comments were (at the time) fairly evenly split between those who think the compromise goes to far and those who think the compromise does not go far enough. This indicates that the lack of consensus is among those who oppose the compromise, and no lack of consensus among those who support the compromise. I think there is a very good argument for saying that, to some extent, the opposed comments canceled each other out. This lack of consensus among the opposed comments should, in my mind at least, give more weight to the comments of the majority who support the compromise. We had a solid agreement among the majority who supported and a split in the minority who opposed. In other words, I think that when we actually read the comments, there was (at the time) a much more solid consensus in favor of the compromise than a simple head count indicates.

Now, the decision has been made that the closure was premature and that the RfC should remain open for a few more days... the consensus that existed when Sarek prematurely closed may indeed shift between now and then. But, at the time that he closed I think he was justified in saying that there was a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

From my reading of the comments, "Everyone" agrees that 'verfiability, not truth' is the goal of this policy, they just don't agree on how to say it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the events of the last day or two has seriously damaged the inegrity of the process. Editors and even admins appear to be "gaming the system" to unduly influence the outcome. A huge amount of effort and thought by a large number of participants in this process has basically been trashed. (I am expressing a serious concern here, not directly accusing any specific individuals.) Due process must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Roger (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

How has the integrity of the process been damaged? It's a wiki, that anyone can edit. More editors are now involved in the discussion. When it is closed, then that will likely be the text for awhile, whatever that is. Eventually a (temporary) consensus will be reached, even as to this. There can be no "premature" close, even if one were to try. But that IS the process of a wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not if it is properly closed: Not yet consensus; come up with a draft incorporating the good ideas in the comments. See SIRubenstein's comments above. When we have genuine consensus, we will also have consensus that there is consensus - and so no vitriol on how to close it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree a "more lasting consensus," is by defintion the result of a "proper closure." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Our definition of consensus is "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised." The agitation here comes alarmingly close to claiming that none of the editors who commented with less than total support have legitimate concerns (and that comprehends several of the supports, as well as the opposes).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. That is what some are saying. Regardless, my question was, how was the process damaged? I take it your response, is that there was a premture closure. But that was reversed. So more people are now discussing the merits. So, it seems the process is working. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think the discussions here the last few days were bad, you should have been here over the last 8 months. In regard to the RfC and the preparation for it, I think that Alanscottwalker is correct that the vast majority of edits agree about the intent of the policy, but there's a sharp division between those who believe that the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' helps and those who believes it hinders implementation of that intent. But I do think that closing at this point will serious damage the notion of that the RfC did or did not demonstrate consensus. Some object to the early close, some object to the reopening. I think SV's posts to other noticeboards the last couple of days completely misrepresented the intent and wording of the proposal, although I'm assuming that was sloppiness and not ill intent. And I completely agree with Blueboar when he says there was "a solid agreement among the majority who supported and a split in the minority who opposed", and that consensus existing when Sarek closed. Roger's point about due process is also well taken, and I would like to see the discussions continue in order to avoid even the appearance that there might have been attempts to game the system in this case. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The past is the past (and is not really interesting to me). But as for the future, since you agree with Blueboar, and I don't see it, can you detail who disagrees with who among the opposes? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For example, Fish and karate (talk · contribs) wants it to just say "For inclusion in Wikipedia, all information must be verifiable." Period. Dreadstar (talk · contribs) thinks that "truth, not verifiability" is a perfect way to get a key point across. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And both agree that the proposal does not help. This reasoning, that all must oppose exactly the same way and the support can support in a multiplicity of ways is faulty. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Both oppose, period. Try to find an actual compromise in an RFC, eh? This RFC is in no way a compromise, despite it's incorrect titling. And Sarek, I don't think you should be closing any RFC, much less one on Policy. Dreadstar ☥ 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(left) The place to work out a compromise is in the discussion which precedes the next RFC. It is fairly clear what the reservations of the hesitant supporters and the persuadable opposition are; they can be met. Clearer wording may also leave fewer editors with the impression that this is a change in policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaming and consequences

I was unaware of this discussion until today when I logged in and saw the thread at AN/I. From an outside perspective I think there has been irrevocable damage done to the process of discussing this change as a result of an editors gaming the system. I don't think there is a problem with naming names and I think those who have disrupted this process need to answer for these shenanigans. An administrator, who I have myself been very critical of in the past (so I'm not saying this out of some allegiance, trust me), gave up his tools because of the spurious accusations made by SlimVirgin in an obvious political effort to counteract the clearly developing consensus in the RfC which wasn't going her way. For shame.Griswaldo (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your side issues with Slim Vigins conduct, whoever that is, don't belong here. You didn't name names, you named one. Yet, you smeared "editors." Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"whoever that is?" Seriously? It's the editor who wrote the language in this policy that the RfC suggests modifying, and who started the AN/I thread I linked to above in a transparent effort to derail the changes she clearly didn't want to her own writing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously. Whoever that is. Your issues just don't belong here. If want to analyze an editor or administrators conduct, take it to the appropriate forum. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You've stated your opinion about that several times now. I don't agree. How many times do you need to me to tell you that? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

When you respond with a reason, then we can move on. You want the people on this page to, what, exactly? And what, exactly, is the consequence for the policy this page is suppose to be about? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The consequence is for the RfC, which now cannot be taken seriously anymore. You clearly don't like that idea for your own reasons, whatever those are, but that's the consequence of the damages done by SlimVirgin.Griswaldo (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What does "the consequence is for the RfC" mean? What happens, do you suppose, because of that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the process is damaged and it is due in particular to one editor's actions, which are pretty transparent (I do think that people who are complicit are also to blame but I'll edit my comment to remove others from it ...). Call it smearing if you want, report me for "smearing" someone if you want as well, I don't care. I think it is important to consider these events here where the damaged process is occurring. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

How is it important to this policy, does it promote consensus on wording here? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is important to know that what is going on here is a product of gaming. It is important because decisions will be made here regarding how to proceed given what has happened. Are you suggesting people should pretend that SlimVirgin hasn't done what she did and that this hasn't damaged the process and that we should just carry on? Because that's exactly what I hope people aren't going to do here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)[5] is directly in contradiction with Wikipedia:Canvassing

However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate.

Specifically characterizing the debate as 'contentious' is not a neutral way to present the RfC, additionally posting on AN/I for a request to close looks alot like forum shopping since a request to close had already been made at WP:AN. Crazynas ^t 19:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

How should we carry on? What's the remedy? Do we have any choice but to carry on? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was also not aware of this RfC, and honestly with WP:V being as important a policy as it is, it should have gotten one of those site notices. If it did, it should have been bigger.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That matches my thoughts on this. I see no harm, canvassing or gaming done by SV here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mine too. Dreadstar ☥ 22:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you and I think it's a major problem. When an involved user doesn't agree with the result, then they don't normally get to unilaterally revert a close, extend the debate, change the language used to advertise the debate, change the debate's title, and post urgent messages seeking input from more editors. I wouldn't get away with that behaviour. Why should she?—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You're misinformed and confused about the purpose of an RfC. It isn't a timed discussion like a vote. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make SlimVirgin's conduct appropriate, does it?—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Before we judge people's actions, let's look at the standards against which we judge them. There are two critical issues here. The first is, what do we mean by consensus? I know it does not mean unanimity, but I have never heard of a 2:1 vote described as "consensus," not in politics and not at WP. The second is, what doe we do when an RfC ends? Our WP:RfC guidelines says, discuss the comments. So on can just as plausibly scharaterize SarakofVulcan's ending the RfC and changing the policy without any discussion as "gaming" the system. RfC's usually close after 30 days. I had no objection to closing the RfC earlier and I said so, but I also expected a discussion that would include more than four or five people before deciding on a closing date. I also think that it makes perfect sense to alert people in advance that an RfC on a policy is going to close, and not doing this can also be a form of "gaming the system." Maybe SlimVirgin could have handled things better, but I do not see an effort to solicit more comments to be "gaming" the system. If SlimVirgin's efforts attract only silly, thoughtless comments, well, we just disregard them. But if more people provide any more constructive comments, that is a good thing.

Let's keep our eyes on the ball. We have a contentious issue and I am not the only person who does not see a consensus. We can close the RfC if we think it is not helping - but come on, let's do it after discussion that includes more than four people, and let's give people some notice - three days, five days, whatever. If there is a better way to handle this than the way SarakofVulcan AND/OR SlimVirgin did it, well, let's just discuss it and come up with a better way. We can do this without attacking either one (when I reverted the change to the policy I never accused Sarak or anyone else of gaming the system, I just think they made a mistake. However we close this let's do it in a deliberative way. And before we do it, let's try to solicit as many comments as we can. The whole point is to try to move towards a consensus. If we do not attract any more constructive comments, well, that is regrettable. But if we get more WP users to comment on changing a policy? Why not? That is the point. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So, if I have this straight, there has been "irrevocable damage done to the process of discussing this change as a result of an editors gaming the system" because "the process" was finally brought to the attention of a very broad audience, as was promised from the beginning, but not actually done until a couple of days ago? And the "editors gaming the system" has done so by actually ensuring as many Wikipedia editors as possible know about this? It seems fairly obvious that the conduct of the ""editors" should be lauded, rather than condemned. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to object to: "but not actually done until a couple of days ago" ... when we opened this RfC back on Oct. 6th, I posted notices at the VPP, several other policy talk pages, CENT, and in as many other locations as I could think of ... the RfC was (as promised) widely advertised. Am I upset that the RfC has now been brought to the attention of even more people? No, of course not. What upsets me is the manner in which those people were notified, and the games people have been playing in an attempt to sway opinions (changing the title of the RfC, leaving notices that misrepresent the intent of the proposal, and generally trying to bias new commenters against the proposal before they have taken the time to actually read and understand exactly what is being proposed.) That does upset me, and comes close to causing "irrevocable damage". Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

changing the name of the RfC

I noticed that at WP:V an editor had modified the link in "Under discussion".  I backtracked the problem to find that SlimVirgin had changed the name of the RfC yesterday.  I have corrected the name of the RfC both on this page and at WP:V.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't change it again, Unscintillating. Lots of pages have been notified using this title/link. If there is insufficient notification of this RfC, it will be invalid, so please leave it as it is, and let people comment on it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

SV, Please see WP:TPOC at WP:Talk page guidelines, "Editing...others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin you changed the title 2 days ago. What gives? Did you consider the links that had been made prior to your change? You do not own this page. I find your behavior here quite disruptive and would please ask you to back off the ownership attitude. It isn't clear to me what the more productive title is at this point, but please recognize that you're bullying people to get your way. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Very few notifications were published about the RfC when it opened, but yes, I did republish in those places, to make sure people know where to find it. There is no bullying here (at least not by me). My concern is to make sure people know this is taking place, know what it's about, and have a chance to comment. It concerns me that anyone would object to that, given that lots of people are saying they hadn't seen any notification of this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Why did you change the title of the RfC? Regarding what you did write, lots of people don't see the notification for lots of discussions. So what? It has been pointed out to you that it was listed at WP:CENT since the second day after opening. Not particularly convincing SV. But that's also not what I asked, and what this thread was about. Why did you change the title, and what makes you think you have the right to do that and to enforce your changed title, weeks after the RfC started?Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO several aspects of what Slim has done on this in the last few days have been problematic. Inventing and unilaterally "enforcing" new rules just because she didn't like the outcome. Edit warring to erase the talk page closure text even when it was left as reopened, inaccurate descriptions of the potential change posted an numerous prominent places, unilaterally undoing the closure, unilaterally undoing the change which was clearly the overwhelming majority view with or without closure. I have not run down the latest yet, but apparent retroactive renaming of the RFC. Why has nothing been doing about this behavior? North8000 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I find the new RFC title to be more accurate and informative than the old one; after all, "verifiability not truth" is the core of the issue. I have to add that less than 70% support for a Policy change does not fit Sarek's close, Consensus requires a "higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to Policies and guidelines than to other types of articles." Less than 70%, 75% or even 80% is certainly not a 'higher standard'. For example, Bureaucrat elections have an 85% support threshold - how can major Policy changes have any less? Dreadstar ☥ 22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That would have been something to bring up a month ago, not now. It appears to be an attempt to push the RfC in a particular direction, as does the wording of the advertisement that SV posted. I'm still assuming good faith, but these actions are poisoning the discussions, not helping them. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea there was an RFC on this a month ago; and yes it needs to brought up now just as much as a month ago or a year ago. If you find SV's wording on the "advertisement" to be problematic, then make a suggestion on how to change it to be more neutral. There's no doubt that this RFC should have been far more publicised than it was. Dreadstar ☥ 22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to, Blueboar did a fine job of that. My point is that instead of acting in a way that was clearly above board, SV has acted in a way that could be interpreted as trying to push a POV. Edit warring over the title of the RfC is a similar action--what discussions took place establishing consensus about that change? SV has complained about Sarek's close because he was involved. She's at least as involved as he. This is a touchy subject, and admins running about like bulls in a china shop are not helping matters any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuujinn (talk • contribs) 23:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I dare say the new name is much more straightforward and helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what name is better. The RfC was ongoing, for three weeks when she changed it without discussion, and without regard for any links that might have existed already. I was not aware of this RfC either, but then again I'm not aware of tons of RfCs that go on. Am I supposed to blame the RfC creators or commentators for my own ignorance despite their best efforts to follow standard procedures to get the RfC out there? Clearly not. Do you really condone the unilateral action of one editor to change the name of an ongoing RfC and then to edit war to keep that name change in effect, three weeks into an RfC that has already received boat loads of comments by others who all seemed fine with the title? I highly doubt you believe that is correct as a general principle, and SV has no special privileges in this regard over the rest of us as far as I know. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd think I "condone" building the encyclopedia, which always comes first. V not T is one of this website's core policies. I'd go so far as to say it's one of a very few beams which holds the whole thing up, so to speak. I don't see any bad faith here, but somehow, not nearly enough editors were made aware of this discussion over the wording on such a highly meaningful policy page. Come to think of it, I unwatched this page many months ago when all I saw as it (often) flashed by on my watchlist was bickering. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The RFC title does indeed count, the old one was inaccurate and uninformative, through no fault of Blueboar's, it was obvously done in good faith. But the edit warring to keep the inaccurate title in place is not good faith and is just plain old gaming. There's been no reason given for not accepting the change except, "ILIKEIT". That's fine, enjoy. Dreadstar ☥ 23:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "publicized" it was:

• Thoroughly publicized on several pages at wp:ver, not only when put up, but for several months prior to that as the RFC-in-the-making as it was developed
• Listed in "centralized discussion"
• Listed at the Village pump
• Listed at several other major policy/guideline pages.

As opposed to when the "not truth" wording (which this proposal merely moves) was put in when it was put in by one person with no request for comment or discussion. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You know that's not true, North, so it's odd that you keep repeating it. The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" was not thought of by me, not first added by me, and was discussed on several pages by several people in 2005 before being added at all. And you know this, because you've been shown the diffs many times.

The policy on this page seems to have been "repeat personal attacks often enough and they will become memes." Well, it worked as far as my presence on this page is concerned. You managed to chase me (and several others) away from it, after nearly seven years of helping to maintain it. I returned only because I saw a poorly advertised and worded RfC being closed early by an admin who had expressed an opinion about the issue when the RfC opened. That seemed manifestly unfair, so here I am again. But not for long, so you needn't worry about my continued presence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I must confess that on that last point that I was going by summaries of the history by others rather then personal knowledge. But in any event, how does the degree of input and advertisement for the insertion compare with that of the current RFC which merely moves those two words? North8000 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of one editor's conduct (in one instance many years past) is not productive. The substance of the objection to the change was that it was different, and some links would not work, and the response was that it was more descriptive and those links were fixed, to, in fact, work. So, can we get back to discussing that, if such is needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted an anchor {{anchor|RFC - Proposal re first sentence}} into the top of this RfC so (if I did it right) links using the old title will find it. I agree with the new title. I didn't notice this until the title was changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about removing the word "compromise" from the title

We have two headers now, but I'd like to remove the word "compromise", in line with Anthony's anchor, as this was one of the problems with the RfC. It's not a compromise. North8000 et al want to remove "not truth" from the lead, and this does that. So the title is misleading and I would say POV. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you make a fair point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "compromise" should be removed since it clearly is not that. Dreadstar ☥ 23:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What exactly was North8000 et al's position prior to Blueboar's RfC? If it was something more radical like, let's say, removing that phrase from the entire entry, then of course this is a "compromise." I'm new to this discussion but I've never known Blueboar to play fast and lose with words like this so I'm having a hard time imagining his RfC proposal not being some kind of mid way point between two different positions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So this is now a 'compromise' between North and Blueboar? Interesting. This is out with the old, in with the new. That's not a compromise, I'm sorry. Dreadstar ☥ 00:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the working group that came up with this proposal (with which I agree, by the way) have put it forward as a compromise, but the word is loaded, it implies something about "a position that all reasonable parties will agree to" which is inappropriate for an RfC question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The long term difficult discussion that this compromise seeks to resolve is between complete removal of "not truth" from the policy vs. the status quo regarding that. The compromise was to keep "not truth" but move it to the next section with clarification. North8000 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: Blueboar "reached across the aisle" on this. North8000 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Then let Blueboar once again 'reach across the aisle' and change the name of the RFC as it was originally discussed, yet seemingly ignored, and has since then been opposed. Dreadstar ☥ 00:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think their point was you aren't making a compromise for everyone, only yourself; you (all) are, in fact, proposing to do something to policy, for everyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Alan. Dreadstar ☥ 00:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the word 'compromise' is loaded and not neutral, it should not be part of the wording of this RFC per WP:RFC. Why is this such a difficult concept?? Dreadstar ☥ 00:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• It arguably poisoned the first run of results, because by saying "this is a compromise," you're implying that people opposing it are unwilling to compromise. In addition, several editors asked that any RfC contain "keep as is" as a positive option in a separate section, so that people could vote in support of current policy, rather than in opposition to a "compromise." So this really has not been handled neutrally, in my opinion. The creators of the RfC seem to want to hide, in the title, and in the description, that it's about removing, or drawing attention away from, "verifiability, not truth." But why hide what you want to do, if you think people will support you? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I removed "compromise" per the above; a compromise between North8000 and Blueboar has no bearing on how RfC respondents should or will view the proposal. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPOC at WP:Talk page guidelines, "Editing...others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."   Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What other editor's comments were edited? AFAICT, the only thing that was edited was the heading, which is acceptable per Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate. In this case, the new heading was far superior to the original. Dreadstar ☥ 00:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing it 3 weeks later generally is unwise and I certainly object to doing so. Hobit (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason that we do not editor other edtior's comments on talk pages is because we do not want to misrepresent the view of an editor. As Dreadstar points out, section headings are generally not used to express one editor's views, they are not signed, and we often change them in refactoring or to clarify the discussion that follows. But the key thing is, the name of an RfC is not supposed to represent any one person's view. We prohibit changing people's comments on talk pages i.e. that which comes before their signature because the change misrepresents their views. Are you and Unscintillating and others suggesting that the name of the RfC was Blueboar's "view?" Slrubenstein | Talk 11:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The compromise wasn't between me and Blueboar. It was put out by Blueboar as a compromise between the two groups there were locked in an multi-month debate on this. North8000 (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Replying to Dreadstar, as per the section you cited at WP:TPOC, "Section headers" is listed as an example of "other editor's comments".  Unscintillating (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, what I meant was were any other editor's comments besides the header edited by someone else? Editing a header is fine per WP:TPO, although questionable when it is reverted back to a poorly worded one - as this one was. Dreadstar ☥ 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to make this a less rancourous discusion? The purpose of announcements is to attract as many outside comments as possible and WP:AGF means we assume that people will comment on the substance of the proposal, which Blueboar posted at the top of this page. We should assume that all comments are on the proposal itself. We should all be able to agree that Slim Virgin's announcement was made in good faith as an attempt to more widely publicize the RfC. We should assume the same about Bluboar. Wikipedia's procedures and policies (like AGF like NPOV) are all based on the premise that editors with a common purpose, acting in good faith, can have different even conflicting ways of achieving this purpose. In fact, there may be no single bst way to achieve our goal. I realize that some people here are not upset about the actual announcement but the way it was announced. My point is, these arguments seem petty. We would all make more progress if we agreed that we all want to attract as many diverse comments as possible. There is no ned to defend Blueboar, or to justify the original way this was announced, because Blueboar did nothing wrong. And the fact that Slim Virgin had another way of doing it doesn't mean that Blueboar was wrong. At Wikipedia, different ways of doing things does not have to mean "right" versus "wrong." People on both sides have already said defensive or inflammatory ways. If you guys want to go on attacking and defending one another rather than discussing how best to improve articles or policies, so be it but I am writing this with the hope that ir might provide an end to this thread and enable everyone here to move on to more productive activities. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO Blueboar's actions all along have been very cautious, seeking consensus at every step on even the smallest of items, and have not even been in question. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that we want to attract as many diverse comments as possible. There are better things for most others to do. The change debated here is not a major Policy change. It involved no change in policy, just a change in the presentation of consistent policy. It is mere semantics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

North is correct above that there was real compromising between large groups, and many efforts were gone to, in order to ensure that it was so. Discussion took place over a long period, and there were even votes on many smaller points, which gave all participants a feeling for what opinions were most strongly held. That was the background to the compromise. Many people with widely varying ideas described Blueboar's compromise as a compromise, including people who did not like it. If that is not a compromise what is? What's more SlimVirgin was aware of that whole discussion. Why does SlimVirgin only participate in this matter on the basis of legalistic procedural claims and actions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"compromise" is a point of view about Blueboar's intentions. I happen to hold this point of vieww; I do think Blueboar's intentions are to forge a compromise, and that her proposal is in her view a compromise. In fact, it is my view that the proposal is a compromise, even if it is one that does not satisfy me. Nevertheless, that I view it to be a compromise is a particular point of view, that not everyone responding to the RfC may share. I don't question Blueboar's intentions, but I don't think that one's intentions are a particularly informative way to describe an actual proposal. After all, as collaborative editors aren't our motives or intentions always to seek some kind of compromise, or at least, often? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Slr ... huh? Please don't descend into this level of postmodern relativity, because then communication becomes impossible. I agree that this has nothing to do with intentions, but I don't see anyone else claiming that it does in the first place. I see people judging the results of Blueboar's actions and saying that they represent a compromise between two large camps of people with different POVs. If you agree with that assessment you agree with it. Leave it at that. Don't admit to agreeing with it if you don't want. That's fine too. But of course it is a human judgement, as anything we could possibly understand is. This was clearly a compromise. You might not like it, but that doesn't change what it is.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said. And what you said is extensively established by the zillion words of discussion over many months. North8000 (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Postmodern relativism?" Wow, I honestly don't know where that is coming from. And Griswaldo, if you are saying I did not express myself clearly, okay. First: I agree that Blueboar's intentions were to come up with a compromise. I do not think it is an appropriate or effective compromise. But it is beyond me why you think I am incapable of criticising the proposed comrpomise while appreciating the genuine effort at compromise. And if anyone thinks that this is a disingenuous statement, well, screw you - it is possible to appreciate someone's intentions while disagreeing with their proposal, and if someon thinks this is not possible at WP then it means they do not understand AGF. Second: I agree that Blueboar's intentions were to reavch a compromise, but I do not think that this is relevant to describing what the proposal is. We ned to describe the substance of the proposal in a phrase, not Blueboar's intentions. If you do not see the difference between these, or do not think the difference matters, well, then we do not agree. But do you really think my position makes communication impossible? I think that shows a failure to AGF. And I do not see this as a difference in some kind of metaphilosophical stance. I just think that when publicising a request for comments on a proposal, we should try to describe the actual proposal, not the intentions of the person proposing it. The latter is just spin (and if anything exemplifies postmodernity it is the rise of spin over substance). Now, you may think SlimVirgin's description of the RfC proposal was not a good description of the proposal. Maybe you would prefer "Proposal to remove "not truth" from the lead" or something else. Fine. A discussion over the best way to describe the substance of the proposal is constructive. But we should leave intentions out of it. Are we communicating, yet? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Slr, I'm sorry if in frustration I expressed myself too aggressively. Sincerely I am. My point was simply that the argument you put forth is not productive. You at once recognized that in your own judgement this was a compromise while undermining your and everyone else's judgments as mere POVs. That's all I was trying to say. If you meant that you didn't think the end product was a compromise but only that Blueboar's intentions were to accomplish such then I would argue you were not being clear - you wrote: "it is my view that the proposal is a compromise, even if it is one that does not satisfy me." We are discussing the objection to the word "compromise" and I think that arguing that it's a bad word based on the notion that we're all making judgement calls about this leads down and endless road of relativism to me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You post modern relativist, you. Don't you know there is truth to be told. :) At any rate, I think some distance is advisable for most commenters in the recent hours. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the title back to its original (with the word compromise)... Whether my choice of wording in the title was flawed or not no longer matters... changing it at this late date breaks notification links going back to Oct. 6th when we went live with this RfC. Blueboar (talk)

Thanks, Blueboar.  I have worked through SlimVirgin's contribution list immediately after her change to the name of the RfC, and notated the correct name where the incorrect name has been posted.  WP:V is now page protected until November 3, and editors at Template:Centralized discussion have received a block warning if incipient edit warring resumes over the WP:V RfC name.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So lets look at what has been done to this RFC in the last 2 days

• Closure was reverted by someone
• Change as a result of the closure was undone by someone
• Proposal was renamed after 3 weeks, and the change retained by edit warring rather than discussion/decision
• Someone put notices out at the pump and 2-3 other policy pages incorrectly stating that the proposal removes "verifiability" from the lead of verifiability
  • Not true Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    • At the Pump it says: "There is an RfC here about whether to remove from the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
    • At wp:nor and wp:npov it says: "There is an RfC here on whether to remove from the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." North8000 (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, so you recognize, she did not incorrectly state that the word "verifiability" would be removed, but rahter correctly state that the phrase "verifiability, not truth" be removed. You do understand the difference between a word and a phrase, don't you? Look them up, they are in the dictionary! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The actual text is now there. Readers can now decide for themselves whether the statement about the RFC is accurate, and whether my statement about the statement is accurate. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Slr, SlimVirgin may not have intended to suggest that "verifiability" was proposed for removal, but since she said that the entire string, "verifiability, not truth" was proposed for removal, as opposed to only "not truth" and didn't clarify that the first word was to remain, North8000 and others have a very fair criticism here. What SlimVirgin wrote implies what North8000 says, and reasonable intelligent people would have thought that "verifiability" was proposed for removal since she didn't say otherwise.Griswaldo (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, you are right. Look, we all make mistakes. North wonders how we might "prevail" and I hope North means "prevail in improving the policy." I admit that this requires us to catch mistakes or errors in judgment. But it also requires some tolerance for errors in judgment and an understanding that working together often requires zig-zagging. I think I was reacting to what I perceived as a failure to AGF in this thread. But you are right Griswaldo and I appreciate your taking the time to explain it this way. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Though there never was a hurry (and no mention of a 30 day rule when the question of closing floated for 2 days), someone promulgated a 30 day rule after the closing.
• Opposes have gone from zero for three days in a row (and a total of 2 in five days) to 18 in one day (and 23 in a 36 hour period) despite not being posted in any new venues except I believe wp:npov.
• Someone modified the proposal itself, deleting the statement of proposed action
• Someone modified the statement at centralized discussion to incorrectly say that the proposal includes removal of "verifiability" from the lead of wp:verifiability

If this type of thing prevails, then what kind of a place is Wikipedia? North8000 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

what kind of a place is Wikipedia? Nomic? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how does this topic helps improve the situation? Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO sunshine on what has been happening always helps. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not sunshine - it's just another place to argue, as can already be seen above. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are we fucking about with all these half-measures? We should just change the RFC title to something like "Proposal to wreck Wikipedia by destroying the lede of WP:V!" We should also make sure that everyone gets a chance to participate by individually messaging everyone who's ever edited Wikipedia with a neutrally-worded notification, such as "Quickly! Rush to WT:V to vote down the evil proposal from Hell before it gets closed the wrong way!"—S Marshall T/C 13:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you truly think that this is what is going on, I have to wonder whether you are capable of assuming good faith. I this really the only intention you are capable of ascribing to those who do not accept the proposal, or those who would like to attract more comments on the proposal? You seem to be villifying everyone who disagrees with you. And then projecting on to them your fear that they must also be villifying you. I hope I m wrong, but your words sem pretty hysterical. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Slrubenstein, I've been able to contribute calmly to Wikipedia for many years now. I've rarely been so angry as I have been about everything that's happened since Sarek's close, but this time, I am. I'm absolutely bloody furious. I have an awful lot of time and effort invested in this change that I've put in over a very, very long period, in the face of bloody-minded obstructionism at absolutely every single step. I've been accused of many things during that time, and I've taken them all calmly and in good part. And now, at the final hurdle, we have this. You're right: I can't assume good faith here. I've seen far too much evidence of bad faith gaming of the system to assume good faith. I hate this. It makes me seethe. I also hate the smugness of telling me to assume good faith while they do this.

  I need to stop posting and log off.—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I arrive at this point from exactly the opposite direction from S Marshall ... I am one of those bloody-minded obstructionists he talks about, being a strong supporter of the "V not T" concept remaining in the policy. (While I do think the compromise presented in this RfC is an improvement, I am perfectly happy with the current language) ... and yet I find myself as just as upset by what has occurred over the last two days as he is. My assumption of good faith has been severely strained by the shenanigans that have been taking place on this page since Sarek's closing. I won't go as far as accusing anyone of deliberate misconduct in an attempt to influence the outcome of this RfC (what little good faith I still have prevents that)... but there sure as hell is an appearance of deliberate misconduct. I don't really care what the final outcome of the RfC is... but I do care (a lot) about how that final outcome is achieved, whatever it is. What has been going on for the last few days stinks to high heaven, and needs to stop... now. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What Blueboar just said, that's exactly what I think too. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting comment: [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

VERY interesting. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm still not thinking coherently about this, but I do want to thank you two for that attitude, which is helping to restore my faith in most Wikipedians. How would you feel about a RFC/U? Worthwhile, or likely to be drowned in wikipolitics?—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the short answer is both of the above. My advice would be to sit back and wait until this present RfC comes to whatever will be its close. This isn't the first time I have been deeply, deeply concerned, to put it mildly. But it's always a good idea to take a deep breath, sleep on it for a few days, and then make a decision when the smoke has cleared. (In the mean time, be of good cheer! I'm far from convinced that the eventual outcome is going to be changed from where it was a day or two ago.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice how the "Support" votes have received an extraordinary boost as well. The supports are now in triple digits: but I'm not going to cast aspersions on anyone. Doc talk 04:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

An attempt at another starting point

Quite some time ago another editor wrote:

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

This was obviously with reference to NPOV. But it seems to me that the first sentence is what motivates many people who support the "Verifiability, not truth" phrase (the third line, too). I do not want to propose anything specific, since my last attempt to propose specific wording (above) gained no traction. But I would like to invite everyone to consider how our Verifiability policy does and should be a support for the approach stated above (NPOV is our one non-negotiable policy, so it seems to me that it is always a good starting point for thinking about our policies). I propose the following: Verifiability is not only meant to prevent OR, it is also meant to provide guidance for people who want to add encyclopedic content in the spirit of the above conviction. I see V as a lynchpin, the guarantee that content added is "encyclopedic."

Blueboar sought to craft a compromise, and I think it is still worth discussing his compromise proposal and the comments it has attracted. So this is not meant to negate Blueboar's work. But some editors have said that we have been discussing this for months without reaching consensus, so it seems to me that nw ideas cannot hurt. That is why I am forewarding this - perhaps this provides another direction, from which we can reach a compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A common implied statement in nearly everything you say is to sidestep that this proposal is for a specific set of changes, and that this proposal already IS a compromise proposal. Also to imply that the results do not show a consensus, and to try to discount or negate this whole RFC and the months of work that led to it. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with North8000. I have often found Slrubenstein's comments such as the one he has posted immediately above to be helpful and thought provoking. I would even say that for me the better ones help justify my support of Blueboar's proposal. The Blueboar compromise is not a major change of policy, it is a compromise, and it is very widely agreed with as a wording improvement. It has jumped through a lot of hoops to get where it is. To claim otherwise is at least a minority position compared to most people who have discussed these points at length.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

North8000 keeps identifying herself with Blueboar's efforts at compromise — and then does everything possible to derail or stifle any other discussion, a tactic that is itself uncompromising, inransigent, and disruptive. You are just firghtened of anything that might move discussion away from the ay you want it to move. It must frutrate you a great deal that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Andrew, if you think that Blueboar's proposal is consistent with the above that is great! As I said, I am not forwarding it along with nay specific proposal, but rather as a point for more productive discussion. Maybe if you can convince many of those who oppose Blueboar's proposal that the proposal is fully consistent with this, it will lead them to change their opposition to support &mdasn; I cannot speak for them of course. Maybe others can propose other changes to the policy that along wtih Blueboar's will attract more support. Maybe not. But the fact is, we do not have a consensus. And the fact is, RfC's are supposed to be followed by discussion to reach a consensus. Whatever the actual outcome, my only intention is that the above quote might help move us closer to a consensus. So, thanks, Andrew. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I have a great deal of respect for you, and you are a thoughtful person, so I have to ask if you have been following the discussions here closely over the last three months? I will not seek to explain North8000's frustration, but I think it is fair to say the Blueboar, North8000, and Tryptofish formed a troika which manage to get use to the RfC and keep the discussion during the RfC until this week focussed and reasonably calm. Andrew Lancaster's description is spot on--my efforts in these discussion have been to not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good, and to work for improvement in the wording. Please keep in mind that, for example, North8000 and myself have fundamental disagreements about the value of the phrase "verifiability, not truth", yet we agree that this is an improvement. North8000 has been instrumental keeping discussions on track.

Discussions should continue, but there the appearance that some admins have come in at the last minute to attempt to push the RfC in a particular direction. And I feel that some, acting with good intentions, have managed to set us back in terms of the nature and quality of the discussions we have had here the last 2-3 months. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am a little disturbed by our use of the word "troika." There are many editors whom I respct who both opposed and supported the proposal and sometimes I think it would be great to get four or five of them together to work out a compromise that would hey presto please most people who watch this and other policy pages. But this is just not how WP works.

I wonder whether we agree about the meaning of "keeping discussions on track." If you mean kieeping discussions on track until we reach a consensus that supports Blueboar's proposal, I flat-out do not agree: no "track" should be towards a predetermined outcome. If however by the phrase you mean that we should keep moving towards some improvement to the policy that will have widespread support, well, then, yes I am fully for that.

I agree that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good but I also belive we should not change policy without consensus. Perhaps we agree on this too.

I have also said repeatedly that I believe Blueboar's intention was to craft a compromise that would help move us towards consensus. The fact that I acknowledge that his efforts were to craft a compromise does not mean that the specific proposal is the compromise I support. A lot of other editors feel the same way. As I read your post, I am just not sure whether you are suggesting that "a proposed compromise" = "the compromise." In my view, they are not equal.

I do think that we have differing interpretations of different recent edits to the page. I think editors on both sides have made errors of judgment. I do not question the good faith of any of them. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I may not have been clear enough, let me try again. The three editors essentially mediated discussions between numerous editors who have legitimate and strong disagreements about the wording of the policy, worked to achieve compromise wording which sought to address the concerns of many editors on both sides (those who wish to remove "verifiability, not truth" and those who wish to keep it). You can see those discussions in the archives here and at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence, and anyone who wishes to understand how the proposal came about should review the latter pages, although it is a lot of reading to do. That work helped achieve enough consensus to the proposal together and to start an RfC, and that's the track to which I refer, not a specific wording or goal. Prior to their efforts, we'd loop around an around the same issues and not make any progress forward, and that had been going on for months with no apparent progress. I think without their good work, we would not have gotten that far. And yes I think I see your distinction between "a proposed compromise" and "the compromise" but I don't think I feel that as strongly as you, since I know that whatever wording we agree upon today will be changed sometime in the future--nothing is immutable here. Clearly some editors oppose the proposed wording for various reasons, and that's fine--the policy will not change without broad consensus. I hope that helps clarify my views. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nuujinn, this does help, and it certainly relieves the concerns I raised. I have one point to make - I am not trying to stir up new arguments, I just want to make sure my position is clear. I acknowledge and appreciate the work people put into coming up with a proposed compromise. But I do not view an RfC as the process by which a compromise is ratified, or not, by the larger community. As I read WP:RfC, it is a means to invite comments from people who have not been involved in the discussion. Yes, I am others who have been involved in the discussion commented, but the real purpose of the RfC is to draw in the comments of others. This can reveal an effective consensus, or it can reveal continued divisions. Hopefully, either way, it will also yeild comments that will help move us towards a consensus &mdah; but the whole point is to attract new comments that make new points and raise new issues. In the case of this particular proposal, the RfC shows that people are divided among those who like the proposal, those who are adamantly opposed to "not truth" and those who are adamant that it belongs in the first sentence. I do not see a consensus for change. I understand that this will disappoint many, but I just do not se a consensus for change. I do not view 2:1 as consensus, as Dreadstar pointed out Bureaucrat elections require an 85% vote and we should have at least as high a threshold for changing policy.

WP is designed to attract large numbers of editors from diverse backgrounds. Frankly, I think WP will fail unless it can attract increasing numbers and numbers that are increasingly diverse but I suspct it is inevitable that such a large group will find it dificult to agree on many things. In my experience, articles improve not when editors spend months and great energy trying to forge a compromise, but when compromises and consensus arise out of discussions within a few days. The main function of our policies is to ensure that such diverse people are able to collaborate together. For as long as I have been here, a lot of people have said that the quality of articles will not be legislated by policy but will depend on our ability to attract enough people with complementary knowledge or research skills i.e. will depend on our editors. And I do think our policies for the most part work. Yes, I deinitely think they can be improved, but I also know a lot of editors don't like my proposed improvements which believe it or not I have put a lot of time and thought into. But, if people don't like my proposals, I am not going to fight for them. WP will roll along. I have seen people put a lot of work into an article, and a couple of years later not a single word remains.

This is a fundamentally conservative approach. The requirement for consensus makes it hard to change policies. It is not easy to ammend the US constitution either (in fact, far far more dificult, but I hope you get the point of the comparison). I really do agree with the principle that perfect cannot be the enemy of the good, but I also think that if Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and we have over a million registered users and over 1,000 are active and over a hundred, maybe even over 200, really do care about our policies, we have to accept the fact that a great number of people may not be entirely satisfied with them. I guess you are applying the principle "the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good" to the proposal, and I am applying it to this policy as currently worded. If a strong consensus naturally emerges for a change to this policy it will happen. But the bias is towards the status quo. If someone puts a lot of work into creating a consensus and it doesn't work, well, they should just redirect their energies elsewhere - disappointment will be understandable and inevitable but there is certainly no shame in it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A conservative approach, with which I entirely agree. And please note, I'm not fighting for a change in the policy, I think the policy is fine as it is myself, nor am I arguing that consensus has been achieved--I think when Sarek closed it, there was pretty clear consensus for the preferred wording, but since then, others have chimed in to the discussion, and we're not at consensus now, and we all know that consensus can change. I support the proposal because I believe it addresses a number of valid concerns raised by editors with whom I disagree, and the wording as proposed meets my concerns well enough, and that it represents a good compromise. There may not be consensus for the proposal, and that's fine with me. We've chatted about this a good bit, and I think you're thinking I'm holding a position I don't really hold, and I'll try to be more clear in the future so that we will not misunderstand one another.

That being said, I'm arguing against the assertions that the RfC was not well advertised, that North8000 or any of the other editors involved in developing the proposal did anything wrong or insufficient--indeed, this the proposal and the setting up of the RfC were done with extreme care, and although nothing is perfect, it was very well done indeed. Bureaucrat elections require an 85% vote and we should have at least as high a threshold for changing policy--I don't agree with your reasoning there, as elections determined by votes and RfCs are not, but that's a minor point-as you've said to me, the number of !votes does not matter nearly so much as the quality of the arguments, and I agree with you there. And I am applying the principle "the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good" to both the proposal and this policy as currently worded.

There have been a number of what I consider to be missteps in the process the last few days. I think that some of the recent advertisements were poorly worded and misrepresented the nature of the proposal. I think the reopening was poorly handled. I think that changing section headings this late during the process is an extremely poor decision, especially without prior discussion. Now there appears to be a rush by some (not you) to push the RfC to a non-consensus close. One admin basically said they would take anyone who disagreed with them regard the nature of consensus to dispute resolution--that's a very strong statement to make. I've seen diverse editors work together over a long period of time to reach a potential compromise, all acting in good faith, and now I see some admins (not you) ham handing the work of those editors, and that's troubling to me, and I think it works against the spirit of WP you expressed above. Things are very heated now, and I everyone should just slow and take real care in reading what others are saying. It appears that things are calming now slowly, and I hope that continues. Given the missteps, I think it's important to take extra care in proceeding. I hope that all makes sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It all makes perfect sense and with the exception of what, in principle, we mean by "consensus" I think I agree with most or all of what you say. I think that whatever date is given for closure, it should be announced on the same pages as the RfC was announced, in advance. I wish that Blueboar could come up with another name for the proposal; I understand why BB objected to the wording that SV used, but I think SV's intention was a name that better reflected the substance of the proposal. People who were closely involved in crafting the proposal understandably see the proposal as a compromise among them (or an attempt to articulate a compromise between others) but when advertising an RfC, which is a deliberate effort to solicit outside views, we have to consider what it is that they would be interested in commenting on, and I think that people who would not be interested in commenting on a compromise between two groups of editors would be interested in commenting on a proposal to make a change to a policy, o I think the bst name is one that summarises the change. When SV invited other suggestions, JN466 virtually restated the whole proposal. The choice between the vague "a compromise" and a reproduction of the proposal, is a false choice — it is important that different editors agree the name is neutral, and it is important that it be as informative as possible. I know Blueboar made a good-faith effort to achieve just this when first naming the proposal, but if we can come up with a new name that BB would agree is accurate and neutral, and is more informative, even at this late date, that surely would be a good thing. I think that it should be as widely publicized as possible; I think Blueboar made a very good faith effort to do this, and I think SV was lso making a good-faith effort to publicize it even more widely. Using a bot seems pretty neutral to me and I think accusations of canvassing were unfair. In any event, it does seem pretty clear to me that the people who showed up in the past two days were attracted by the AN/I report; this is not canvassing but just evidence that editors watch different pages and, as we all have real jobs and families, do not alway slook at changes to pages they watch. I do not want to be more specific about what should be done, my hope is only to show that we can agree about how it should be done.

But we may really disagree on the final matter: when Sarak closed it the first time, it was my firm belief that we had not reached a consensus. more comments might or might not lead to a consensus. But my understanding of RfCs is that when it is closed we still need to discuss the comments and it is to those of us who actively paricipate on this page to reach a consensus. RfCs are not substitutes for the editorial policies but supplements, aids. Maunus has addressed this in comments below and I don't really have anything to add to those comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We may indeed disagree in this particular case, but that really doesn't concern me much, as we agree in principal regarding how consensus is achieved and gauged. People do disagree, and what is more important than the fact that they disagree is how they deal with the disagreement. I do fall into the immediatist camp--I'd much rather go ahead and make a change that has reasonably well argued as an improvement, with the knowledge that we'll immediately revisit the wording to make further refinements. And if the consensus is there's no consensus, I'm fine with that, as whether there's consensus is also a matter of consensus (otherwise, we'd just have up or down votes, yes?). My experience with RfCs in article spaces and the RfC/Us is that the discussion after the actual RfC is generally limited and a change implemented or not, but I personally don't see a real difference in actual practice with what you're suggesting and what I have seen done, since, as I've said, nothing is immutable. So from my point of view, there's not really that much difference between RfC-change-discuss and RfC-discuss-change, since any change will likely soon be followed by further discussion and any discussion followed by further changes. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

latest edits to the October 6 RfC without previous discussion

latest edits to the October 6 RfC without previous discussion, links to WP:V

I have reverted an erroneous edit made to the October 6 RfC.  This edit made it appear that it is part of the proposal to add WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:ASSERTIONS as new shortcuts to the policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit removed the erroneous material.  The edit comment was:

Undid revision 458075713 by SlimVirgin (talk) reverting erroneous representation of proposal

This edit restored the erroneous material.  The edit comment was:

Undid revision 458115832 by Unscintillating (talk) what is wrong with this? It simply allows people to see what both versions look lilke

The answer to the question was being written even as the re-revert to restore the erroneous material was taking place.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

other edits to the Original RFC

Unscintillating has just drawn my attention to this October 13 edit (by WhatamIdoing)... I believe WhatamIdoing's edit was made in good faith (as an attempt to summarize a complex RfC into one sentence... apparently so a bot would be happy), but the edit mis-stated the proposal. Had I caught that edit at the time it was made, I would have objected and corrected this error. (To add to the confusion... yesterday, Slim Virgin signed my name to WhatamIdoing's edit ... not sure why... In any case, I have reverted the RfC language back to what it was when we started the RfC.

My guess is that none of this will change anyone's opinions or comments... but I wanted to point out what occurred in case it does. Please DO NOT EDIT THE ORIGINAL RFC without discussion and consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the additional text, but I copied your sig higher yesterday for the RfC bot. Otherwise it will reproduce the whole thing, because it just copies whatever is before the first signature.

Okay, I see someone has removed the title yet again, which breaks all the notification links, and restored the "compromise" wording that we agreed here on talk to remove. This is getting very silly. Would whoever did that please revert themselves? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, the bot requires only a date stamp, not a username. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

EVERYONE MUST STOP PLAYING GAMES HERE - I returned the title to its original... there were already notification links (dating back to Oct. 6th) that pointed to that original title, and changing it from the original broke those links. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when that issue was discussed yesterday, the response was all the links to whatever title had been fixed and none were broken, using and anchor and redirects. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So now fix them back to reflect the original title, that should never have been changed in the first place. The argument Slim made that you are repeating amounts to ... "I stole your house, but you can't move back in now because I called the yellow pages and changed the name on the address to reflect mine and not yours." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. She stole a house? At any rate, I didn't change them and I think someone named Anthony did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, we agreed yesterday (discussion) to remove the word "compromise" because this is not a compromise with the community. Wide latitude is given to the person who opens an RfC, but several people agreed that "compromise" is POV and should be removed. Also, you broke all the recent notifications by changing the title again. Your old links were not broken because Anthony had added an anchor. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Who agreed?—S Marshall T/C 14:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar proceeded so cautiously that even the title of the proposed RFC was proposed and up for discussion for many weeks before the RFC.

Broken links can be handled with the {{anchor}} template—and since most of you here already know that, I'm not included to believe that your real complaint is that the notification links are breaking. If you've got substantive concerns, please state them outright rather than focusing on the trivially solved problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, we have to deal with the technological realities here. This is what you're currently advertising as the RFC question:

=== RFC Proposal re first sentence

• Current policy
• Proposed policy
• diff

The proposal is in two parts...

• 1) change the opening paragraph:

{

Does that look like a useful question to you? Do you think anyone will have any idea what this RFC is about? Do you think anyone is going to respond to that? (Nevermind that what Blueboar would actually like to post violates WP:RFC's direction to supply a "brief" statement of the issue: nobody's seeing any sort of sensible statement at all, much less what Blueboar would like them to see.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we close the current RfC and start a new one with neutral title and a brief statement of the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not happy...and nor should anyone be (Close and start afresh)

User:Blueboar has removed a quite significant chuck of prominent material earlier, claiming, absolutely correctly that he did not place it there.[7] It is prominent material and likely to influence readers. I reversed this on the basis that, whether or not it should have been there, it has been there sufficiently long that it could have influenced those who have read it and have left support or oppose comments based partly on it. Blueboar has removed it again,[8] stating his personal opposition and outrage “I strongly object. to this addition.. I did not write this material, nor was it present for half the time that this RfC existed”. While I agree with the sentiment I'm not happy with it's sudden removal - mid-discussion.

This entire discussion is reaching the level of a farce. I fail to see how any !votes made since the contentious material was added and since it has now been removed can be considered. The picture is altered significantly enough by the addition and removal of the disputed content. I’m not happy that this discussion has any validity. It should be started again with a clean slate, proper community notification and a routemap for implementing any changes that result from it. Leaky Caldron 14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Leaky... there was proper community notification from the start... The day we went live with this, I posted notification at the Village Pump, at WP:NPOV, at WP:NOR. The community responded to this notification... look at the date stamps on the comments... the RfC received over 50 comments on the very first day (and another 50 within the first week). Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point we should all fall back on AGF, even if we don't necessarily feel it.

• Blueboar acted in good faith when he created the title with the word "compromise" in it, thinking of the compromises made on this page, rather than thinking in terms of a wiki-wide RfC.
• North8000 and Blueboar acted in good faith when they asked for early closure, because they believed comments had dried up.
• Sarek acted in good faith when he volunteered to close, because he had forgotten he had commented, or didn't see it as a comment that made him involved.
• The editors who reverted the closure acted in good faith because they (we) disagreed with the early closure.
• I acted in good faith when I posted additional notifications, because I wanted to make sure more people knew about it.
• Slrubenstein is acting in good faith by continuing the discussion.

Please let's agree on the above, or at least act as if we agree, for the sake of moving forward constructively. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Blueboar's compromise was made after several RfCs. There is also a problem with the logic here. Continuing discussion is fine always of course, but I think what is disturbing people is that there is also another thing taking place. Discussion can go on concerning future ideas for improvement, as it always does, without trying to demand that nobody else is allowed to do anything else, and without trying to erase or deliberately misconstrue what has already been discussed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a consistent theme of the wording of the "let's move on" / "lets discuss more" statements has been "let's ignore the RFC" and its many months of work. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is that we AGF, regardless of any details. It is at times like this that AGF is at its most useful, when good editors have fallen out with each other, and we need a strategy to keep us on track. So I am going to do it from now on, and I apologize to everyone for not having assumed good faith during this discussion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Slim, I'm happy that you are willing to AGF when it comes to the actions of other editors involved here. However, please do not ask others to put aside the serious concerns that have been raised about your behavior because of that, or perhaps more importantly the damage done by that behavior, which remains whether or not you acted in good faith. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What damage? That more people became aware of the proposal and are now discussing it? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect Maunus Slim's posts presented the RfC in a way that was completely inaccurate, by suggesting a much more extreme proposal than what was there. These posts were also made along with accusations of impropriety by the closing admin. The net effect was to suggest that a group of editors were managing to subvert core Wikipedia policy while no one noticed and by way of all kinds of shenanigans (none of which is true clearly). And who am I to make this observation? Someone who had no idea this RfC was ongoing until I encountered all of this and had to figure out what was going on. Also, mind you, as someone who has been an outspoken critic of Sarek when it comes to WP:INVOLVED. You can imagine what my first thought was when I saw the AN/I ... he's at it again. Well as it turned out he was not at it. Someone else was at something quite different. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What damage? If any other result of this RFC is not to close it as it was properly closed by Sarek, then it's a fraud. Because of the actions of SV and a few others(mostly admins) who have taken this basic RFC and turned it into not only drama, but wheel warring, canvassing and pushing other editors who have worked hard on this out of the picture. This whole process is now corrupted and I would support sanctions against those responsible. I don't know the exact venue that needs to be used, maybe some more experienced editors do. The actions that lead up to this point, after the close, are infuriating. Absolutely infuriating. Dave Dial (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. You can see that there is no consensus for the proposal - whether there was so three days ago is utterly irrelevant, since consensus can change. What is mysterious to me is how people can even argue about this - it is obvious that the change does not have consensus and as such it cannot be instated, procedure is completely irrelevant to that fact. Even if we accept Sarek's closing that would only mean that an RfC would be filed immediately with a new consensus bound to appear. It is quite sad to me to observe how people are apparently forgetting that this whole process is about achieving CONSENSUS not about pushing one's favourite policy through at any cost.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a "favourite policy" I'm trying to push. I haven't voiced my opinion on this as of yet. Also, if you believe procedure is "completely irrelevant", what are the rules for procedure even there for? Also, many here have a distorted view on consensus. This isn't a RFA, it's a RFC. Since this was brought to ANI I have went through and read what many editors have done to try and build consensus, only to be circumvented by that outrage at ANI. There was a much better way to ask for more time, but after that happened the reopening and votes afterwards are spoiled. The process was corrupted. Even if a new RFC is opened and the results are overturned, it's a much better outcome than the current course. Dave Dial (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy stating that Consensus means something different at RfCs than at RfAs. Consensus is consensus. I was not referring to your favourite policy, but to the fact that most people who appear outraged at the close being reverted were the proposers themselves (Blueboar excepted - since he has in fact been one of the most reasonably behaved persons in this whole mess).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Every case is different, we have to judge each case in its relevant context. In this case, the issue is that the way the first sentence is formulated is leading to resistance from many well etablished editors for various reasons. Then a proposal for changing it led to a 50-50 stalemate, and that clearly is not a good basis to implement a change. So, at that stage, the lack of consensus meant that things stayed as they were. But because there wasn't consensus for the status quo, indeed the raised problems were not resolved, the discussions on how then to move forward were very much alive.

The problem with this was that many of the supporters of the staus quo didn't like all these discussions, their opinion was that the people who want to implement change had their day in court and they lost, so they should now shut up. But obviously, that is not a good argument to close discussions when the support for the status quo is 50% at best. It is at this point that Blueboar stepped in, working with a few others to come up with something that would have significantly more support than the current version. He has been successful in this, many who previously supported the old version have supported the new version.

So, given the history of this debate, the conclusion of the RFC should be that the new version is a far better basis to make further improvements from than to stick to the old version. Suppose that new discussions to make furhter improvements were to go nowhere, we will at least be stuck at something that has a lot more support than the current version, the support for which has dropped to well below 50%. Count Iblis (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That is actually a very reasonable argument - there does seem to be consensus for change, although this precise proposal does not have strong consensus. I think this should lead us to explore more options to build a proposal that can sway people from the "oppose" camp, most of which I don't think are against change, just this particular change.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikispeak#AGF. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the general feeling is that what has been done to the RFC in the last 2-3 days is not right. To me, a proper and fair and by-the-rules process is everything. As can be seen many times even in this page over the last 11 months, when the process is proper, I am at 100% at peace with the outcome even when it is the exact opposite of what I wanted. But when I see what has been done to the process over the last 2-3 days, (in my mind it is an attempted corruption of the process to achieve a particular end) to me it is an issue that is important enough for me to shed my blood over to get a proper process for the sake of Wikipedia. If we don't have that, we're like Somalia. Well, there's a look inside of my brain on this! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So you prefer that we accept Sarek's close and that I proceed to establish a new widely advertised RfC to propose the reinstation of "not truth"? It is obvious that consensus is not for the proposed change. You supporters should be working on how to improve the policy to take care of the problems you perceive in a way that can garner consensus. Not on lawyering a procedure to pass a change that doesn't currently have consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

@Maunus, you saying It is obvious that consensus is not for the proposed change doesn't make that true. It looks like it was about 65-30 before the shat hit the fan and everybody else showed up. Just an observation. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they did show up, and that is the situation we have to deal with now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

it just seems that after one of these types of RFCs becomes heated or contested or ANIed, folks show up and vote along "party" lines if you will :) I would toss out all the comments and votes after the 24th or so, but thats just me. Best of luck to all with this--68.9.119.69 (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That would also be an idea, though I don't agree with your assessment of the RFC results. But I already wrote something else below. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point, my gut feel is that the proposal should be put into it's original form (including title)(as it was during its run) , make notices about it elsewhere accurate and neutral, run much longer (another 2 weeks?), and then get closed by a consensus-selected uninvolved, neutral, thorough, experienced person or trio of persons. It would need to be someone willing to spend many hours reviewing this whole thing. One complexity is that being a compromise proposal, weary persons who have been debating this continuously for a year put only brief comments when they weighed in rather than repeating everything that they said, so a review of the history here is also important. Or possibly folks should be urged to succinctly expand their comments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As a latecomer I have to agree with talk. This is a decision that affects many of us editors throughout Wikipedia. I was busy editing and didn't catch the memo. I wonder if others are feeling the same way. This looks like a hugely important debate. It is wonderful to see so many people flocking under the banner of truth and obviously it is something that many of us value. To help resolve the debate among so many people, ground rules need to be set before hand on what is meant by a consensus. There are other proposals and suggestions that could be moved forward and this is the discussion that needs to take place to organize the collective mass that has arrived late.Thompsma (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning regarding edit warring

Note that the page is currently protected to stop edit warring. A request was also filed to protect Template:CENT. I have declined that request as I don't believe we should allow this edit war to do such collateral damage. So, you all can keep edit warring there, and you all will be blocked. Note that having consensus on your side is not a free pass to edit war and anyone who continues will be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if an admin would consider removing the, um, pretty picture that was added to the page? (If nothing else, it really offends me when administrators edit through full protection for something other than a non-controversial and necessary fix.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

rfcid

Continuing to review the edits at the start of the RfC, was it necessary that a new rfcid be assigned?  What was wrong with the original one?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC bot tags

SV states at WP:AN, "...I also note no one had added the RfC tags for the bot (I have just added them), so this was not advertised the way RfCs normally are."  Can someone explain this issue or point me in the right direction?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly this Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Procedural#RfC management, RfC bot tags.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC development time line

• November 25, 2010 current round of continuous active discussion on the first sentence began
• June 15th, 2011 The largest of many many RFC's and polls closes. It was for a specific change that totally eliminated "not truth". Basically a tie....no consensus to keep "not truth", no consensuses to remove "not truth"
• August 19th, 2011 First subpage Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence is created. Another poll subpage subsequently was created.
• August 31st, 2011 (approx, undated) Blueboar creates first draft of what will become the current RFC. This is one of many but (IMHO) because it is the first "reach across the aisle" proposal (in addition to it's merits) it gains support and becomes prominent and the primary proposal draft. Review of the proposal, including of proposed changes to it begins. Minor changes are made, but no major proposed changes gain support of even a few people.
• October 5, 2011 Proposal becomes the RFC, goes live.

North8000 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The kind of change I would like to see

I intend this section to be for proposals for how to make a kind of change that incorporates the concerns about misuse of WP:TRUTH and the wish to keep the basic principle.

• I would support a proposal that makes it clear that verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for inclusion of information in an article AND that the decision of including a piece of verifiable information has to be based on whether the view is significant, not whether it is objectively correct. I think this can be done by including a description of what is meant by the V not T slogan after the first sentence of the guideline. Such a phrase should both deter usages of the slogan to keep insignificant sourced views "because they are verifiable" and it should deter the usage of the slogan to remove verifiable information "because its not true". I.e. it should clearly establish the kind of reasoning that is acceptable when arguing for inclusion or exclusion of information based on "V not T". Basically I think that it is impossible to avoid that some users misuse the essay in one of the problematic ways, but it is possible to make it very easy for others to spot when it is being misused, by explicitly stating how not to use it (i.e. neither to support original research based on primary sources nor to justify inclusion of insignificant/erroneous but verifiable views).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I would support that too, and I believe it was suggested some months ago here as a compromise. It would (a) retain "verifiability, not truth" in the first sentence, which a significant number of people support, but (b) would make clear that verifiability is a necessary conditon for inclusion, not a sufficient one. And (c) by emphasizing that the decision to include material has to be based on significance, we make clear the relationship between V and NPOV, particularly UNDUE. There was a suggestion in August to achieve some or all of this by linking to an essay, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, in the first sentence like this, then building that up to make those points, if it doesn't already. But I would be fine with making them explicitly in this policy too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

These implicitly say to ignore the current compromise RFC. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've now reviewed some of the history of this debate going back months. Suggestions like these were made and inevitably rejected in those discussions, as you both know since you were involved at different times. After months of fiddling with language the current RfC suggestion is what appears to have pleased more people than any other suggestion. I get you two don't like it. Great so express your thoughts in the oppose section, but don't try to bully everyone else back into line with the type of discussion you want. That's not how consensus building works. Not after months of clearly frustrating work done by a great number of other editors. Let this RfC run its course, indeed you should have let it do so already, but that's another matter, and if you don't like the final product start up a new conversation. But please don't hijack this one like this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain how expressing one's opinion and providing a suggestion on an improvement to the proposal is "bullying"? We have been presented with a "final product" and been asked to say yes or no. We are saying no thanks - why should we not then propose a what we see as a better solution that might have a broader appeal? Something that could me more of a real compromise than what we are presented with here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, why not let this RfC end before trying to forge ahead? In my view you are acting as if months worth of conversation between many editors from very different perspectives (plenty who didn't want to change anything as well) is worthless and doesn't deserve even to be seen to fruition. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any need to change the policy. So far, I have not seen an example of an editor knowingly adding information to an article that was wrong simply on the basis of verifiability. And certainly not on a scale that warrants a change to this policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So, essentially...

Slimvirgin unilaterally changed the title of the RfC and also added information to the proposal in a spot that made it seem like Blueboar had wrote it. And then, at some other point, added information and actually put on Blueboar's signature to it, when she was the one that wrote it. Do I have everything right thus far? Silverseren^C 18:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, on the first two points. Not sure about the third one, though. Yes, on the first point, apparently not on the final two. It's hard to follow all of these discussions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Slimvirgin has done admirably at obfuscating the RfC, not that I expected anything less. The wording at ANI and elsewhere so as to make people coming in to the RfC think it was about removing not truth from this policy altogether. And the adding of that paragraph to the RfC as well, so as to make it seem like Blueboar was doing the same. This is all very in line with what I expected. Silverseren^C 18:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny how reality always seem to align perfectly with one's preconceived notions... Thanks for sharing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that is wrong, and I'd really appreciate if these accusations would stop. WhatamIdoing added the extra words on Oct 13, [9] as has been explained above, because Blueboar had not added a summary for the RfC bot. So WhatamIdoing did it instead.

I then copied BB's signature and original timestamp below that summary on Oct 28 [10] (believing he had written it, and therefore not wanting to add my own signature and timestamp). I did this because the bot reproduces everything before the first signature, and I had asked the bot to add the RfC to more pages. It's quite normal to move signatures around for the RfC bot; so long as you don't change the timestamp (which would make it seem as though the person had re-signed), it's not an issue, and I had no reason to believe the summary was not written by BB.

What you are witnessing was an attempt to spread notification of the RfC via the bot (and elsewhere), and to format it properly for that purpose. If you would AGF just a little, you would see that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Then what exactly is the issue with Blueboar removing information that he didn't add to the proposal? I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to remove it. Furthermore, the information that the RfC bot is spreading is wholly incorrect in terms of what the RfC is actually about. Silverseren^C 20:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you refer to what the RFC bot is currently finding on this page, I think that "incomprehensible" is a far better description than "incorrect". (Do take a look: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's my motion (or whatever you call it)

Consider Sarek's close to be the close with respect to what sits in the policy pending a potential further RFC. There is obviously no consensus to keep the current version, and there is clearly a majority and most would say a consensus (both before an after the recent burst of opposes) for the proposed version over the current version. Arguable, one brief question/comment a long time ago does not make on "involved", and there is no 30 day rule, especially since the extensive comments had dried up, and there was no objection or mention of this while the "time to close?" question floated for two days. The vastly preferred version would sit in there pending a possible new RFC by folks what want to reverse it or make further changes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are calling for agree/don't responses you might want to re-factor this motion a bit, as it is hard for people to give simple responses to something in a relatively narrative form.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes

North8000 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No

The presumption with articles, a fortiori policies, is that they remain as is unless there is agreement to delete or change them. We don't need a proposal, or RfC, to find out whether there is a consensus to keep anything. What we do need is a consensus to change it. If we reach a consensus to change any part of this policy, we change it. As long as there is no consensus to change it, we don't change it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For me, the entire process became null and avoid the moment the proposal was refactored. Start again, with a clean slate on the original wording proposal and announce it properly. Why not use the process that tells us all about Arbcom elections or the Wiki meet ups in Edinburgh and Liverpool? Leaky Caldron 20:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

mmmm, It's just appeared in my Watchlist options and notices. Leaky Caldron 21:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So far there is no consensus for the proposed wording. There are also meaningful worries that this RFC, which has to do with the wording of a core content policy, was not seen by a wide enough swath of editors to begin with. There are also worries that the outcome is muddied anyway, both by good faith mistakes in how the RFC was put forth and in how editors went into backs and forths hoping to "fix" it. I don't think it can be fixed. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Gwen... this RfC was advertised at the Village Pump back on Oct. 6th... it was also advertised that same day at WT:NPOV and WT:NOR (the other two of the "big three" core polices). Notice was posted to the WP:Centralized discussion page, and it was listed at the RfC notification page. In the first day alone it received over 50 comments. So tell me... if this wasn't seen by a wide enough swath of editors, where else should I have posted a notice? Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

On the Watchlist options and notices, which has just been done. Village Pump has a fairly narrow interest group, I think and not everyone has those pages on their watchlist. A proposed change to WP:5P should have been notified in the widest possible manner. If Wiki meetups can receive that treatment surely you can agree that changing WP:V can be published there. Leaky Caldron 22:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain (for my future reference) how I (as a non-admin) would go about placing a notice on Watchlist options etc. If it is not something that I can do myself... Where do I go to request that it be done? Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

They can be added by an admin at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, after being asked for on the talk page there. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• We gain nothing by having a core policy with a wording that only 4 out of seven editors agree with.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me if I missed something in the math calculations, but wouldn't that mean having a wording that only 3 out of seven editors agree with is even worse? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Bizarre logic that is.Griswaldo (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Except I am not arguing for status quo, I am arguing for a change that more people than 4 in seven can agree with.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two flaws with Til Eulenspiegel's point. First, when someone wishes to change a policy, it is for them to seek consensus. Second, it may be possible to redress some of the concerns that cause people to be unhappy with the placement of "... not truth" in the first sentence, without requiring a major change (def+any change that requires an RfC).

North, Tryptofish and Blueboar will tell me that they tried to come up with such a change over several months before the RfC with no success. I think that the lack of consensus, even when Sarek closed it, shows that all people who want to remove "...not truth" from the lead have to accept that this is so important to the policy, that it will be in the lead. Now the question is, what, specifically, is wrong with it? In some cases, editors flat out demand that truth be our objective. This has never been the standard for WP. Some editors accept this, but believe that the current wording still makes it easy for editors to produce misleading articles. I believe that we can address this without major revisions. And some editors feel the idea is not propery or clearly explained, and this too I think we can address without major revisions. As long as people are willing to explore these latter two options, I believe we can reach consensus on changes.

I think the underlying problem has to do with an exponential grwoth of the community. In the early years, the proportion of veteran editors was large enough that and the number of new editors small enough that plenty of veterans were collaborating with newbies and took the time to explain why our policies are what they ar, and how they can work. At some point in time, we passed a tipping-point. Now there are plenty of articles edited by newcomers who almost never interact with veterans. It is now much harder if not impossible for newcomers to learn our ways through interaction with people who have been here since 01-04 or 05. Since that time the number of editors has really taken off, which means that one can spend years editing with other people who arrived just as recently. Many of these people have read or policies, some have not, and reading is often not enough to provide a satisfactory explanation. This is a change in the culture of the community. It creates a crisis in the transmission of core values. But I prefer to be optimistic: all these newcomers, and new articles, do raise questions about what we really mean by our policies, that the people who wrote them never considered.

Are there any alternatives that might prove satisfactory to more people from both "sides"? I haven't been following this long, but has anyone ever suggested clarifying the phrase to read "verifiability, not perceived truth"? (or "verifiability, not various perceptions of truth"?) That might go some way toward the argument that the word truth is being used in a specific nuance while being vague about that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Or even more amplified, perhaps, "verifiability - not necessarily what any one editor perceives as the truth"...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yap, I agree with you - that the word Truth must be clarified precisely - actually this is clarified in two another documents: WP:Truth and WP:Original - but I think there should be something more concise and that should be in WP:Verify - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would just note that all truths are perceived or believed truths, even if everyone we know believes them. Til Eulenspiegel, I do not know whether you will consider this a real response to your question/suggestion, but it is meant to be. I have long felt the wording of V misses an important step. We say that we have to verify stuff from reliable sources. A big criticism of the policy (a criticism of the effect, not the wording - I think the best method is first to look at problematic effects and then ask if they can be blamed on the wording/how to improve the wording) is that it leads WP to publish anything that has been published elsewhere. This is a broad criticism but it has some truth to it - many articles use quotes out of context, or use reliable sources that for one reason or another happen not to be the best or even appropriate source. Personally, I think that before we link to RS in the policy, we need to make clear that what people are verifying are "significiant views" (an idea that comes from NOR). These can be views about what is true or false, but also about what is right r wrong, good or bad, beautiful or ugly i.e. any value. Then we should say that we verify that these are significant views through reliable sources. I think the benefit of adding this kind of sentence to the introduction of the policy is that it provides an anchor for including other criteria for "verification" besides "reliable sources" - guidance as to which RS is appropriate, that we need to provide enough information so that readers can verify not only that someone said or wrote it, but that what they said is significant, and enough information to assess how significant (e.g., virtually all scholars in the life and human sciences agree that human beings are descended from a single-cell organism, which makes this kind of claim about as significant as possible. But scholars are divided as to whether the gene or the species is the principal unit of evolution, and sscholars are divided as to what human behaviors can be explained by evolution - these views are significant, but only in the context of other, different views that are equally significant). this at least is how I would handle it. But I wish to make clear that I do think that V sometimes does not have the effect it is meant to have, and that this does require some change. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have faith ("faith" = "commitment," not "blind acceptance," in my culture) in our core policies. But for me this faith does not mean we must never alter them, it means I am confident that they can apply to any major problem we as editors face. I do believe that as we face new problems, some things need to be explained better, in some cases differently. I still believe a wiki-pedia cannot make it its editors' job to determine the truth or falisity of claims. I think this needs to be stated in the first or second sentence of this policy, followed by an explanation of why not, and an explanation of what, then, we can and should do. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere above, someone whose signature seems to have been lost in the formatting (and I'm not interested in going through the edit history to see who it was) talks about "North, Tryptofish and Blueboar will tell me that they tried to come up with such a change over several months before the RfC with no success." I'm not sure how the three of us were conflated into a single group, and I've lost track in the tl;dr of what "such a change" even refers to, but each of the three of us took different positions in trying to find a compromise that might satisfy the community, and I was considerably less enthusiastic about any change to the status quo than the other two editors were. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I ever wrote the line to which you refer, but this was my impression, so thank you for clarifying it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What constitutes consensus?

Going solely by the numbers, I see 88 in favor of this change, 59 against the change and 4 who are neutral (as of this writing). 58% is clearly a majority, but I'm not sure that constitutes concensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For RFAs, support must come in somewhere between 70% and 80%, with a bit more weight given to sundry comments, maybe. For a core policy wording shift which has been as fraught with woe as this one, I'd say consensus, with weight given for comments, would need to be closer to 80%. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's one opinion, and what is it based on? Also baring a policy/guideline addressing RfC consensus specifically this is clearly the applicable policy - WP:CON. Specific percentages looked for at RfA have nothing to do with a request for comment. Why not ask what the correct percentage is at AfD (as opposed to RfA)? At least that question arrives at the correct answer, per the policy I linked, that it isn't a vote count. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep this RfC open for 30 days or more, and allow SV to request the MediaWiki site notice to advertise it more widely. We want more opinions, not less. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, keeping it open longer could help, the mess might tidy itself (or not). Griswaldo, I think you'll find that the threshold for consensus here is high, wontedly somewhere near 75% support through meaningful, good faith comments. I've never seen something closed as consensus on en.WP with a simple majority, taken as a vote or otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you are not familiar with the AfD process which often dips below 75% without defaulting to non consensus. Also, your characterization of this as a serious change ("core policy wording shift") is misleading. It's a minor word change meant to clarify the existing policy and not to alter it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also there's a a daisy chain effect between 2 arguable points. Saying that such a super-duper majority is needed to make a wording change which is just a clarification. And then defining the super-duper -majority as such a high number. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)AfD is not the same thing as RfC for a policy change. Usually articles are deleted for reasons that are easy to anchor to policies. We descide the result of an AfD based on the number of votes weighted according to the validity of their arguments for deletion according to recognized criteria. I think it is pretty obvious that the threshold for changing policy ought to be higher than the threshold for deleting the article. Where Griswaldo and I may agree is that after an RfC on policy, it is essential to discuss the comments, and not view it as a straight up-down vote. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

North800 has inadvertently touched upon something that has brought us to this point. It is almost impossible to make a wording change to these policies without having years of discussion. There needs to be a fast track route so that the editors who wish to make simple changes to improve the clarity of the policy can do so without having to spend years of their lives embroiled in a dispute. We need something like a Wiki-wide referendum to make these changes. The current process obviously doesn't work. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)There is no major change to policy here, just a slight clarification in the wording aimed at the same meaning the policy is supposed to have now. That's not to say that opposing the change isn't legitimate, since it is, but characterizing it like this is inaccurate. Policies are clarified all the time without RfCs, and without huge super-majorities of large numerical scale. That's usually how it happens in fact. The only difference here is that this word change has been contentious. So it is inaccurate to insinuate that policy page changes usually require or should require this kind of input first. The present circumstances are brought on by the fact of contention not the fact of being a policy page.Griswaldo (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure - changes to substance requires consensus, but not all changes are substantive. I definitely do not think that any change this policy requires consensus! But people may disagree as to the seriousness of this particular proposed change. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Things tend to bog down when there is no consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not saying I'm for or against that, but that will be an equally lengthy process in and of itself.∞陣内Jinnai 21:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Less than 70% support for a Policy change does not meet any standard of Consensus, unless there is some overriding Policy issue involved (such as in XfD's, where the Policies are more important than the number of iVotes). Consensus requires a "higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to Policies and guidelines than to other types of articles." Less than 70%, 75% or even 80% is certainly not a 'higher standard'. For example, Bureaucrat elections have an 85% support threshold - how can major Policy changes have any less?

And yes, this is a major change; saying right up front that the threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth" is a significant and important criteria for this policy. Truth is a powerful thing, but it is extremely subjective. Too many times have I seen edit wars and angry editors trying to oppose or promote 'truth' over verification. "Verifiability, not truth" is a powerful statement, and one that sticks with you, and it needs to be prominently stated, not hidden somewhere down in the policy. Happy Melon above says it well "the simple phrase "verifiability, not truth" is one of the handful of iconic phrases that define Wikipedia", and Olive's "The phrase "verifiable not truth" has enormous impact first because of its placement, it opens the policy, and second because it is highly succinct and memorable." and CWinger's compelling testimony "I think the current wording is more powerful, with the emphasis that Wikipedia is not seeking "the truth". I remember that made a major impression on me as a new Wikipedian." So yes, a signficant change indeed. One that requires a high level of consensus. Dreadstar ☥ 21:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that the anti-change party's best hope is for a "no consensus for change". It's only to be expected that people with that opinion will say an 70% majority is necessary, and that no account should be taken of the gamesmanship involved in engineering this outcome. My position is obviously otherwise. If we wanted a supermajority for every contested change to a policy, and we also said that an involved editor could summarily revert a close and reopen the discussion and readvertise it using different language without sanction, then we might as well decide that our policy pages are graven in stone and lock them all down as they are. In my opinion, Sarek was not "involved" by reason of that one comment. It follows that the revert of his close was spurious, and that Sarek's close should therefore be restored as the new consensus version. The subsequent discussion should be taken as a separate RFC about whether to restore the previous version. Thus we have an outcome consistent with normal custom and practice and we have the satisfaction of seeing the gamesmanship fail to achieve its end.—S Marshall T/C 22:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also, that leaves the version favored by the vast majority in place pending any further proposal or RFC's, including any to reverse. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is Policy and Consensus that laid out the percentages and timelines I mention above, not disgruntled, game-playing "anti-change party" members - whoever they may be. I for one am getting tired of the constant accusations and attacks. Take it up the chain if you feel that strongly about it, but quit complaining about it here. Dreadstar ☥ 22:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Do please feel free to show us any policy that specifies any minimum required percentage for changes to policies or guidelines.

And I'd like to add that IAR itself, one of the most cherished and widely supported policies, received only about 85% support, which is one of the highest levels ever. It is unrealistic to expect any significant policy change to receive that much support, much less more than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Any chance of actual consensus on the issue has been thoroughly destroyed after the badly worded notifications that were made. We should just go with the proper close that was already done. The only reason there was opposition to it was because the people who disagreed with the changes didn't get the close they wanted. Silverseren^C 22:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for Sarek's close, and that's significant on its lonesome. Additionally, I don't think it was a valid close to begin with, which makes it even less likely it will be restored. And what, we disenfranchise all the editors who have voted since that time? Bad idea, bad precedent. The RFC should have run for the full 30 days, you can't get past that. Dreadstar ☥ 22:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Except all of the voters since then have, based on how they worded their votes, likely been influenced by the incorrect wording put on various noticeboards. Silverseren^C 22:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would be true if SV's wording had been incorrect, however it was more accurate than the current/original RFC title. Even if SV's wording was biased or incorrect, it is obvious from reading the oppose votes since then that they do indeed get it, iow, they understand what this RFC is all about. So I don't think concerns over SV's wording are valid. Dreadstar ☥ 22:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the RfC title, i'm talking about the wording of notifications that made it seem like this was a proposal to remove the "Verifiability, not truth" phrase from this policy completely, when it is not. It is moving it to a lower part of the policy, where it can be fully explained and not be misinterpreted as it is so often by new users and by the media. Silverseren^C 22:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of the oppose comments since then clearly talk about the positioning of the phrase, several that I pointed out here; so I don't see that as a major issue. And indeed, the first step to getting rid of a comment is to bury it; although I try to AGF about that.  :) Dreadstar ☥ 23:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As I explained here, I think we should accept the proposed version. Putting asside my ow opnion of what I prefer (I would prefer much more radical change than what is proposed now), the reason why 58% is good enough for accepting the change in the text in this case is because of a combination of a few factors. The current version has less than 50% support, and the people who are unhappy with the present version are not going to "agree to disagree" and drop the matter, i.e. the discussions will go on. But the people who want to stick with the present version don't like endless discussions with no end in sight. The problem for them is that because they are in the minority, they can't stop those discussions, in fact they are always under pressure to participate in RFCs on this matter. Which is why they would rather want this all to end once and for all.

Then, if you have something that has close to 60% support, it is easier to discuss further changes from there in a calmer way. The version is more stable, you then don't get this effect where people who would rather do something else, feel pressured to yet again give their opinion here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dreadstar: No. I'm afraid you aren't going to get me to shut up about gamesmanship on this page. I'm still much, much too angry about it, and as you can see from this page, I'm far from the only one—editors on all sides of the debate are concerned. Yes, I do think the matter will need to go to dispute resolution as a separate matter. I observe that SlimVirgin has already been desysopped by Arbcom for summarily reverting her fellow admins once, and I think we're looking at an established pattern of behaviour from her. But the fact that dispute resolution will happen once this RFC has closed, does not mean that the gamesmanship shouldn't be mentioned here. It absolutely should. The fact that there's been gamesmanship should be reflected in the outcome. I understand why you, as a change-opposer, don't want me to keep saying this, but I'm afraid that's tough luck.—S Marshall T/C 22:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course you're free to do as you please, I'm merely pointing out the proper process for this type of thing. And there was no use of Admin tools in this affair, so the ArbCom case you mention doesn't apply. To me, your continued, angry, threatening, accusing comments merely weaken your position, so it's no skin off my teeth. I've been down that path a few times meself... :) Dreadstar ☥ 22:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm certainly very angry about it indeed, and I'm certainly spitting the same accusation again and again like a machinegun, but I don't think I'm threatening. Just accusing and angry, and mentioning dispute resolution when you specifically prompted me about it. Please don't get the wrong idea about me: I'm actually a very reasonable man and even though I've been here and working in contentious areas of the encyclopaedia for much too long, I've never been to DR and I have a pristine block log. You just happen to have met me on one of the very few occasions when I've really lost my temper.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I totally understand and sympathize; may we meet in less volatile situations in the future! Dreadstar ☥ 23:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

3:2 is called a landslide in the real world, that means 50% more on one side compared to the other. That's 60% of the total. Anything higher than that is preposterous. Someone said 75%, that would be 3:1 in favor of the change!; a tactic for preventing any change.North8000 (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And yet we manage to have admins appointed never with a consensus below 70%. The ideal consensus is closer to 100% than 51%. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Appointing someone to a power has nothing to do with re-arranging wording. And in real politics, a majority is all that is necessary for running anyways. But, of course, that's when it's a competition, but adminship isn't, it's a bit different from that and applies to neither a competition or this RfC. Silverseren^C 01:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Landslides in US presidential elections are a quirk of the electoral college system, they happen because a small percentage majority in votes, state by state, can cause a "landslide" of states going to the candidate, who winds up taking, 47 or 48 states in the electoral college with only a 3 or 4 percent majority. US presidents aren't elected by consensus. Not the same thing at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That percentage (>75%) is like something you would require for a constitutional amendment, where you are fundamentally changing the nature of something. But that's not what we're doing here. What we're doing is a rearrangement, a reordering. That's something that should only require a simple majority or, if really necessary, somewhere around a 60% support ratio. Silverseren^C 01:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that is exactly what we are doing. We are making a fundamental change to a core policy - the closest thing wikipedia has to a constitution. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

But we aren't changing anything, we're just moving it to a different location on the page. Yes, we're removing the idiom from the lede, but we're using it elsewhere accompanied by a more explanatory paragraph that is to reduce confusion that stems from the idiom itself. Nothing is actually being changed, WP:V still means the exact same thing it did before, the policy page just explains it better with the change. Silverseren^C 02:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've argued at some length above (now archived) why I don't think that argument holds. The motivation for the change is to allow for a specific kind of editing that takes "truth" as its starting point, and which I think will inevitably result in Or problems becoming more rampant than they already are. If the change has no consequence as you say then why would the supporters even bother to instate it? There is some kind of logical disconnect in the argument you are making. This is not just moving information - it is moving information for a reason. The reason is the problem, and what makes it a major change.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly a change. If it were a simple reordering of words, there wouldn't be a problem. This goes beyond that, moving (and indeed changing} one of the core, prominent, iconic and memorable statements of policy. That's major. Dreadstar ☥ 02:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the new section is incorrect in how it explains the phrase? Moving a phrase from the lead to another section of the entry isn't exactly like changing the constitution.Griswaldo (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I covered that issue in some detail here. Dreadstar ☥ 02:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For good or ill, Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS rules all - we don't do things by simple majority or a straight up or down vote. Consensus is generally determined by strength of argument and adherence to Policy, if there are good arguments on both sides, then the number of supporters may come into play. Generally, as a rule of thumb, those numbers are, for example, 70% support for passing an WP:RFA and 85% for WP:RFB, there no mathematical consensus percentage at 60% that I know of. Dreadstar ☥ 02:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is WP:RFC and your percentages are meaningless. Read WP:CON which is the actual policy that governs consensus and tell me where your magical percentages are. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said WP:CON contained 'magical percentages"...lol....the percentages I'm pointing out are standards accepted by a majority of editors, depending on circumstances, and are not meaningless, obviously. As a matter of fact, it makes those percentages actual consensus in the areas I referred to above. I'm saying I haven't seen such a low percentage as say, 60%, define anything consensus-wise on WP. But then, I haven't seen everything.... :) What WP:CON does say is this, "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to Policies and guidelines than to other types of articles." A statement that I thinks makes clear that we do indeed need a higher level of consensus to make changes in policy, a higher level than...what? I say as high or higher than RFA or possibly even RFB. Certainly not 60% or less. Dreadstar ☥ 02:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, from WP:Consensus: Consensus, on Wikipedia, is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. In other words, consensus will tend to be closer to unanimity than 50/50 (zero consensus either way), which is why "at least 75%" gets brought up so often. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. How much consensus does it need to introduce a change in an run of the mill article in a dispute? 2 against one is usually enough yes, but 3 against 2? (rarely), 3 against 4 (never), etc. This is the relevant measure. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus's reasoning here, and definitely think that consensus should be closer to 100% than it should be to 50%, and 60/40 is not close enough. I did vote oppose, but this is something I've always felt very strongly about. I think if an argument is truly well reasoned, then it should not be unreasonable to expect that it convince more than 70% of a given sample of people. N^oformation ^Talk 02:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What matters is what we want to achieve. The ball is in the opposer's court. They can't have it both ways. Either let Blueboar's proposal be implemented with the 60% or so votes and then one can move on with discussions about furher changes which are then less urgent. Or oppose the changes, but then you'll have to deal with far more freqeunt discussions about this "not truth" issue all over again with RFC posted quite frequently about new proposals.

Note that asking random Wikipedians whether or not "Not Truth" should be removed will yield a 50-50 split. That was observed in discussions here quite a while ago. This issue is contentious, because there is a drive by editors to actually edit this policy page to actually get it changed. In case of some other policy page, you may also have such 50-50 split when putting forward some proposal, but there will then not be such a drive among editors to actually change things. I.e. the 50% who would find the proposal better won't find the present wording so bad that they would be motivated to get it changed.

In this case, because there is a determined effort by the people opposed to "Not Truth" in the first sentence, the fact that there is 50% support for the status quo is not a healthy situation. Then the best thing to do is to try to get a compromize proposal, and that is what Blueboar did. Now, it's then not simply the wording of the compromize that convinces people to support it, it is also the fact that people can see that this moves the process forward. So, if you think that the new proposal is just as good as the old one, you may have intitially voted against (because why fix something if it ain't broke), but now you would support this in order to move the process forward.

The people who voted before SlimVirgin placed the additional notifications were more aware of the long discussions on this page, and they would then tend not to be a priori negative about Blueboar's proposal (if it is ok. then you would not oppose just because the old version is also ok.). We have 31 people against and 66 people in favor till that moment. The people who voted since that time split approximately 50-50, precisely what you would expect when you confront people with this question for the first time. We have 42 opposers and 35 people in favor since the notifications by SlimVirgin.

Suppose then that the RFC is to be closed as no consenus. Then that won't stop the discussions and the edits to this policy page. It is likely that the people who want to change things will do so with more vigor, because they have seen that they can get to 70-30 instead of being stuck at 50-50. So, the pressure the opposers will face is a lot greater than what it was before Blueboar started his effort. Count Iblis (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got it wrong. "opposers" aren't just opposing change - we're opposing this particular change. Of course we can go on to make other proposals for how to change policy in a way that solves the problem of some editors abusing this policy, and eventually one of them will achieve real consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so you have this choice of continuing the discussions about that issue. What won't work is closing these discussions while keeping the wording as it is now. Before Blueboar started his work, some people here were getting sick and tired of having to continue the discussions and they were invoking WP:DEADHORSE, but that doesn't really work if there is just 50% support for the status quo. Count Iblis (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting analysis but you are making some assumptions. For example, don't assume that editors who have not commented recently have not been watching this page for a long time, but were reluctant to jump into the fray until now. The fundamental issues are no necessarily unclear to those who have commented with out benefit of the long drawn out discussion. In fact I'm not convinced such discussions can cloud the issues. Just a few thoughts to add into the mix.(olive (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC))

Sorry, but the spectre of "far more freqeunt discussions about this...with RFC posted quite frequently about new proposals...with more vigor" just doesn't override WP:CON. It may even be close to threatening WP:DISRUPT; not that I take it that way, but really....  :) And, perhaps someone will come up with a proposal that gains consensus. Perhaps even this one will, it ain't over till it's over. I was certainly aware of the long discussions both here and on the subpage, but after a while, it was just tiring to watch. Which is probably why I missed the RFC. 04:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

With all the other safeguard policies and "checks" regarding what is even to be considered "verifiable" (WP:RSN, for instance), I still find it difficult to believe that this simple phrase of "not truth" (that is there to "startle" and then be explored by the uninitiated by further analyzing policies and guidelines - which is crucial) causes so many problems. Why have so many understood it for the last six years? Why do we even have to get into what is really "truth" vs "untruth"? If anyone can convince me otherwise: I will happily change my vote. Doc talk 05:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Like the literature from which it is drawn, en.WP is awash in reliably sourced "untruths." Knowingly posting a cited "untruth" to en.WP is blockably bad faith. Mistakenly posting a cited "untruth" to en.WP can be handled through policies such as WP:RS, WP:BLP and consensus sooner or later. Meanwhile, the first meaningful threshold of inclusion is that a reader can verify (truly check) a cited source which has been put forth in good faith as reliable, rather than rely on the outcome of some editor's own original research as to what's truth and what's not. There is likely only one truth but the pith is, our knowledge and understanding of it is tightly bounded and shifting. Hence verifiability, not truth has been and is a core policy of this website. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

3:2 is a landslide (which is 60%). Anything higher than that would never be achieved for any issue where there is a division of opinion, and could be used to block any contested change. "Not truth" got put in there by one person with little or no discussion, got into its current context in a similar manner. Now there is a landslide opinion for a compromise which moves it and explains it. This blockage attempt requires that 3 items (2 off them being very shaky at best) all be true:

1. That shifting and explaining the term is a major change in policy
2. That such requires a consensus (this one is fine)
3. That a a "consensus" is some impossible-for-any-contested-issue 2.33:1 (which is what 70% is) super-duper majority, and by a process where posting it here, at the pump, in centralized discussion and some other policy pages is not considered "enough notice".

By that standard the insertion and elevation "not truth" did not have even 1/100th of the process/support required and so it should immediately get completely removed/reverted. (or as a minimum, go with the compromise which passed by a landslide) North8000 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can (and does) change. If you think that the phrase should get completely removed/reverted because of the "1/100" factor many years ago: go for it. No compromise passed by any landslide, and the votes are still being cast. Doc talk 11:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am very troubled by some "side remarks" some people keep repeating. An RfC is not a "vote," it is a request for outside comments; it is not a substitute for collaborative editing ivnvolving anyone who wishes to participate, it is a part of the process, and that process involves following RfCs with discussions of the comments and renewed attempts to seek a consensus, if not for the proposed change, then for whatever change can achieve a consensus.

It is unfair and unproductive to lump all people opposed to the RfC as an "anti-change part" because they do not form a party, and are not uniformly or unanimously opposed to change. It is unfair and unconstructive to continue to insist that they are "gaming the system" when what one really means is "they have frustrated my desire." I know that some people sincerely believe that the proposed change is minor and we don't need consensus, or that the proposed change is major but that as of a few days ago there was a consensus. S. Marshall admits she is angry and can no longer assume good faith (or, at least, felt this way yesterday) and I know others feel the same way. I truly believe that S. Marshall and others believe that their views are the product of recent experiences, and in fact accept that this is so up to a point. But past a certain point these beliefs become the cause of the conflict.

That is what "assume good faith" is all about. It does not mean that in your heart of hearts, or based on a careful analysis of all of the data, you have proof that everyone is acting in good faith. It is not a "truth claim," an assertion that it is true that everyone is acting in good faith. It is a pragmatic position. When editing with strangers who have radically different views of what is true and false, right and wrong, the only way to collaborate is to act as if you believed everyone else is acting in good faith. North has made it very clear that she thinks I am just bullshitting and maybe others here do too. Maybe one reason is that they detect that I am not really sure that others are acting in good faith, even when I say that I do. If this is the case, let me be clear: I do not know whether North, Marshall, Silverseren are acting in good faith. But I do know — I must "truly believe" — that if I am to achieve anything at Wikipedia, I must strive to act as if I believe that marshall, north, Silver are acting in good faith. I must make my heart believe this, at least for the duration of my on-line activity. If we cannot do this, the project cannot work. Doing it is a pragmatic position.

If an editor, regardless of what he or she actually believes, is not capable of acting as if i.e. "assuming" all other principal editors are acting in good faith, then there is no point in participating in this discussion. I am writing these words because I am bracketing my emotions and my gut feelings, and am manning up and assuming good faith for the sake of the project. If this is not good enough for the pious, well, sorry, but it is both the best I can do and all that i am required to do. It is also what you are required to do as well. I know that between some editors there is years of animosity and cynicism. I also believe that trolls exist and one way or another need to be driven away from Wikipedia. But the fact is, Slim Virgin, SilverSeren, Tryptofish, S. Marshall and I have been editing here for years and have not been banned so we are not trolls, no matter how we feel. That requires us to assume good faith on one another's part.

And the consequence of assuming good faith is this: even if you think that there is no conceivable rational or sensible way that an adult human being who suffers from no cognitive impariment can possibly think that this is a major change, or that we do not have consensus, we have to accept the fact that other editors acting in good faith think you are wrong. I acknowledge that rationale adults sincerely believe this is a minor proposal and that there was a consensus. I really am capable of assuming good tfaith and accepting that some editors here see the world differently from me (if you do not believe me, maybe it is because you are incapable of assuming such good faith yourself). We just have radically different understandings of what is going on here. And if it were just me, I would walk away. But there are many experienced editors who share my views.

'And this is the proof that we do not have consensus! This is what consensus is all about! From my reading of the above, Silver Seren and S. Marshall are so convinced that they are right, that they simply discount anyone who does not look at things the way they do as alien subversives, people with some hidden agenda to disrupt, which means that they do not count and once you subtract them you are left with your precious consensus. But we do not reach a consensus by villifying people we do not agree with or do not even understand. That is not an authentic consensus. The fact that you feel so frustrated and cheated of the victory you believe you had achieved simply shows that there actually is no consensus.

This is my "faith:" Wikipedia does not view a lack of consensus as a problem (let alone an evil). In seeking to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it assumes that editors will be divided on all sorts of issues, divided most passionately, divided to the core of what they believe is true or good. That this occurs at any article or on this talk page is not a failure, it is the expected state of affairs. Since it is not a failure or an evil, no one is to blame. The first motive behind our policies is to create a framework for people who are so passionately divided that they cannot even comprehend how someone else can believe ... ( ... in a theistic god or no god, in Darwinian evolution or creationism, that GW Bush was one of the greatest US presidents of the 20th century, or Reagan, or Clinton, or Obama, that it is spelled colour, or color, that the death penalty is righteous or a sin, that "not truth" belongs in the first sentence or in the third paragraph or nowhere, that this is or is not a major change, that we do or do not have a consensus ...) And this is why we make the very bold statement that "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia."

You blame me and others for this lack of consensus. But as long as you cannot assume good faith and lump with with a "party" of people who are "anti-change" or intent on "gaming" the system, you will never achieve a consensus. There is only ONE path to consensus, and it is called "assume good faith." I cannot tell you what to think when you go off-line, just as you cannot tell me what to believe when I go off-line. But as long as we are here, together, this has to be our fundamental principle. Language matters, and if I said anything that offends someone please tell me and if I understand and good faith is involved, I will apologize. Can everyone else here say the same? What matters is not what you think in your mind, what matters is how you are willing to treat others, here, now. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lot of talk about AGF, but I'm not sure that that is the main issue. The main issue in most folks minds is that that a group of folks are doing clearly visible things (eg what Slim did, plus others inventing new rules) which are "not right" to prevent the change from happening. And nobody has questioned their motivations, and I think that it is widely assume that they feel that their end objective is what's best for Wikipedia. So, it is questioning their methods, not their motivations or sincerity. I mean, can you imagine in real life, an election or game where your score/vote was 50% higher than mine and I said "that means you lost"; if your score is less than double or triple mine, you lose? I don't see where that is a matter of good or bad faith.

Probably the one area where the "assuming" IS needed is the large sudden huge new burst of disproportionately "oppose" votes where this hasn't been advertised in any new venues except wp:npov. And there folks have vaguely questioned it but nothing in relation to any individuals. And even that has been secondary. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification. If you do not mind I would just like to voice two concerns. First, given what you just wrote, I would think that you would not want anyone to think that you are challenging the recent comments because you think that they cause you to lose the vote. I understand, you are questioning the methods. But you also seem to be questioning the outcome. Would it be completely unreasonable for some people to wonder whether you would have this same reaction if all of the new comments in the past two days were in support of the proposal? I am not trying to offend you. I am only asking that you consider how your statements might appear to someone who does not share your views. So that was more of a question than a comment, and you do not need to answer it (because I am not questioning your intentions, I am only asking you to think about the effects of what you are saying in terms of how the people who took the time in the past couple of days to comments, for example, might interpret them), I ask because you say you question the methods, not the intentions, yet you keep invoking their intentions, which is to prevent change or to win. In your above comment you still make reference to intentions. My second comment is a pure comment, take it or leave it: I do not see this as a vote. i do not see this as being about winning or losing. I do not think it is constructive to view it as a vote which one might win or lose, when we are supposed to edit through collaboration and consensus. And finally, I do not know what policy or guideline supports this interpretation that it is a vote which one wins or loses. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand but I will try to answer. In my mind, I have moved the "burst of votes" off to the side as a sidebar issue for the very reason of AGF. Does that address your main question which seems to be about that? I do see this as people trying to invent rules so that no change that they don't like can pass. I mean, for heavens's sake, "not truth" went in with little or no discussion, but they claim a huge majority in favor of just moving it is not enough to merely move it? That will make plenty of people livid, or in my case, see it as an abuse/manipulation of the process, something worth shedding my blood over far more than any outcome. As I indicated, even in these very page, I have been at peace with many outcomes that were the exact opposite of what I wanted because it came from a proper process. On the last question, I don't know, you'll have to ask the folks that are saying that votes count, and if it doesn't get a super-duper-majority of 2.33:1 (70%) or 3:1 (75%) it fails. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'm one of the new oppose votes. I came here because of the watchlist notice. I also agree that 60% would be too low a threshold for consensus for a controversial change like this to a core policy; I'd like to see at least 70%. I say "controversial" based on the discussion, not based on an assessment of the impact of the change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Slr., this apeears to be needed: THIS IS NOT A VOTE. (emphasis added). It's a means of reaching consensus through discussion of favorable or unfavorable views of a proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in this case, the RfC was intentionally set up to be (at least in part) a poll. The purpose of the RfC was to gauge whether a specific compromise that had been reached among a sizable but local working group of editors, (who had already spent several months in discussion) is acceptable to the broader community. It was never intended to be the end of the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the proposal, but given this is a core policy, we have to have a high level of consensus to make changes. Even if we take the matter as a vote, 58% is nowhere near enough. The quality of a Wikipedia policy is not just in what it says, but also in how much it is supported.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. As Uninvited Company notes above, the toxic trio was added virtually without discussion, and it has remained in the policy more because of persistence than any genuine consensus that supports it. In the past, I have described the process involved in entrenching it as "stealth editing". Far from being a core part of our policy, it has always been controversial and widely disliked. The idea that it can't be removed by anything short of a supermajority at an RFC that must be of 30 days' duration and must be advertised in particular places and in particular ways is nothing short of special pleading.—S Marshall T/C 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To call it "the toxic trio" when you are referring to policy that a great many people support is flaming. How else can one read it except as a deliberate attempt to inflame? You are free to question it, challenge it, say you do not understand it or do not like it or whatever, but as soon as you say you are talking about "the toxic trio" there is no point in anyone who has a different view talking to you. Is that what you want? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

History has proven that having a view that "not truth" anywhere in the policy a disparagable, very bad idea does not preclude compromise. The current proposal IS a compromise which S Marshall reluctantly agreed to support despite it being far from what he (and other who also compromised) strongly preferred which was total removal of "not truth" from the policy. Folks just do not seem to understand this. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thank you for posting your view succinctly on this occasion. I would be very grateful if you could continue to be similarly brief.

It's not "flaming" to call it the toxic trio. The word you're looking for is "hyperbole". Since Sarek's close was reverted, this discussion has been characterised by an awful lot of hyperbole on both sides; you will see the "oppose" !voters describing the phrase as "iconic", as "the foundations of an encyclopaedia", "the point of the policy", "a rallying cornerstone of the community", and similarly hysterical remarks. One would think, from the opposes, that we were trying to amend scripture. Are these people "flaming" me with their view? No, and I'm not flaming them. I'm expressing myself forcefully.—S Marshall T/C 18:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point about hyperbole. But I think toxic goes beyond that. I do not consider it hyperbole if someone says that "not truth" is essential to Wikipedia, and I would not consider it hyperbole if you replied that it is utterly unnecessary and useless. Or, misleading. Or, trivial. Am I right that all these words describe your view of the phrase? I am trying to come up with very strong language that clearly contradicts what you are calling hyperbole. I wouldn't call them flaming, "toxic" to reasoned discussion. Maybe my point involves context. Many people showed up for the RfC but did not write a real comment. They relied on hyperbole as a rhetorical device, which express their sentiment but does not move the discussion forward. It is expressive but not constructive. Had you written "toxic trio" in the same context, expressing your view in the RfC instead of a thoughtful comment, I don't think I would care. It is in the context of actual discussion that I think the phrase itself is toxic. You might counter that the hyperbolic language found in many oppose comments is equally unconstructive. If someone on the talk page (I mean, in discussion rather thanthe RfC) replied to a comment of yours with such a toxic use of hyperbole, I wouldn't blame you for calling the person out on using language that is not conducive to discussion. To appeal to hyperbole for the sake of analogy, if someone pulls out a gun you can either pull out a bigger gun, or you can quietly ask the person to put the gun down. If your life is actually at stake, maybe the first choice is the right one, but in a conversation I think it is always the wrong one. I guess you and I just disagree on this. Also, sorry you find my prose so tiresome. I can bullet-point it for you, if you prefer. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Flaming is personal. If I called an editor an idiot or a fool, then I would be flaming them. I am not. I am using hyperbole and disparaging language, but the target of my hyperbole is a phrase in a policy, not another editor. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do see it. Perhaps my point was, I see a difference between saying (and this is just my example I am not putting words in your mouth) "I think that is a stupid idea" in response to someone, versus constantly referring to it as "the stupid idea." I am guessing you think I am splitting hairs. maybe we can agree that it would be good if people of whatever opinion tones down the hyperbole? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really much point, is there? Toned down, moderate, consensus-seeking behaviour isn't working in this RFC. We tried that, and we won. And then look at that AN/I thread. You can see that there are no admins on Wikipedia who have what it takes to take any action about SlimVirgin's blatant consensus re-engineering. She's going to get away with it free and clear. So I might as well say exactly what I please. We'll get a compromise rather than a decision no matter what.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• sigh* You did not win. And I do not know which is more the problem: that you believed you did, or that you actually think this is about winning versus losing. You don't have to reply, I know you do not agre with anything I just wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens when people spend too much well-intentioned time investing in a topic, objectivity goes out of the window. It should be clear from the number of "O" votes that there is something unacceptable about the proposal to many contributors. Better to get that level of concern identified and dealt with rather than claiming a Pyrrhic victory on a much smaller sample of opinion. Instead of blaming and finger pointing, (a) get over it (b) construct a properly managed, correctly implemented fresh RfA which you manage to ensure that it isn't corrupted half way through. And, no, that is not what you had before it was closed and reopened. Leaky Caldron 20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• That was exactly what we had, and no, the fact that you weren't personally invited to participate via your watchlist does not invalidate Sarek's close. And no, I'm not in any danger of "getting over it". No other bloody editor on Wikipedia would get away with the stunt SV pulled and it totally blows my mind that that AN/I thread failed to lead to sanctions. And no, there was nothing Pyrhhic about Sarek's perfectly well-reasoned close.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why does it matter so much about actual or perceived "winning" & "loosing"? Getting policy changes right takes time. This attempt may have misfired. Just start again. You can take your issues about Admin. behaviour to another level. I'm on no individual's "side" - but I'm naturally pleased that a large number of further contributors have been able to comment on this. Leaky Caldron 20:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• You wouldn't understand why this policy change is the optimum compromise, Leaky_caldron, because you haven't been participating in the nine months of discussion and very careful negotiation that led up to it. Some of the recent !votes upset me very much, because they're clearly off-the-cuff opinions from random passersby who, with absolutely no understanding at all of the reasons why Blueboar's proposal is worded as it is, take it on themselves to criticise him. I do not think that the closers of this debate will read the tens of thousands of words of discussion that led to this proposal, because they are volunteers coming to this cold and they will have to take shortcuts. They will weigh one !vote very similarly to another, which will make Random_Editor_03's complete bloody ignorance just as good as Blueboar's hard-won thought and knowledge. Many of the recent !votes are saying things that the working group considered, worked around or rejected upwards of six months ago, and the drive-by opinions are coming in so thick and fast that they can't be dealt with. I mean, look at this drive-by !vote from Crum375, an administrator who has made a total of five edits in the last twelve months (and who's never knowingly disagreed with SlimVirgin even when he was active, but that's another issue). He's not going to come back and engage in reasoned discussion with those of us who've been at this for all these months, is he?—S Marshall T/C 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Given past history, I'm increasingly uncomfortable about the process here. Are we to believe that Crum375 just happened to check his watchlist right after the watchlist notice was placed? Well, I guess stranger coincidences can happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not saying go back to the drawing board. I'm saying relaunch this one properly and communicate and manage it. You'd have to agree that some of the support comments are equally as bad as the oppose you've highlighted. Leaky Caldron 21:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that one has to acknowledge months of discussion to appreciate some people's feelings of frustration. Guess what: I have been involved in this policy on and off for years. Many people who were not present seven or eight months ago also have put a lot of time into discussing this policy on the talk page, if you go even further back in the archives.

The explicit purpose of any RfC is to solicit comments from people who have not been involved in discussion. That is the purpose. We turn to previously uninvolved editors because we need their views. To minimize the value of the views of people who have not been involved in 9 months + of discussion defeats the whole purpose of any RfC.

Finally: I do not believe "negotiate" is a fitting metaphor for what goes on here. In fact, I think it is counter-productive language. A negotiation implies two, sometimes more, partis with clearly defined interests and some kind of leverage that gives everyone an equal stake in an outcome. The aim of a negotiation is to maximize the outcomes for all parties. But none of us editors have any leverage. Zilch. We are all volunteers. Wikipedia will go in S. Marshall if you never show up here again. Ditto for me; if I disappeared, WP would continue spinning around. The community of editors is an amorphous body the membership of which is in constant flux, which is reproduced on a small scale at specific pages. So there is no optimum solution, no negotiators. The amorphous community of editors express their views creating periods of consensus of varying length, but these are always moments in an endless process. To view this proposal as the optimum solution to a negotiation among a small number of editors is simply irrelevant to Wikipedia. This is not about pleasing a limited number of parties as best possible. The fact that you have spent so much time at this page does not make your opinion count any more than Crum375, and if you think I am wrong you never should have supported an RfC. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I did not support an RFC. My view was always that a phrase that had been added without a RFC could be removed via the same mechanism. The issue was forced to RFC against my better judgment, but I reluctantly accepted the consensus that an RFC was necessary.—S Marshall T/C 22:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions:

1. If this is indeed the optimum compromise, there should be a reason for its optimality which can be stated without reading nine months of discussions. What is it?
2. Relatively minor changes in wording would have attracted many of the opposes; they might even have reasssured the irreconcilables that this was not a change of policy. Why not make them and come back? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Pmanderson, that's a perfectly reasonable question but I hope that someone else will answer it because I'm finding it extremely difficult to summarise our very long deliberations in a few easily-digestible paragraphs. If nobody else does, then I will try.—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since nobody else has tried, then, I will.

  From previous RFCs, what we know is (1) that the current version of the first sentence is strongly popular with a significant minority of editors, but it does not quite enjoy a majority support, and (2) that the major issue among those who dislike the current version is VNT. When we look back over the long history of that particular phrase, we see that it was introduced into this page in 2005, at the same time it was removed from WP:NOR. It was originally introduced into a draft version of WP:NOR in this edit by SlimVirgin. It appears as a fully-formed a separate section, and is fully explained in context. Subsequent edits have stripped the phrase of all context, shortened it from a full section into three words, and placed them in bold at the start of the policy. And we can well imagine why: each time the point needed to be pressed home to someone during a dispute, there must have been a further attempt to emphasize those three words and focus attention on them, again and again and again. VNT is certainly a convenient stick for beating difficult editors over the head with, and there was a natural tendency to enlarge the stick. But the working group felt that policy should be more than just a tool for winning arguments, and that VNT would be much more acceptable if it was better explained. Examples of tendentious editors misusing the current version to introduce errors into the encyclopaedia were found and discussed, and although strongly disputed by the VNT faithful, they were eventually accepted as a problem by the working group. Hence Blueboar's compromise, to get it out of the lede and explain it properly. In fact, nobody in the working group thinks this particular explanation is perfect—it's a springboard for further improvement—but what the working group did agree was that the way to achieve something everyone could live with ("consensus") was to remove VNT from the lede and return it to its proper place in separate section where it can be fully explained. The working group are, I think, satisfied that this is the best compromise, not just in terms of harmony between editors, but also in terms of making the policy clear. I think most of us would also agree that as presently written it is a little too wordy, and should be improved by the normal editing process.—S Marshall T/C 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Getting back to the question of what constitutes a consensus... I would say a 2/3 (66%) majority would qualify. Here in the US, that is the fraction needed to overturn a Presidential Veto and ratify a Constitutional Amendment... both good real life precedents for determining consensus. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree, Blueboar. I can see all sorts of reasons why it's a bad idea to express consensus as a percentage.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the group of closing admins will look at more than just the percentages. I hope they'll also look at the strength of the arguments, and at issues of process. And they know that whatever they do will be closely scrutinized. In that regard, percentages are only a guideline, subject to good judgment, and what we discuss here really doesn't obligate the closers. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're right, Tryptofish. Because as in RfA's (and any other exercises like this) you'll get your sock votes, your "one-off IP votes", your "Rip Van Winkle" votes, and so on. It's to be expected: and hopefully sorted out. Doc talk 02:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Been gone a couple days. Yes, including the assertion that a clarification change such as this needs a super-duper majority to pass, which I think is false.

Perspective

There are so many well thought-out arguments here. I am undecided as Quid est veritas? is not an exercise in boolean logic. Following are some historical perspectives:

 "The truth is rarely pure and never simple."
     — The Importance of Being Earnest, Act I

 "Veracity does not consist in saying,
  but in the intention of communicating truth."
     — Biographia Literaria, Ch IX

 "The truth is always a compound of two half-truths, and
  you never reach it, because there is always something more to say."
     — Lord Malquist and Mr Moon, Ch. 2

 "So very difficult a matter is it to trace
  and find out the truth of anything by history."
     — Life of Pericles

 "Whoever has even once become notorious by base fraud,
  even if he speaks the truth, gains no belief."
     — Book i, Fable 10, 1

 "I heard the little bird say so."
     — Letter to Stella

 "Truth is generally the best vindication against slander."
     — Remark made when requested to dismiss the Postmaster-General

 "That a lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies;
  ... But a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter to fight."
     — The Grandmother, Stanza 8

 "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
  is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
     — Essay to Leo Baeck

 "I cannot tell how the truth may be;
  I say the tale as twas said to me."
     — Lay of the Last Minstrel, Canto ii, Stanza 22

 "And after all, what is a lie?
  Tis but The truth in masquerade."
     — Don Juan, Canto xi, Stanza 37

 "Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather,
  'I have found a truth.'"
     — The Prophet, p. 54

 "Trust, but Verify."
     — Russian proverb

wikilinks update Sctechlaw (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Get it on, bang a gong, get it on." -  Marc Bolan

Gwen Gale (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL! That's brilliant, GG! Dreadstar ☥ 04:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And yours are very good too, Sctechlaw; very thought provoking. Dreadstar ☥ 04:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Some people have written the story of my life representing as truth what in fact derives from ignorance, error or envy; but they cannot shake the truth from its place, even if they attempt to make others believe it." -- Haile Selassie I

-- Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

THOG'S MASTERCLASS, Detached Viewpoint Dept:  "Isaac threw up his face and swung it around him, 
desperately searching for light." China Mieville, Perdido Street Station, 2000) 

--Pete Tillman (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"For instance, when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died ... 
they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, 
summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped 
thereby to prove that the guilty party was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true." 


- Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A well thought-out argument ......... resolved. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we extend the RfC?

Given the last minute missteps in terms of notifications, disagreements about wording of the section, the kerfuffle at AN/I, and the edit warring that's occurred here, there, and yon, I do not believe we are at the end of the process we normally desire in an RfC. As I've said a few times, I think it's important to extend the RfC by about two weeks. That should give everyone new to discussions time to digress comments, prior participants to address newly expressed concerns, and, perhaps most importantly, everyone time to ask questions. No doubt there will be continued discussions after the RfC, so I do not see any disadvantage to such an extension, and I think continuing the RfC for a bit longer than usual will help ameliorate any real or perceived damage to the process from the activities of the last few days. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I know I've thrown a lot of other ideas out, but this is also a good one. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem extending. But I think it would be wise for us to set a firm "close" date. Then no one can complain that it was closed improperly. Don't care what that date is... but let's set a date. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do have a problem extending. This has gone on quite long enough now and I would very much like for it to be put out of its misery. Irrespective of whether we close on 5th Nov or later, the closer will need to make a finding about whether disruption has occurred, and if it has, to try to subtract the effect of that disruption when deciding where the true consensus lies. Moving the closure date later will certainly not make that process any easier or simpler, and in fact it seems to me that delay could only muddy the waters even further.—S Marshall T/C 14:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn, North8000 and Blueboar. I think it is important to publicize the close date widely through some neutral mechanism, and whether it is five days or two weeks the sooner the better. I wonder what S marshall's measure is for "long enough." I also find this sentence problematic: "the closer will need to make a finding about whether disruption has occurred, and if it has, to try to subtract the effect of that disruption when deciding where the true consensus lies." Why? What I mean is, what policy or guideline dictates that this is what the "closer" has to do (and, if the closer is not Blueboar, then we should just pick a date and time, and that means it closes automaticall - anyone can put up the tag indicating that the RfC is closed, but the date and time is pre-determined, right? So there really is no "closer" if we have a predetermined date) What policy or guideline dictates that one person shoud determine "where the true consensus lies?" This wording implies that there must be a "true consensus;" what if there is none?

Our RfC guidelines tell us that the participants in the talk page discussion should discuss the comments after the RfC closes. I do not think it will be that much of a challenge for individual editors to quote those comments they find most constructive. Given how contentious this is, I have no doubt we will disagree on which comments are constructive or not, but there is no avoiding this, if editors are so emotional about this or dogmatic, it is inevitable that we will not always agree on which comments are constructive. But if we can assume good faith, maybe we can find comments that help identify with more clarity the points of difference. If we cannot reach consensus on some of those points, we have no choice but to move on. with all these comments I believe at least some of them will pinpoint issues that we can reach consensus on. One way or the other, it is for us editors to discuss the comments and continue working towards some consensus, if one is possible. But if there is a policy or guideline that says that this is what the closer of an RfC on content proposals has to do, okay - but I have not seen it and if it exists I must have missed it and would appreciate someone providing the appropriate quote. Cheers! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

S Marshall, I understand and agree completely that this has gone on a long time and that the waters are muddy. My hope is with the extra time, the waters will clear. That being said, I too am concerned about some of the conduct issues, and if you want to take those to some other venue, please let me know so I can chime in with my concerns, but if you wish to do that, you should probably go ahead sooner rather than later. Likewise, if you wish to take a look at RfC policy to try to prevent a recurrence of the same kind of problems, I'm game for that. But I would also like to say that I can completely understand your take on this, given the level of your participation in the prior discussions.

I think Slrubenstein's suggestion about an auto closure based on date is an interesting one. I would be concerned that the participants might not be able to determine what the consensus is, however, and I'd like to think about that a bit. One thought I had was about inviting some of the mediators to provide informal moderation, or to actively close the RfC, since they are skilled in guiding editor to consensus in contentious discussions.--Nuujinn (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a thread at ANI where I think this question is answered. A group of admins have settled on an approximate time, based in part on when Brad will be back from being out of town. The best thing for those of us who feel strongly about how the process has gone is to get out of the way, let the admins do their thing, which I'm sure they will do thoughtfully and in good faith, and then see where things stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Implications to WP:FRINGE

I have not voted/commented at the RfC yet, and in honesty am unsure of my vote still because I find the current wording fine, don't think the new wording is any worse though, and can see an argument for adopting it based on compromise more than anything else. That said, I wanted to address a criticism of the support side that I've seen over and over, that there are no examples of times when "not truth" causes actual problems. I don't agree, and the example I'm thinking of is one I've seen come up at the WP:FT/N more than once. Fringe claims are often so absurd that there are no good sources directly refuting them. Fringe advocates trot out all kinds of sources that make a case for their claim and say, "well can you verify that this is rejected by scientists?" At times this literally cannot be done, not by way of a clear source, only by way of the "truth" or the best approximation of it we might have by applying common knowledge from the sciences to the situation. It would be helpful, in these situations, to have the words "not truth" be so prominently displayed in the policy. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. I do not think that it requires abandoning the iconic phrase, but I do think Griswaldo is right that it calls for clarifying one or more policies. I think that we need to make it clear that providing a published source is by itself not evidence that a view if significant (i.e. not fringe). We ought to leave some things up to the common sense of editors, by which I mean explicitly stating that providing a reliable source is a minimal requirement, and that if a significant number of editors (which, in most cases like this, is simply "two") believe that the view is fringe, it is the editor forwarding that view who has the burden to demonstrate that it is not. I once added content to the Judaism article that is a notable view across all modern movements of Judaism, and some other editors argued that it is fringe. This required me to add seven or eight or more citations, but in addition to convincing the other editors it made the article better, both because I had to provide a clearer explanation of the view, and readers now have many more sources they can turn to if they want to know more. I have no problem with putting the burden of proof on the person introducing new material. I don't know if this belongs in V or CS, but I would support adding something like this, or strengthening it if it exists.

Griswaldo also raises an important point, that fringe views are often not discussed by the major sources. Novice editors might counter that you cannot argue from the negative, but I think this is another mistake we can address in this policy or adjunct guidelines. It starts again with "reliable source" being the minimum for inclusion. I think that here or in RS we need to provide more guidance about appropriate sources. For example, a book on the superiority or inferiority of Jews (I am actually thinking of a real WP article) may fulfill our minimum reliable source criteria. But if this is not a fringe view, one would expect positive book reviews, or for the book in question to be cited favorably, in mainstream academic journals in psychology, anthropology, and Jewish studies. If the person wishing to introduce the view into an article can produce no evidence that it has been reviewed or cited in the major journals, it is simply not notable. If it has been cited or reviewed, but negatively, it is notable enough for inclusion, but as a fringe view. This requires editors to be able to

• identify the correct academic fields,
• the mainstreamjournals of those fields,
• and the difference between a positive or negative citation.

I think we have a right to ask editors to do this, and to say so in policy. Cheers! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but this is just one of the problems you see on science pages. One has to keep in mind here that typically a problem like this on a science page doesn't escalate a lot and is settled without Admin intervention, because in most cases there is an objective truth out there that is accessible to editors via properly reading and interpreting the literature and discussing things. It can require some effort, though, and a "not truth" statement in the first sentence of an important policy page is not helpful at all. But because these sorts of issues are typically resolved on the talk pages, the friction with the policies is not noted and we've ended up with poicies that work well for settling disputes on politics pages (where disputes often escalate a lot), but which don't work well on science pages (editors there don't typically use the policies to settle disagreements)

I wrote up the proposed policy (now an essay) WP:ESCA some time ago, based on my positive experience of discussions on talk pages of some science articles. While these discussions were against the spirit of Wiki-policies, they helped a lot with the editing of the articles. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I can understand why your essay failed as a policy - but I think it is a very good essay and more people should know about it. I guess my question is do you think any of the suggestions I just forwarded, above, would address to any significant degree the issues you raise? The italics is because in my experience we can never solve all the problems at once and we have not choice, for pragmatic reasons, but to work on them in small chunks. If you do think that the suggestions would help, do you think that it is worth making an actual proposal, here or at RS? Not now, heaven forbid! But once things have cooled down? I think if you and I could agree on a proposal, however limited in scope (perhaps necessariy so), and Grriswaldo too, then that proposal would probably be acceptable to a wide range of people. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

When you get around to ascertaining whether your proposal is acceptable to a wide range of people or not... make sure you post a notice about it on everyone's Watchlist options... apparently that is now a requirement. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm far more worried that this opens the door fringe theory advocates to push their theories. Right now, "verifiability, not truth" one of the best tools we have to address the unwarrented promotion of fringe theories. But to address your concern, Griswaldo, how often does it happen where something can be sourced to secondary sources without also there being debunking from secondary sources? The types of articles I've worked on (9/11 conspiracy theories, Lunar landing hoax, Obama isn't a natural born citizen) all have secondary sources with debunking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Quest, pardon me for saying so, but that is exactly the mindset that I would like to see disappear from the project. We spend far too much time on project sharpening 'tools' to wage war against the hordes of barbarians we see around us - large swaths of the project have taken on what I can only describe as a paranoid intellectual jingoism. It makes editing suck.

Fringe theories do not need debunking; they need caging. Fringe theories will debunk themselves if they are given fair and neutral treatment within a carefully clarified context. Assert they are wrong makes us look non-neutral, and motivates advocates to try harder, thus escalating tensions on the page. If the main reason you want to keep this language is because it is a tool used to battle fringe advocates, then I honestly think it should be removed immediately and with prejudice. That's not even remotely consistent with the principle of collaborative editing. --Ludwigs2 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2: When I write about fringe theories, I explain what the fringe viewpoint is and then what the mainstream viewpoint is, and let the reader decide. That's about as fair as one can reasonably expect in a Wiki. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is such an old point of contention. Please allow me to summarize an argument I have made easily 50 times on project in various venues.

Science does not adjudicate truth; science validates theories. Editors who think or claim that established scientific results are 'true' do not understand the nature of science, and are always operating form a socio-political position rather than a scientific one. In most cases, they want to claim that something is 'true' so that they can present a 'valid' theory in a watered-down way that meshes with the low level of scientific literacy prevalent in the general public. Basically it's a little white lie designed to put people on the right track through an appeal to authority, without actually raising their level of understanding.

While I don't object to the 'little white lie' on principle, it opens a door to some very irritating NPOV problems. Editors end up expanding the 'truth' rubric via synthesis, and using it to attack all sorts of topics, many of which aren't more than tangentially related to science. I can't tell you how many pages I've edited where people have used the following 'logic' (scare-quotes intended as such):

1. Science is 'true'
2. Topic X is 'not science'
3. Topic X is false
4. it is morally wrong to disseminate false information
5. Editors or sources discussing topic X are 'unworthy', and should be suppressed

And then what should be a mild-mannered discussion of the validity of a fringe theory (validated, refuted, untested, unconfirmed), devolves to an ideologically-driven, deeply personal dogfight over ontological principles that are well outside Wikipedia's scope.

I know as much about science as anyone on project, and more than most, and I would very much like to see wikipedia improve people's understanding of science. But I need to point out that we do not improve scientific literacy by writing fringe articles from the perspective "this topic is false because science says so, and anyone who says otherwise is stupid and evil", which is what a lot of fringe article disputes boil down to. Removing the 'truth' bit - if it does nothing else - will put an end to that kind of mindless scientistic dogmatism and save fringe page discussions from a whole lot of intractably senseless conflict.--Ludwigs2 17:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It happens more than one might think, since often the idea is fringy enough that reliable sources don't bother to address it much--things that are found in the press are easy to deal with, but fringe ideas not receiving much attention can be problematic. One example that comes to mind is Tired light--finding sources to place that in the appropriate context proved to be pretty difficult. I agree that "verifiability, not truth" is one of the best tools we have, but many editors have expressed concern that it opens the door to "verifiable but wrong", hence my support of keeping the phrase in the policy and improving the wording. To my way of thinking where is it located in the policy is not critical, since it is valid regardless of placement, and the first time one is likely to encounter it is not here, but rather when another editor cites it and (hopefully) explains it. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not having any trouble finding secondary sources about Tired Light. I'm finding literally dozens of sources. I can't post them all, but here are the first three.[11][12][13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but look over the talk pages--there are some journal articles on the subject and other sources that appear to confirm it, at least to some editors, and the argument is that the sources they present show it's not being treated fairly. If you'd like to watch the page, that would be a help, the more the merrier--mostly it's died down lately, but I'm sure it will go nova again, pun intended. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Editors who say they can't find sources, are out of luck per our policy, no source, it does not go in. Ideas and information are not orginal, here. The source exists, you just have not located it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Plus, it is not enough just to provide a source, in many cases - and we have been clear about this for many years! Sources must be used appropriately. One has to contextualize a source - who wrote it, when, for what audience, all of these may be necessarily to identify a view properly and to assign it proper weight. Sometimes, one cannot rely on Google to find a source, one needs to go to a library, or access J-Stor, or avail themselves of the other resources librarians use for identifying relevant sources and for knowing how to use them properly. Maybe we need to provide better guidance on this, but it does not have anything to do with truth/not truth, it has to do with how much work an editor is willing to put in to do the appropriate amount of research which usually involves more than just "quoting a book." Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand we have Energy Catalyzer, which looks on all the evidence like a cold fusion fallacy/scam. Getting a balanced article is being hampered by credulous mainstream reporters whose technological literacy is so low that they adopt an "innocent until proven guilty" attitude when there is really no chance that this thing works as promised— or maybe they are afraid of lawsuits, but in the end the result is the same: a lot of "notability" which isn't worth much. Or to take another recent example: we managed to get rid of a bogus UFO claim, but what it took in the end was finding the original image, and everyone seeing that the statement being passed from UFO site to UFO site was clearly untrue.

Most fringey stuff is sourceable to some degree, other than stuff people just made up. A lot of it goes unrefuted in the literature because the usual skeptics haven't gotten to it, for whatever reason. Verifiability is not protecting us from seeing this stuff included in Wikipedia, because after all people have a website or something like that to link, and therefore it's verifiable. Some of us mused that it would be worthwhile to declare that topics in some fringe areas could be held non-notable until they were refuted by a reliable source. As it is, we have problems with these sources because when they say things that are manifestly untrue, or which can be readily verified to be untrue, supporters of the fringe material appeal to "not truth" in saying that we cannot attack the veracity of the material. Mangoe (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it is not that this kind of thing cannot be handled--the question is can we frame policy to make it easier to handle? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? The point is that (in my opinion) "not truth" isn't helping us with fringe; it's actually hurting us. THat's one of several reasons why I have supported the revised version. Mangoe (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand--I'm supporting the proposal because I think it does a good job of balancing the concerns of editors like you who think the phrase "not truth" hurts us and editors like me that think we need the phrase for it's rhetorical power. POV and fringe editors are hard to deal with, and in fringe areas sources can be slippery. I don't want to remove it myself, but I can see validity in the opinions of those who think it hurts us, hence my desire to make the explanation of "not truth" as clear as possible. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The perspective we're taking here (and this is also a reply to Slrubenstein), is not complete, and then the policies/guidelines we are thinking about won't fully address these sorts of problems. We are making hidden assumptions about knowledge that is a bit too simplistic, it's good enough for many of the Wiki articles we have, but not all.

To make this better visible consider how one should program an intelligent bot to edit Wikipedia in the way we are doing now. Here one should at first forget about controversial issues that we typically argue about. Simply consider editing some simple article that ten year old children can edit without problems. Clearly, such a bot would necessarily have to contain a huge amount of information to simply be able to understand the meaning of simple statements in sources.

A simple model of real Wikipedia editors is then to assume that we are all such bots who have the same internal knowledge, who read sources containing new information. This is what the Wiki policies implicitely assume but they don't make this assumption explicit. Ignoring this internal information leads to the often discussed issue about statements that are already verified by the internal knowledge, like "the sky is blue". But, of course, the model is an oversimplification. People have different amounts of internal knowledge and you can absorb information from sources to expand your internal knowledge.

The policies implicitely assume that the internal knowledge is only about very basic things that allows us to correctly interpret what sources say. We are not allowed to apply the concept of "truth" to the external knowledge from sources, we should stay agnostic about that. Within such a model, "Verifiability, not truth" will work. Where this model is a bad approximation, it will break down. This is e.g. the case for science articles that go into details. An article like the one on Global warming, is still a "high level" science article written mainly from tertiary sources. In such cases, the model will still work.

But if the distance to the primary knowledge is smaller, like e.g. the article Planck's law, Methods of contour integration, then the editor needs to be a lot more familiar with the primary knowledge to be able to edit correctly. Here the concept of truth really has to be used to the information that is edited in the article.

You can get disputes when different editors have wildly diverging internal knowledge. If what is internal knowledge to me is necessary to correctly interpret what a source says, but that same internal knowledge is external knowledge to another editor, then that other editor cannot verify what I'm writing from my quoted source alone. He would also need a source for my internal knowledge needed to interpret the quoted source, but combining the two would be a violation of WP:Synth. An argument by me on the talk page in such a case could to that other editor look like I'm editing from a "truth" perspective, so the current wording of this policy is an obstacle. Count Iblis (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I think I mostly understand this, but there is one particular question. Could it be said that at one level the policy of verifiability is that what we take as "truth" is to be based on external knowledge that we can all examine, not on any private or "revealed" bases which cannot be examined? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 19:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I reject the use of "truth" because scientists and philosophers, as well as researchers in the human sciences, generally avoid it. Be that as it may ....

This is a bit of a tangent, but it is meant to follow from Count Iblis's comment. I think when WP was first created it was with the believe that veryone out there with an internet connection have among them a great deal of expertise on a wide range of topics, and if they all just edited articles on the topics they had genuine expertise one, the result would be a good encyclopedia. If you do not believe me, just go back to 2002 and you will see many pretty good articles if we are competing with Encart (but not EB), and no citations at all. This works as long as the basic premise — that the topics people are most interested in are also the ones they know the most about — holds. It should be pretty obvious that this premise holds for the kind of people who write EB articles, but not the kind of people who read EB articles. And therein lies the rub, since our writers are also our readers.

Then, the number of editors began to take off, and the result was a much greater percentage of editors who were interested in reading articles ... and then editing articles ... on topics on which they had no expertise. This is when JHK left the project and if any of you were around back then, it was a big deal that she left, and she left a letter providing reasons that are eerily like what Mangoe wrote. This is when this became apparent that NOR and V were written, and an ever-growing number of policies and guidelines. This is when people first started citing sources, first using harvard style, and then as this development progressed, the current system. I think that this regulatory regime developed with precisely Count Iblis's assumptions: assume that editors are bots who have no internal knowledge.

Now we have entered a new stage, where the number of registered users has exploded and I think it no longer makes any sense to try to imagine the "average" editor, at best we are bimodal: a small but growing number of people with PhD's or graduate students (we always had some, but I bet that the percentage of people with higher degrees started high, then went ay down, and is now on the rise again as we have become the largest on-line encyclopedia and more established academics edit), and a much larger number of people who Mangoe is talking about. I agree about the problem, but I simply do not believe "not truth" is the problem. I think that the problem is that our policies and guidelines (NOR, V, RS, CS) are too restrictive for the increasing numbers of university professors, and inadequate for the increasing number of fringe POV-pushers (a less elegant way of making Alexander Pope's point about the dangers of "a little learning.")

If I am right I think two conclusions follow. First, we can and should fine-tune policies like V and RS. I never thought RS was adequate, because it never effectively addressed the issue of, "appropriate sources used appropriately." But I do believe that a combination of "not truth" and source-based research (appropriate sources used appropriately) is the solution — this is basically an attempt to encode in our policies and guidelines the rules we teach advanced undergraduates and graduate students for how to do library research (short of, developing their own synthesis or argument).

Second, policies will nver be enough. There will always be the kind of editors Mangoe describes. The problem is, there are not enough of the other kind of editors (ones with advanced degrees or the same research-skills and resources that good professional researchers have) to squash them in talk-page discussions. Twenty or thirty people will devote huge amounts of time to editing the articles on Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or whatever is the flavor of the month, but we are lucky to get more than two or three editors who already have the expertise, or know what work they need to do, to work on articles on Hilbert Space (which as an act of faith I trust satisfies the professional mathematicians among us, but trust me, is not accessible even to the average universiy graduate), or Charles Taylor (a philosopher who is far more important than our article explains) or James Joyce's Ulysses ... there is still a very wide world of academic research that is represented WP either by accurate articles that are inaccessible to laypeople, or accessible articles that simply ignore most of the scholarship. Given the relative paucity of experts, whenever a finge POV-pusher shows up, the qualified editors end up being worn down. The most qualified editors have the least amount of time, and are easily out-gunned by the liliputians. I just do not think policy will ever be enough to handle this as long as WP is the the encyclopedia anyone can edit (i.e.not Nupedia). WP's success is ultimately hinged to a demographic gamble: that we will become big enough that all the good edits will erode and erase all the bad edits. There are economists who believe that marketplaces are truly rational, because all mistakes are ultimately corrected. I am not saying I agree with these economists, I am saying that WP is set up to operate on the same premise. And if this premise is correct, the larger the market (read: number of active editors), the better it will work. It's just an analogy, if you don't agree with the economics claim just ignore it. My point is still that if WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it will only work if the growth of knowledgable and skilled researchers outpaces or minimally matches the growth of the fringe POV-pushers, and this has not happened yet. The question is, will it? nd I do not know. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You actually neglect large group of WP editors that might be critical to this questions. The bulk of "regular critical editors" that are neither (real) experts nor fringe POV-Pushers. They are also the ones that primarily use the policies to keep fringe & POV at bay. So the question is not simply will experts outpace or match the POV & fringe pushers, but whether the combination/cooperation of experts and regular editor will outpace the POV & fringe pushers. Much of the success of WP is due not relying on experts editors only and realizing that much of our material doesn't really require an expert to produce a not optimal but reasonable (first) article, that exactly the difference between us and Citizendium & Co. Of course is WP still an experiment or a gamble if you will. However we already know that in many regards the alternative (avoiding the gamble and going the Citizendium route) is not working anyhow. At least in terms of practical usage Citizendium & Co are light years behind WP and are likely remain to remain so for decades. So if we want to have something usable for the present, smart and fine tuned "gambling" seems to be the only option.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A thought-provoking comment. My impression is that Wikipedia is slowly losing the "demographic gamble" to which Slrubenstein refers. The project is burning out expert editors faster than they are joining, and recent statistics suggest even the everyday sensible folk are slowly declining in numbers. But the fringe enthusiasts are on a mission from God. Not only are they tireless, but they have no qualms about sockpuppeting and other niceties. It's unlikely that anything will be done to address this, as it's happening too slowly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Boris, Kmhkmh: All I can say is that I think that's a wrong attitude. It dichotomizes the project into good citizens and barbarian hordes, and sets these 'regular critical editors' up as Judge Dredd figures wielding policy like a gun. Trust me, that particular cure is far worse than the disease. Have you considered the possibility that we are losing reasonable editors by droves mostly because of the hostile atmosphere that exists on so many pages? because of the policy lashings any new editor is likely to get if s/he steps onto the wrong page? I'll tell you frankly that the main reason I keep editing on project is that I have an ornery aversion to being chased off by thugs. If I didn't have that particular personality quirk, I'd have decided long ago that the project simply wasn't worth my time, so I totally understand why people with common sense leave. We have collectively set up an environment that privileges obsessive, petulant ideologues, and so we've got them in droves on both sides of the fence.

It's a sad situation. It's not really that difficult to fix, but nobody really wants to fix it (it's one of the qualities of obsessive, petulant ideologues that they refuse to accept restrictions on themselves even as they demand them for others - silly power game - so all 'fair' solutions are off the table by default).

well, as it is… The two of you have apparently given up on the concepts of collaborative editing and consensus decision-making. I'm not sure how to feel about that. --Ludwigs2 06:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Ludwigs has written up above. The culture of Wikipedia is to blame for people leaving in droves, and the only way it is going to change, is when admins start enforcing the civility policies. That's not going to happen, so expect to see more editors leaving in the future. Viriditas (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My post can be read as dividing WP into two groups but that was not my intention. For one thing, Kmhkmh is quite right about the third and much larger group, and I credit them with the quality of many of our fine articles. I am looking at a much narrower range of articles, one on largely if not purely academic topics, For a long time, Evolution had two or three editors with advanced degrees and an additional two or three who may not have advance degrees but know enough; this led to a good article, and enough people with the time to keep away the creatinist-fringe. Recently a few new editors with advanced degrees have taken to revise the article entirely and I think this will result in an excellent article and also, enough people with time to protect it from the POV fringe. But my point is that there are a host of over articles that almost never attract the attention of the majority of hard-working volunteers that Kmhkmh mentions. And yes, Ludwigs, I do think that in many of these specific articles once and divide the editors into two groups: one or two editors who really know their stuff, although not enough to write a thorough and well-rounded article, but enough to write a decent article — and then every once in a while some unregistered user comes by to insert their opinion. This is normal and the one or two editorts who really know the topic can easily tell if the edit is constructive or unconstructive, and handle it. But sometimes the situation Mangoe writes about occurs, the situation that led JHK to leave and leave with us her fairewell letter. this is when one or two absolutely fanatical POV-pushers make it there business to ensure that the article expresses their views.

My point was, because these articles do not attract the large body of editors Kmhkmh mentions (ones committed to core policies and willing to do research), it is up to the one or two genuine experts to hold off the fringe POV-pushers and they inevitably burn out because genuine experts have too many other real-life time committments, and the POV-pushers do not let up. I am talking about this particular situation. But I believe it is very common in articles on all topics that have been objects of considerable academic research. This may not be even the majority of our articles, but it is a huge number, and it is the quality of these articles that academics base their judgment of WP on (like MIT professor Garfinkle, whose essay sparked one of the discussions about the problems with this policy - one or two archived talks ago). Mangoe, like JHK, was talking about a specific range of articles, not all of them. And I think Kmhkmh's third group largely tend to other articles. The demographic gamble I am talking about applies to these articles. No, it is not good citizens versus barbarian hordes, in this case. It is people who actually have the expert knowledge already or have the resources so they can easily and efficiently research major points, versus fringe POV-pushers, and neither group is large, neither group is a horde. That is my point! As long as the number of experts that work on an article are small (and also come and go - unlike good citizens they seldom stick around very long), and the large "good citizen" group occupies themselves with work on other articles, ones that they are more interested in and can research more easily, then the small numbers of fanatical fringe POV-pushers will have a disproportionate effeect.

And my ultimate point was, policy reform in these cases will never be enough; it didn't solve JHK's problem, and I don't think it will solve Mangoe's, as I think they are essentially the same. The solution is demographic: aa large and diverse enough community of editors that articles on Hilbert Space, Charles Taylor, and Stéphane Mallarmé have thirty editors actively working on them rather than three. The thirty editors could include a few academics and a few graduate students and twenty of the editors Kmhkmh describes, and if one or two fringe-POV pushers come and spend several hours each day persistently inserting poorly-researched misinterpretations, popular misconceptions, and their own views, it won't matter because they will be so vastly outnumbered that their bad edits will easly be fixed by the many other good editors watching the article. The problem is, many WP articles DO have these thirty editors actively watching and editing - and a great many more WP editors do not. In the former case, WP works. In the latter case, it does not. This is what I mean about a demographic crises. Kmhkmh's middle group of editors are not yet large and diverse enough to populate academic articles as they do so many others. The result is a great many articles on academic topics that provides just as much as someone who took an undergraduate course, or was willing to do the equivalent amount of research, knows about the topic (which barely scrateches the surface). These areticles are stable only if - ironically - they are of such little interest to to most readers that fringe-POV pushers never look at them. Ludwigs, if it helps, think of my bimodal model as describing two kinds of articles, rather than two kinds of editors. There are articles that attract large numbers of good-faith editors, and these articles are stable because in large numbers everyone cancels out the mistakes of others. The other kind of article attracts very small numbers of editors (e.g. the three articles I named). These articles are potentially highly unstable because all it takes is one persistent POV-pusher to disrupt it. I don't think this is an idea any scientist would have trouble understanding. I am thinking of Laplace's law of errors applied to astroniomical observations, Maxwell's demon applied to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Hardy-Weinberg equation in population genetics; in each instance large numbers lead to stable outcomes. We boast about the large number of registered users, but what really matters is how many active editors are working on Hilbert Space, Charles Taylor, and Stéphane Mallarmé compared to how many active editors are working on Barack Obama, Kim Kardashian and How I met your mother. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think some people here believe in good faith that removing "not truth" from the policy or at least the first line might attract more academics or people with comparable expertise (for this comment, please just bracket the question of whether this is a good or bad goal - let's just assume it is our goal for sake of argument). I understand the motive but do not agree with the means. One of my reasons I have already stated - many in the physical, life and human sciences do not believe in "truth." But either way, this is simply not the obstacle to their adding to our ranks. First of all, the more specific and unpopular the topic x its complexity (say, Mallarme, Hegel, or Lacan), the fewer real experts there are. These experts are probably overworked, and if they are going to write more on the topic on which they have great expertise, it will be for publication rather than WP because universities do not give its employees ANY credit for contributing to WP, when it comes to promotions or raises. These people are often already over-worked or over-committed. Many make their living by writing, and thus have very distinctive styles, which fit academic conventions but are not suited for an encyclopedia especially Wikipedia - I am sure we have all read articles or parts of articles that were well-informed and a pleasure to read butwere written "essay style" and thus destined to be edited for style. And finally, they usually do not work collaboratively but are rather used to publishing single-authored works, which means many of them find the ease with which anyone else can screw up their thoughtful work really really irritating. I do not think that even the strictest policy regime will make WP more appealing to these editors - if they want to write for an online encyclopedia they would have gone to Nupedia, which has peer-review and protected articles. Ultimately, the problem is that we are a wikipedia. All of these debates over policies, in my opinion, are attempts for us to deal with something we really do not want to admit, that the very vact that this is a wiki and that Jimbos's ambition is an encyclopedia anyone can edit has some very very bad consequences. Policies are necessary and help and I am all for them (and if you read my very first post to this thread I suggest some changes to policy that I really do think would help) but they will not in my opinion ever solve the bad consequences of our being a WIki. This is why I bring up what I call the demographic gamble. It is the wiki nature of this project that means that it can only succeed (in producing excellent articles on arcane topics) IF the community of editors is sufficiently large and diverse that articles on Hegel, Lacan, and other topics that are complex and difficult and not especially popular (yet, very important in academe) are sustained by relatively large numbers of active editors who are not only well-informed and willing to do quality research, but simply are in large-enough numbers to cancel out one another's defects or limitations, and large enough so that the impact of a fringe POV-pusher, no matter how persistant, will be as effective as a sandbag against a tsunami. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2: I think you misread my comment. First of all experts are often or usually "regular critical authors" as well, namely anytime they edit outside their professional domain, which most do. Second I was explicitly talking about the combination/cooperation of experts and "regular critical authors", i.e. I was not talking about the self proclaimed "sheriffs" that might unnecessarily bug experts over formalities and unimportant stuff and hence burn them out (no argument from me there). I was talking about the fact that the success of WP is due to the cooperation of those too groups, in particular the "regular authors" supporting experts to handle Pov pushers and vandals, so that expert do not get worn out or overwhelmed by them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Slrubenstein: Yes to some degree those groups work on different types of articles, but imho there is still some overlap. I agree that in highly specialized articles experts might often be on their own against POV & fringe pushers, but even there regular authors can helps against vandalism or obvious forms of POV pushing (such as citing weird sources), that otherwise might overwhelm an individual expert authors or for which he simply might not have the time to fight them. In addition they often can help with basic maintenance issues (spelling or grammar mistakes, categories, various templates, interwikis, internal links...). Another thing that is worth a thought. While it is true that for a highly specialized article only one POV & fringe pusher might cause a lot of harm, this articles nevertheless might be less likely to become a target to begin. At least those forms of POV & fringe pushing which are meant for an larger audience often stay from those highly specialized articles as they do not provide the desired audience. For instance the ideologically or religiously motived POV & Fringe pushers are highly unlikely to mess up Hilbert space but they pester other articles instead, where regular authors might be of more help.

I agree that the that "anyone can edit"-concept has bad consequences, there's no denying that. But again I see no real alternative. We more or less know that moving fundamentally away from that concept is not working. The projects that tried to work without some "anyone can edit"-variation have all failed in terms of producing a comprehensive general encyclopedia within 5-10 years and are likely to do so for the next decades as well. The basic reason behind that is, that (voluntary) experts alone even without any disturbance of POV or fringe simply lack the man power for the job. WP relies on the fact for most topics unless they are highly specialized you don't actually need an expert author (say PhD and up) but (university) textbook knowledge/content can actually compiled by people (advanced or smart enough) students or people with lower or no degrees. Those guys may not always produce very good or perfect articles, but they usually can compile the textbook contents into articles that are "good enough" for a general encyclopedia. So what we can and should do is looking for ways to minimize the bad consequences of the "anyone can edit"-concept (for instance certain restrictions on IPs or new editors, flagged revisions, article ownership for experts, locking down of certain reviewed articles, etc...), but we cannot abandon the concept itself without giving up the goal of being a comprehensive up to date general encyclopedia. It is a trade off between an (uniform) excellent quality of articles and universal coverage. But universal coverage with a "good enough" quality has been the way for which most conventional general encyclopedias opted in the past and it is also what has made WP so useful and popular in practice.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to be arguing at all against Wikipedia or more specifically its being a wiki. I am here, after all. My only point is that Wikipedia's problems have origins that have little or nothing to do with policy, and that WP will meet our hopes and aspirations only under certain conditions. I have repeatedly pointed out that these conditions prevail at a great many articles. But this thread began by raising an issue concerning fringe theories, and theories that are so fringe they are not even notable, and which are a problem at many article son scientific topics. This is a serious problem, and my point was the conditions that prevail to make WP work at some articles do not prevail for a huge class of articles, and this is a problem that will not be fixed by changing any of our policies. No one said anything about abandoning the concept of "anyone can edit." Certainly, I made it clear that I support it. But I reject the "trade-off" argument. It is not satisfying to those of us who care about the points JHK or Mangoe and others have raised. Also, I think it is inaccurate. The "trade-off" view of WP applies only if one looks at WP over a relatively short period (say, a couple of years). If one looks at WP from its inception to the present, one sees that the actual trade-offs have changed, and have changed in ways that are quite understandable and perhaps predictable. Understanding how the trade-offs have changed, have taken different forms during different stages of Wikipedia's growth, might help us forecast changing tade-offs in the future, help us better locate problems, and devise more effective strategies for managing them. This is after all one of the main interests of science, and one would think that among the editors of an encyclopedia, there are some who have the skills to analyze this problem and help develop strategies. For almost every academic I know, WP still falls far short of the "good enough" standard of established encyclopedias. I guess on the bright side, WP's shortcomings has made it much easier for college professors to spot plagiarism! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Nobody claims that trade offs may change over time (which however doesn't negate the principal nature of the trade off in principal) nor does anybody negate that the wiki concept has serious issues that cannot all resolved via policies (in fact I named various non policy remedies above). Also I don't think anybody would argue that policies apply to all articles in the same fashion, of course they need to adapt somewhat to given context or particular class of articles. However while better/additional ideas to manage those issues are wanted, we cannot expect to resolve them completely as they are innate to the wiki concept to some degree. And the wiki concept we need to keep for the reasons I outlined above. As far as "good enough" is concerned however my perception is rather the other way around, I see an increasing number of academics that consider WP articles mostly/often as "good enough" as far as the purpose/scope of a general encyclopedias is concerned. This is still our primary project goal and the bar against which we have to measure up to. Also some of the academic criticism that I've seen over the years is imho actually missing the point somewhat, because they simply ignore our primary goal and measure WP against criteria that general encyclopedias tend to fail in general. It is quite an interesting experience to look up various criticized cases or the exemplary article you've listed above in conventional general encyclopedias such as Britannica as their treatment is the measuring bar for "good enough".

As far as the (wanted) development of strategies beyond mere policies and analysis related to them are concerned , this is wrong location to discuss them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Image that was added to the page

I tried to draw attention to this in the earlier section about page protection, but I think it got lost in the tl;dr. Earlier today, an administrator edited through full protection (a pet peeve of mine, but that's another discussion) to add an image to the page, about the relationship between verifiability and truth. Given that there was no consensus to add the image, I request that it be removed, at least for now. First of all, it's a change without adequate discussion. What's more, we now have previously uninvolved editors coming here via the watchlist notice, and there is no way to know how seeing the image (which they will assume has been on the page a long time, and is somehow related to the RfC proposal) will affect how they respond to the RfC. We already have way too many concerns about the game changing after the RfC was reopened. Now we also have this possible skew to the results. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and suggest the admin's use of tools be seriously looked at.--Crossmr (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been self-reverted. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reserve Comment

I am not going to say aye or nay just now. Although new to editing here, I have followed this discussion for years. I do wish to mention that someone who is determined to either advance a point of view or who rejects a point of view utterly is not going to let little things like notability, verifiability or even established models of reality stop them from inflicting themselves upon the encyclopedia. If I were convinced the geocentric view is exclusively correct, you may be certain my mindset would be one which will turn any policy, no matter how well written to my advantage in affirming that view. (Why yes, I am active in pro rights for LGBT topics, however did you guess?) I never took the wording to mean that verifiability meant one could avoid serious, professionally carried out research with the same investment and academic disinterest which a competent scientist brings to disproving a theory. At the same time, I confess that I do not permit my students to cite the encyclopedia or even list articles in their literature reviews. I'm not smart enough to resolve the conflict. I do know that, regardless of the ultimate wording, contentious editing will remain a problem. I thank all those who have participated in this. Policy, especially for new editors is anything but transparent. Any attempt to improve it has my support. Heartfelt.Pauci leones (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to restore diffs directly under the title

I posted links [14] to the current and proposed versions under the title, plus a diff between the two, but someone keeps removing them. I object to this removal. With a lack of diffs, and an uninformative and arguably misleading title, it's not immediately clear what is being proposed. The diffs make it very clear.

• Current policy
• Proposed policy
• diff

I can't see any reason to remove these, so I propose they be restored as soon as possible. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Given that the diff is available, it is a useful thing to have. --JN466 02:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  I appreciate Blueboar's concern that people with small screens/large fonts may fail to see both halves of the proposal in the diff, especially as so many editors already seem to be under the erroneous impression that the proposal would get rid of the phrase "verifiability, not truth" altogether. That makes me slightly less enthusiastic. If the diff is shown, editors should definitely be reminded that they may have to scroll down to see both parts of the proposal – both the change to the lead sentence, and the new section on "verifiability, not truth". --JN466 15:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support as well though I'm willing to hear justification for its removal. N^oformation ^Talk 03:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stop rewriting the RFC midstream, mmmkay? They're redundant, they're ugly, and we don't need the edit summaries that come with them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just realized that it was you who removed them today. [15] Unscintillating removed them yesterday. [16] That is not "rewriting" anything. They're diffs, helpful because they show clearly at a glance what the proposal involves. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Sarek, "redundant, ugly, and we don't need the edit summaries" aren't good reasons for removing them. My understanding is that SlimVirgin is trying to inform readers and potential RfC participants about the proposed changes. That would seem to outweigh your reason for removing them. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, you mean the proposed changes that are described in their entirety immediately below? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • SarekOfVulcan: I thought you were uninvolved? I would have supported your re-instatement as admin, but after these comments, I think any re-instatement requires a more careful examination. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Nice try. In my opinion, I was UNINVOLVED at the point I closed the RFC, as I had only asked one question for clarification, but it's quite obvious that went out the window several days ago. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The only other link showing the reader the diff appears 7,381 characters (with spaces) later. What is your objection to informing the reader at the beginning, with links directly to the changes? Blueboar's RfC "summary" is extremely long, and we want to service readers who want to see the proposed changes without waiting for the last paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, the diffs add an immediate clarity and concise information at the top of the RFC, where clarity and concise information should be. Dreadstar ☥ 03:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Provides clarity, now, and for the record. The edit summaries are not worth worrying about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with changing the RfC - including the title and any explanatory information - more than halfway through the RfC. We need to be consistent. The RfC should not be changing now. Karanacs (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed - I am concerned that including the diffs could (unintentionally?) bias the RfC... since changes are highlighted in bright red, but additions are not, someone looking at the diffs will have their attention inappropriately drawn to only part of the proposal... the proposed changes to the first paragraph... and they may completely miss the fact that the proposal also proposes adding a new section. That additional section is central to the proposal - it is where the phrase "Verifiability, not Truth" (the phrase that everyone is so concerned about) is being moved to and explained. I am concerned that someone looking at the diffs will assume (incorrectly) that the proposal seeks to remove "V not T" entirely (which it definitely does not do). Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedians are used to reading diffs. This diff shows clearly what the proposed changes are. If you like, we can write "Scroll down to see all proposed changes". SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support as long as the two diffs are accurate. If i understand Blueboar correctly, the concern is that some but not all parts of the proposal are highlighted. A reasonable concern, but surely, this is a problem that can be easily fixed while still providing people with links the the different versions. Perhaps it calls for creating a sub-page that shows the complete policy with all proposed changes highlighted e.g. using strikeout for deletions and a different color for additions. Is this not technologically feasible? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If (and this is a huge if) it is technologically feasible to create something that highlights both the proposed changes to the first paragraph and the proposed addition of the new sections in exactly the same way, I might be willing to change my opinion. I would have to see what it looks like to know for sure. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The RfC is, IMHO, too long. Letting editors see the actual change being proposed adds clarity to what exactly is being proposed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Editors already see the exact changes being proposed -- they're listed at the top of the RFC, and they're very straightforward.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • You don't know that. IMO, the RfC borders on WP:TLDR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm just referring to the changes themselves as straightforward, not the content. One replacement, one addition.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
        • It's still one huge wall of text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Per Blueboar: I think there's always a big risk people will not read or read carelessly and given the amount of effort put into this I can understand his concern. At the same time allowing editors to see what the changes will look like is a visual clarification step that is useful and possibly important. Can we add a note reminding people to read all, highlighted and not?(olive (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

• Oppose. I accept that it adds much needed clarity. But over 200 editors have now !voted. They are not all going to swing back here, review the diffs and change their votes. This is at least the 2nd change to the critical intro of the RfC. How can a closer determine a consensus when the very opening statements of the RfC has been changed 3 times? As I've said elsewhere, it's a lame duck. Close now, pause. Come back in a couple of weeks and communicate and manage it effectively. Learn from the mistakes, move on. Leaky Caldron 16:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, when you come back, write the new RfC with diffs, if you like. But above all, revise the proposal in the light of the comments; it may then have an actual consensus, without WikiLawyering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, sort of - it would have been nice for those of us who are daft, but on the other hand it looks like it's a bit late now, and having the list of links like that was indeed kind of ugly, and the visual separation of the parts themselves seems to be even more of an issue. Perhaps putting all of the changes in one box with the diff links inline would work better, if this thing's to be done again? -— Isarra (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment  The title of this proposal, "Proposal to restore diffs directly under the title" is erroneous, as SlimVirgin incorrectly asserts that I removed these diffs, yet what is being proposed here for inclusion are not the diffs that I removed.  As such, it is a fox wearing sheep's clothing, and anyone who says, oh, that is ok, what is there now is good enough, but doesn't require that the title be corrected, makes themselves a party to the disruption.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How is this not clear?

I really don't see the need to include diffs... the changes and additions being proposed are placed in boxes to highlight what they are... as follows:

• 1) change the opening paragraph:

From: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. 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. 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).

The other paragraphs in the lede will not change.

• 2) Insert a new section (as the first section after the lede, following the index box) 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 (i.e., 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). Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.

How is this confusing? Two parts... 1) a change to the first paragraph, and 2) an addition of a new section. Nice black boxes to show exactly what the proposal is. The more I think about this, the more I think that adding diffs will just make the proposal more confusing (and potentially misleading) Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion it is clear, but visual information can give varying levels of information. The RfC content is embedded in explanatory text which means editors don't have a sense of how it will look and read in the article itself. The diffs increase clarification, make it clearer. Can something be done about highlighting the proposed addition?(olive (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

Something may not be strictly necessary and yet be desirable. It often helps to see things in their proper context. After all the desired context for this proposal is not this contentious RfC but the actual policy, which many hope will be improved through these changes, right? it is the policy that matters, right? I think it will help many people better assess whether they like or do not like the proposal if they can see it in its proper context, i.e. read the wntire policy. I write this knowing that this might generate more "support" comments. You and others have argued that these changes do not radically alter the substance of the proposal. If you are right, this will be clearer if we can read it in context i.e. read the revised proposal as a whole. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... OK... I think the Proposed policy link (showing people what the page would look like if the proposal were implemented) is fine, and probably would clarify things. (although I would place it after the text of the proposal, but before the rational.) My strong objection is to the diff link (do to the highlighting issue and the potential that it would actually confuse readers as to the intent of the proposal). Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My reaction when I saw this on Sunday night was that it was unneccessarily visually complex. As Slru and Littleolive say above, you don't get the same impact as you would in Article style. It may be a minor point, but I would suggest displaying it as it will look so as to remove the overburden of transcluding it from the boxes and bullet points. My 2p. Leaky Caldron 20:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying... My goal with the boxes was to highlight the fact that the proposal was in two distinct parts. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfC has become a train wreck

Honestly, the RfC has become a train wreck for the many reasons stated by both supporters and opponents of the change. Right now, no matter how the RfC is closed, there are so many different problems and accusations flying around that both supporters and opponents can rightfully claim the process was flawed. Closing the RfC - whether yay or ney - is only going to result in more heated debate on whether the process was fair. Here's what I think we should do: scrap the RfC, wait a period of time to allow emotions to calm down (at least a few days, perhaps a few weeks) and then we can create a brand new RfC that attempts to address the issues - whether perceived or real - with the current one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate to say it but I agree. I don't know how this is going to be closed one way or another. If it's "no consensus to change," the support side is going to have a rightful claim that it was the result of wheel warring, politicizing, etc. If it's closed as "consensus for new version" then the oppose side is going to make more accusations of flaws, bias, etc. I think it's pretty much fucked, so I agree a new RFC would be the best course of action. I also think that the new RFC should have a very clear definition regarding the amount of time it will run, where it will be advertised, and what "consensus" will mean. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there really is no good policy guiding us as to what will constitute a consensus for this type of policy change. The admins involved in the closing of this RFC have a very tough job ahead of them, and I don't think it's going to be over regardless of the close. N^oformation ^Talk 02:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have disagreed with this yesterday, but I'm very concerned now to see that someone even removed the diffs showing what the proposed changes would be. Especially with such a long proposal, it's important to let people see (easily) for themselves what is being proposed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd let it go until after the US Thanksgiving holiday. Since most Wikipedians are from the US they might be in a better mood assuming no one burt the turkey or they didn't have to sit by their mother-in-law.∞陣内Jinnai 03:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really fancy that. Just leave the RfC open for a few more days (Newyorkbrad suggested until 10 November at AN/I). By then everyone should have calmed down again. If the change goes ahead, the wording can always (and will anyway) be tweaked further later on. --JN466 03:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the RFC will be closed in some way, the losing side can then contest that in a court in Florida, asking for certain votes to be declared invalid and a recount based on that. Count Iblis (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

An RfC which results in the doubling of participants is a success, not a "train wreck". I think editors have forgotten what an RfC entails. That's understandable given all the whinging and crying and shouting and personal attacks by users who thought they could have a quiet RfC. That's not how these things work. Reality is a messy business. Step outside your basement once in a while. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I'm not sure what you said had to do with anything to do with what I just said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: And when the losing side loses (it doesn't matter which one), they'll have legitimate gripes. Editors will continue arguing and nothing will be solved. We'll just be back at square one. In my mind, the question is whether we want to resolve the issue - one way or another - or keep arguing about it for another 9 months? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This has become a train-wreck in only one sense: a small number of good-faith editors had conflicting ideas of how to improve this policy, and a small number of editors (Blueboar, Tryptofish, and North8000 I think) put a lot of effort into forging a compromise between these two sides. They then decided to post an RfC. Some people seem to have viewed an RfC as a vote that would result in the proposal either passing or not. But an RfC is explicitly a "light" way to help resolve conflicts, by explicitly soliciting the views of people who had not been active in the discussion, and it is explicitly not a straight up/down vote. This means that the RfC has an effect opposite to the intentions and expectations of this samll group of editors. Most simply put, they lost control, and although losing control is kind of the whole Tao fo Wiki, it does not feel good. And for the past few days, these editors - the ones who thought they were negotiating a compromise that only needs majority support to effect a change in the policy - have gone ballistic. At least one of them has been honest enough to admit that in many cases she can no longer assume good faith.

I think Jayen466 is right, that if the RfC runs for another week or ten days (as long as the close date and if possible time is publicized widely and well in advance) things will likely cool down. Frankly, I think that the real solution would be if all people who viewed themselves as parties to the "negotiation" or "compromise" completely (and of course it has to be voluntarily) stepped out i.e. refrained from making any comments at all on this page until the RfC ends. Ihave written a lot of comments on this page and I will gladly stop editing this page until the RfC ends. The RfC is a call for outsiders to comment. Ask a couple of members of ArbCom or bureaucrats to ensure that the RfC is widely publicised and that the closing time and date is widely publicized in advance (i.e. that the procedures set out in WP;RfC are being followed), and will then close the RfC at that time, and then let the RfC do what it is supposed to do: invite comments from uninvolved parties. The procedure with an RfC is, after it is closed, people discuss the comments. Let all the people who were actively involved in this voluntarily step out, and when the RfC closes they can step back in and discuss the comments, and see whether the comments help move us to a consensus, or show that no consensus is possible, or point to a different consensus. This is what it will take for things to cool down. And suddenly, the train-wreck will disapppear. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about my (not particularly successful) efforts to get people to compromise. I'll leave it to others to assess whether or not it's accurate to describe me now as having "gone ballistic". But please understand that I had made it very clear well before the RfC was opened, while editors on the sub-page were telling me to go away because I argued that the proposal was going too far, that I very definitely do not suffer from the delusion that I have any kind of "control" over the process. So there is no issue of me feeling like I lost "control" that I never believed that I have. When I point out things that I think are improper, it is because I believe that they are improper.

As for whether this is a train wreck, well, yes it is. But I am actually pretty confident that it will eventually get sorted out. Let the community comment, and take a thoughtful look at the conduct of those whose conduct requires a thoughtful look. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to single anyone out with the "go ballistic" remark, and in not naming one (or more) person, people might think I am referring to all people. I do not think it applies to everyone, and I also think it applies to people on all sides. Perhaps it would be more constructive simply to say: this process might proceed far more calmly if all the people who were actively involved in these discussions prior to the RfC, on principle, refrained from participating in discussions until after. Some editors believe that there were purely procedural problems. These concerns were discussed here, and appropriately so, but at this point if anyone still has these concerns i.e. if the discussion here has not yet staisfactorally resolved them, perhaps they belong now at AN/I. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything can be deciphered from this mess in its current form, and while I recognize the hard work and good faith that went into addressing this long-standing problem the right way, this RFC is a trainwreck in more ways than one, I couldn't decipher it, I still haven't deciphered it, a review of this talk page and ANI and user talk pages shows all the problems, and although my messup may be among the most dorky, I'm still not sure that I'm clear on the whole matter.

I do agree that closing this out, waiting a few weeks, and re-launching a new and thoroughly advertised RFC might be the best way forward at this point (IIRC, we had to do the same for the ATTRIBUTION debate a few years ago). It's a pillar, and we should get it right-- I've given up trying to understand what went into this with all of the restarts and rewords (partly out of embarrassment that I didn't decipher it correctly the first time). My view is, I want "not truth" gone, but fixing it via that attribution business allows for UNDUE POV, and I've given examples elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• We've been unable to get consensus even to put forward the proposal to remove "not truth" entirely (and believe me, I've tried hard). See this poll. In my experience editors grow extremely obstructive when this is proposed.—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that scrapping this RfC and launching another one would be a good idea. Because the policy in question is one of the core ones, it's natural that heated debates are taking place and in this sense a poll is a pretty good way to encapsulate the views. Many people have already expressed their will, many others will pretty soon. If they see that this RfC has been scrapped, some (or worse - many) of them may not vote once more and repeat their opinions and arguments, which may ultimately lead to distorted results and look like a forumshopping. In this context a new RfC would make the time people dedicated to current RfC futile and devour additional one. The best cure for the raised issue is indeed just give this RfC, especially its poll, more time to ripe and become more representative and pronounced, as has been proposed. As something is to be done with WP:V, ignoring RfC would be heinous and ungrateful IMHO. Brandmeister t 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A question of compromise

I voted oppose, not because I oppose the additional text but because I opposed the removal of "v not t" from the lead. Going over the oppose votes, it seems a lot of people feel the same way. Reading a lot of the support votes, I find quite a few that misunderstand the purpose of this RFC (i.e. they think that V not T is being removed entirely, rather than being moved and clarified).

My question is: is the attachment to removing the phrase very high, or is the support camp more concerned with the additional information? Is keeping the lead the same and still adding the clarification a possible compromise that would make both camps happy?

Regardless, would it not be better to have a separate RFC for each of these issues, as it's easy to be opposed to (2) but not opposed to (1) and vice versa? N^oformation ^Talk 03:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with retaining the current first sentence, but also retaining the extra clarification in the new section of the proposal (though not exactly as written, e.g. "assertions of untruth" is unclear). But I believe this was proposed several weeks or months ago, and the proponents of first-sentence change opposed it.

The problem was there were too many proposals and polls, over too long a period, so people got fed up and confused. That meant by several options that might have worked well got forgotten about. Ideally, the RfC would have offered more than one option, including the current wording as a positive choice (though, again, not so many options that people got bewildered). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Noformation thinks some of the Support votes are misunderstanding the proposal ... the reason I find his/her take on this interesting is that I have the exact same concern about many of the Opposed comments (ie that many of those who oppose the proposal are doing so because they think the proposal seeks to remove VnT from the policy entirely, when it definitely does not). I suppose it is possible that there are people on both sides who did not really read the proposal and rational, and are commenting based on a misunderstanding the proposal... but the uninvolved admin who closes this can take both possibilities into account when he/she closes. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's quite clear if you read the comments that both the support and oppose lists contain misunderstandings (e.g. saying that "verified" and "true" are synonyms, which they may be in some uses of these terms but are not in Wikipedia-speak). The conclusion I draw from this is different to yours, which is why I oppose the change. Key policies need to be expressed very succinctly; any lengthening, even if it produces a clearer explanation when read fully, is likely to be counter-productive. "TL;DR" is the reality. As a former university teacher, I know only too well from marking examination scripts how annoying it is when a carefully constructed and precise formulation which took ages to develop is mangled by those who didn't spend long enough studying it, and I can see that you and others who have spent a long time on this feel the same. But there's a key difference: I could fail students and hope they got the message when they had to repeat the examination; we can't test and fail editors. I conclude that the policy needs to be "sweet and simple". "VnT" is doubtless over-simplistic and potentially misleading, but I think it is the least worst alternative so far. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Peter, based on your last sentence, I come away the (perhaps mistaken) idea that you oppose the proposal because you think "VnT" is being removed from the policy. Is this the case? Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave that impression; I do understand that it's still there in the proposed wording. The logic of "TL;DR" is that it has to be very, very prominent, which is why I still prefer the current position in the first sentence. One problem is that, as other people have noted, we're being given a proposal which has multiple changes. There are certainly improvements in the explanation of "VnT" in the proposed version which I think are very worthwhile – but not the removal of "VnT" from the first sentence. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes Blueboar, you are correct and I should have been specific; it's clear that there are people on both sides who misunderstand exactly what is happening in this RFC. N^oformation ^Talk 19:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the closing admin can take that into consideration. My guess is that the votes based on misunderstanding will essentially cancel each other out. And if this ends up in yet another "no consensus" vote... we have some excellent comments on both sides to work with as we move forward. If this attempt at compromise does not work, we can keep discussing until we find a compromise that will work. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct and optimistic, which is good. The only caveat is that there will be an indeterminate amount of votes that will be impossible to parse as being misinformed, but I don't think that's really an Achilles heel here. I guess the only thing to do now is wait and see how the RfC closes. N^oformation ^Talk 20:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's argument

Discussed here. Count Iblis (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This may provide an interesting case study on why I think Jimbo's continuing role in en.wikipedia is a poisonous formulation. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, because his thesis (that it isn't good for Wikipedia articles to knowingly include false (and potentially harmful) information merely because it is published elsewhere) is somehow a bad thing? Actually, I pretty much agree with Jimbo's thesis 100%. The existance of a source doesn't somehow make a falsehood true. Editorial decisions always need to be made regarding Wikipedia articles, including whether or not to include some bit of information. Being verifiable isn't the only reason to include information; and sometimes the editorial decision needs to be to exclude some information even if it is published elsewhere for various reasons. All the reasons why it is a good idea to not include published info are so many as to be impossible to list, but being actually wrong is a pretty good one, in my book. --Jayron32 04:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo has an extremely constrained editorial, disciplinary and content provision history; his contributions gain attention far beyond their merit; and, the idea of "falsehood" is limited in the domains of the humanities and social sciences to claims that are exceedingly trivial. The idea of "falsehood" represents an epistemological positivism that is radically out of synch with the HQRS for most of our encyclopaedia's content; and Jimbo's example is invidious in its triviality. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't get away with the way you've used "exceedingly trivial" in an article, for good reasons (especially, I would hope, one in the domains of the humanities and social sciences). Whether one battle took place before another may be "trivial" compared to serious historical analysis of the causes of the war, but that doesn't mean that it's "trivial" if Wikipedia (or any other source which tries to be reliable) gets the dates wrong – if a source can't get such information right, why should anyone trust anything more complicated that it contains? If it turns out that neutrinos actually can travel faster than the speed of light, the theories which will eventually be constructed to try to explain this will certainly be more important than the fact itself, but in the meantime what matters to scientists is whether the claim is true or not. In all these domains, analysis, opinion, theory – all the non-trivial and most interesting stuff – still rest on some more directly checkable facts (and yes, I do know that "facts" are not entirely theory-neutral). Peter coxhead (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Jayron32 here. As for cases where truth/untruth is not a black-and-white issue, NPOV policy is well equipped to handle such disputes without relying on an assist from WP:V that has the unwanted side effect of enabling editors to argue that verifiably published, but demonstrably false information must never be deleted. --JN466 04:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two issues with your points here. A major part of your point seems to be that it is wrong merely because Jimbo made the point. That seems to be a trivial matter, it is the idea not the speaker which matters here. Secondly, his example isn't trivial, necessarily, matters regarding biographies of living persons represent a real legal and ethical quagmire for Wikipedia, and we have a responsibility for getting it right. Issues of simple fact may be irrelevent for complex matters in, say, articles on philosophy or sociology, or whatnot, but many Wikipedia articles are about topics where matters of simple fact ARE, well, simple. Either a person did or did not commit some action "X", and Wikipedia has a responsibility to not say "Person A did action X" if in fact, they did not. That some other source mistakenly said they did is not reason enough, if the demonostratedly did not. That is but one issue; merely because matters of "falsehood" doesn't work in some articles in the encyclopedia doesn't mean it doesn't work anywhere. That you, personally, work in a field where questions of simple binary fact don't often apply is fine and dandy, but you're personal experience is not the sum total of human experience, and you Fifelfoo need to realize that there are experiences that exist outside of your own. That extends to include the many encyclopedia articles, the bulk of whose content relies on material which is merely a reporting of facts which are either correct or incorrect (a person was either born on a certain date or they were not, a sports team either won or lost a game, a certain number of people lived in a city on the date of a certain census, a certain fish has been found to live in a certain body of water or wasn't, etc.) Such information is either true or false, and insofar as it is, we should never be knowingly reporting information which is demosntratedly and actually false merely because someone printed the falsehood before we did. Again, Fifelfoo, I understand that articles you work with do not operate on such concepts, and that is good. Those articles need you to work on them, and the encyclopedia is better for it. But also understand that there are many articles which contain information which is either right or wrong in a boolean sense, and Wikipedia has a responsibility to be on the right side of that... --Jayron32 04:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If something is demonstrably false, ipso facto, it's not a reliable source. Every example given of where V, not T has been allegedly misused, the sources used can be shown not to be reliable for the content. Getting rid of the phrase altogether would unhelpfully strengthen the hands of campaigners, cranks and paid-up PR people. Any supposed gain in accuracy would very likely be lost many more times over in other articles.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with VsevolodKrolikov. This is the primary basis for my opposition to the proposed changes -the proposal seeks to "force" this policy to do the work of other policies and guidelines. It seems the "Anti-VnotT party" have completely forgotten about the existence of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. I also do not understand how some folks here manage to equate "Not Truth" and "Untruth". BTW, JIMBOSAYS carries no more inherent weight than the very first post by an IP Editor - every post must be evaluated by it's content, not it's author. Roger (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Vsevolod, when you say "If something is demonstrably false, it's not a reliable source", your position resembles mine. Do you think that implies that if something is demonstrably true, then it is a reliable source?—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a different proposition altogether. Multiple reliable sources give confidence that something is correct, not demonstration.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that you see "confidence that something is correct" as an important criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia?—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes- although I'm instinctively wary of what you think I mean by "correct". I don't mean we choose one viewpoint over another in a judgement of "correctness", or that we do not mention notable ideas that are wrong.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'll try that another way. Do you see "confidence that something is not false" as an important criterion?—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, you own argument is inconsistent with the disputed lead sentence of the policy as presently written. Currently, the policy's lead sentence says, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. To present your argument that the source is unreliable, you have to argue that the information contained in it is not true. But the lead sentence says, literally, that (1) nobody has to concern themselves with your personal belief that it isn't true, because what you or any other editor thinks is true does not matter to Wikipedia, and (2) truth doesn't matter in the first place, so you're wrong to even raise the question. --JN466 15:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead sentence doesn't "literally" say that truth doesn't matter; it says that the threshold for inclusion is publication in a reliable source. What counts as a "reliable source" is very largely their demonstrated commitment to applying the appropriate truth tests to the material they publish. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, you say "Getting rid of the phrase altogether would unhelpfully strengthen the hands of campaigners, cranks and paid-up PR people." There are two problems with that sentence: (1) The proposal is not to get rid of the phrase "verifiability, not truth" altogether. The proposal is to have it in its own section and explain where and how it applies. (2) In my view, it is the present version that strengthens the hands of campaigners, cranks and paid-up PR people, because they can counter any challenge by saying, "It does not matter whether this claim is true or not; all that matters is that it has been published, which it has." Regards, --JN466 15:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

They cannot counter the challenge in this way; they have to show that it was published in a reliable source. VnT without RS would indeed be a disaster. But this isn't suggested nor is it in the existing wording. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers and magazines are reliable sources by our standards, and there are many newspapers who print material prepared for them by PR people with little or no change. --JN466 16:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG is actually quite sceptical about such sources, including the statement "Whether a specific [sic] news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis." As many people have pointed out, the entire package of WP policies in this area must be taken together. VnT is just a slogan – a useful one in the experience of some editors, an unhelpful one in the experience of others. More stress on the interconnectedness of policies is a good feature of the proposed change, in my view; removing VnT from the first sentence altogether is not. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32, I suspect that exactly the same points which were made by Jimbo, were made above in discussion, repeatedly, by editors far more involved in the day to day editing of their corners of our encyclopaedia, with far more value due to the immediacy of those editor's experience. I'm agnostic to the correctness of Jimbo's argument (for the reasons you note regarding the limitations of my editing). My concern isn't the correctness of Jimbo's point; but that any "argument from Jimbo" will necessarily be much more rhetoric than argument, and fundamentally damage community consensus on this basis. (Your argument about policy needing to support encyclopaedic content in areas where "truth" is readily established was excellent btw). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gotta love WP:JIMBOSAID arguments. Especially when he says hurtful things about specific WP editors, so all their opponents can just pound away. Nice. Dreadstar ☥ 05:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo also once wrote this "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view," which fits in neatly with the current wording of the policy.

But the basic point is Filfoo's very second comment in this thread: "the idea of "falsehood" is limited in the domains of the humanities and social sciences to claims that are exceedingly trivial. The idea of "falsehood" represents an epistemological positivism that is radically out of synch with the HQRS for most of our encyclopaedia's content; and Jimbo's example is invidious in its triviality." The intellectual integrity of this encyclopedia, and its credibility with professional scholars, depends on this point. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• IMO Jimbo has concerns about this that go beyond those that most think about. While most of us regular editors understand what "verifiability, not truth" is supposed to mean this is not true for people who encounter the phrase outside of Wikipedia. Outside of our community it sounds like we're not interested in accuracy, just following rules bureaucratically. Things like editorial discretion are not understood by outsiders. Also the roles of things lik consensus and IAR can easily be overshadowed by V not T in the outside view as well, again making it seem like Wikipedia is a place for transcription monkeys instead of a place where human beings interact to reach the best possible outcomes. So Jimbo has a PR issue with this as well I'd imagine. I don't mind taking that into account myself when making decisions on issues like this because in the end we should be thinking pragmatically. Of course we shouldn't adopt changes that will have negative consequences simply for PR purposes, but if all things considered, the new language and the old are equally good, then PR is a fine concern to have. Cheers. (NOTE: I do not think Jimbo's main concern is PR, and I think he's entirely earnest about his objections, but I just get the sense that he's attuned to that perspective because of his position vis-a-vis the project).Griswaldo (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I can see where Jimbo is coming from, most of his and the foundation's involvement with content has to do with considering the implications of BLP issues where the concept of "truth" has a particular relevance. That makes sense, but it is impossible and unreasonable to extend that kind of positivism to all areas of the encyclopedia. Science simply doesn't work with "truth" anymore. And making the encyclopedia revolve around that concept would seriously hinder its ability to ever be scientific. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why do people here keep saying that science does not work with truth? Sure, that's the POV of post-modernist literary criticism, but that's a very limited and misinformed view. Do you know any serious scientist that agrees with these critics? Even among philosophers, scientific realism is clearly the dominant position (according to the PhilPaper survey, almost 75% of professional philosophers lean to or accept scientific realism.) Now, I think Jimbo is going to far and this policy should not say that "truth" is a concern, but neither should VP:V impose this ridiculous post-modernist POV in order to simply explain that assertions of truth are insufficient. Vesal (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    Alan Sokal also got annoyed about this :) . Count Iblis (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't do literary criticism. It is also the POV of most philosophers of science since Popper and Kuhn. Scientific realism also doesn't require "truth".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't do literary criticism either. Most practicioners at my work believe that within the bounds of human fallibility they can produce arguments that may match or exceed alternate arguments about external reality in a highly competitive system of peer evaluation of arguments based on a system of work that attempts to ensure fidelity between arguments and external reality through a complex evidentiary process. However, repeatedly, and with great regularity, human fallibility, poor argumentation, the emergence of superior arguments, failures of peer evaluation, failures in the system of work, and failures in the evidentiary process mean what they produce simply isn't "true," but was one human's best effort. More importantly, a couple of hundred "acceptable" systems of work exist, and a valid Marxist argument, and a valid biographical argument may very well contradict one another. We think we're doing pretty fucking good to get that level of quality up and out there, we berate ourselves in public to the point of major libel trials breaking people's reputations for life when stuff goes wrong. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What matters is if the editors can reasonably believe that the claimed truth indeed exists. It's then a matter of trust. As I argue here, we actually do this all the time on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but with regards to most scientific topics, as well as research in the humanities, we cannot say that we reasonably believe that the claimed truth exists. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you still need to use a concept of truth on a meta level. E.g. if we are editing together on a subject that you know a lot more about than I and we discuss a proposed edit to a wikipedia article, then I may need to accept that some textbook that I don't possess does make a certain statement that you claim it makes. So, truth then doesn't refer to the author of the textbook being right or wrong on some issue, rather it refers to what is written in the textbook. While that's then still verifiable for me, if I were to buy the textbook, in practice this does boil down to me trusting you on this matter, as I would be unlikely to actually try to get hold of the textbook. So, I'm then using you as a reliable source for the contents of the textbook.

Of course, one can say that this is just a mattter of honest sourcing, but even verifying directly from the textbook can be a complicated issue if the textbook is very technical. I may have to first follow several university level courses to be able to understand it. Only then would I be satisfied that what you say is indeed a fair representation of what the textbook says (if I were to distrust you). Count Iblis (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you, I think you man that we ned to have a common point of reference. I agree. But it need not be "the truth." In my experience, requiring the common point of reference to be "the truth" only causes unconstructive conflicts. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo said, "Outside of our community it sounds like we're not interested in accuracy, just following rules bureaucratically. Things like editorial discretion are not understood by outsiders. Also the roles of things lik consensus and IAR can easily be overshadowed by V not T in the outside view as well, again making it seem like Wikipedia is a place for transcription monkeys instead of a place where human beings interact to reach the best possible outcomes."

I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks the verifiable not true card isn't used as a weapon should go through the archives of som eo fthe LGBT article (George Reekers, Anal Intercourse, especially). There, arguments are very purposefully advanced by one group using exactly these policies as knock-out weapons.) I grasp the distinction between 'truth' in my own field, the natural sciences and the everyday definition (ie., in my field 'true' means, exclusively: 'currently accepted model of reality, subject to dispassionate replacement by a better model at any time'. In everyday use it means quite something else. So all we can hope for is a policy which is sufficiently clear to prevent those with an agenda from presenting opinions as truth. It's a tough one, especially in the areas which interest me. Enough said, at this point my comment is that I really appreciate the efforts behind this RFC and hope it results in some clarity. After all, the majority of Americans veritably 'know' global warming is a scam. That doesn't justify giving their views the same weight as those of virtually all scientists working in the field who disagree.Pauci leones (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason we are not taken seriously is the quality of our articles, period. The question is, why are so many article crappy? many non users cite policy, but this is just lazy. The have little understanding of the dynamics through which articles are produced, including positive and negative dynamics, but the reasons for poor articles are complex (I try to address some in m comment regarding fringe theories) — it is simply easier to scapegoat a policy. But damaging a proposal in the hopes it will change our immage is folly, even if well-intentioned. I do not think the proposed change will improve the quality of our articles, and if it doesn't we will still have reputation problems, we ned other kinds of solutions. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The pragmatic question to ask would be if it would damage the quality of our articles. All things equal, it makes all kinds of sense to consider how we are viewed from outside. If the proposal damages the quality then of course we shouldn't worry about the PR aspect. I stated this already in my original comment. Also, Pauci is right on to talk about distinctions between conceptualizations of "truth." We really should not be writing policies based on how philosophers of science, or any other scholars dealing with epistemology professionally understand or use terms like "truth." I find myself extremely surprised to hear social scientists (no offense to you and Maunus) arguing that we should. You guys need to get your heads out of the theory class and back into the field on this. Most of our editors do not understand "truth" in the terms you are discussing it. I haven't taken a survey or interviewed anyone but it's pretty obvious isn't it? When I said that Wikipedians understand "verifiability, not truth" differently than people outside our community, I wasn't even broaching that topic. Above all we need to be pragmatic here. If we want to discuss how people understand certain phrases we need to consider who these people are and use that as our starting point. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the pragmatic approach. Pragmatically, it would damage our articles. I am a scientific realist, not a theorist. If I think a scientifi theory is "true" i mean only in a pargmatic sense, and provisional, and approximate, and I do not think this comes close to the starting point for our typical reader, indeed I think most people use truth to mean something metaphycial or absolute. WWe ned to avoid this confusiuon at WP and avoiding "truth" is the easiest way to do it.

When I was growing up I was taught that there were nine planets, and that Pluto is the ninth. I actually memorized this, unlike 90% of what I learned as a kid (well, I do get the order of Uranus and Neptune wrong). So this is the truth, everyone knows it. Anyway, it turns out that some astronomers question whether Pluto is the ninth planet, or that Pluto is a planet, or what we mean by planet. Does my truth trump current debates among astronomers? Plus, the universe is big, most astronomers probably don't care about Pluto anyway, or certainly have not made this debate an object of their actual research, so if most astronomers have not don research on Pluto maybe the whole debate is trivial. When I was growing up, I was told that nothing could go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Now CERN says this may not be the case. They have hard data they checked several times. Except ... wait ... even the Cern scientists are asking others to reproduce the experiment. It seems that they do not entirely believe that their own data is "true!' Hold on, we scientific realists! Let's leave theory aside, all those crazy abstractions! Data is data! They double-checked the results of their experiment. Maybe we need to change our "theories" but surely, the results of their observations happened, right? They saw what they saw, right? The instruments work, and recorded what they recorded, right? And yet ..... even the CERN scientists whant the experiment to be reproduced because theory makes them mistrust their empirical observations.

Now where are we? Okay, a lot of astrophysicists think CERN must be wrong (we would have recorded showers of neutrons long before detecing the light of distant objects), and even the CERN physicists acknowledge they might be wrong. And yet ... no astrophysicist has said that CERN must be wrong because we know that Einstein (and maybe even Lorentz and Michelson an Morley)'s claims are "true." Physicists acknolwedge that Einstein may be proven wrong; it is possible. Well, let's say that CERN is proven right, and they establish the speed of neutrinos or other sub-atomic particles that exceed's c. Is this "true?" But — if they say Einstein could be wrong (just as Einstein showed Newton to be wrong), does this not mean that whatever "truth" CERN may prove might eventually be proven wrong?

So either what you mean by "true" is "true for as long as we believe it, until we no longer believe it, and it is no longer true," or "true" just is not a useful concept for the sciences. Sure, I realize that if you are a physicist working for Intel or a chemist working for Pfizer you must act as if certain things are true, otherwise you won't be able to do your job. But isn't this a pragmatic stand (and you know, I am thinking of CS Pierce or maybe even Wittgenstein, and before you dismiss them as airy-fairy philosophers let me remind you that Pierce was an experimental physicist and astronomer and Wittgenstein an engineer, before they achieved fame in physics; one of Witgenstein's major influences was Boltzmann and to a degree Helmholtz and Hertz)? I have seen Richard Dawkins over-reach himself in insisting that "evolution is true" in his debates wish creationists, and if you are just a member of the audience of a TV show, you might think (1) evolution is true and (2) "true" in the sense you use the word ordinarily. I think this is a mistake. And I think anyone ho made such TV shows or debates an object of academic sudy will agree with me that Dawkins is using "truth" as a rhetorical device that is meant to convey to a non-scientific audience hust how powerful are the arguments of biologists compared to creationists'. I think Dawkins is employing — one could even say immitating — the theological word "truth" strategically, against one setor of religious people. This too may be pragmatic. But it is not an accurate representation of science or scientific knowledge. I read an essay by Freeman Dyson recently in which he insisted that the search for truths was a popular misconception about science, and that scientists are driven by the endless urge to discover because no comprehension of the universe can ever be dogma, it is only a point past which scientists seek to explore.

This is not a postmodern position, nor does it come from literature.

As I see it, the attempt use "truth" as a criteria for editing articles on anything that has been an object of scientific study will only perpetrate a popular misunderstanding of science, and fail to do any justice to the actual topic of the article. I suspect that anyone with a Nobel prize would find it fairly easy to explain to a popular audience why scientists do not use the concept "truth;" that "scientific theories" are not opinions and that "scientific facts" are not 'facts" in the mundane sense of "not an opinion." I also think that such an expert will also not find it at all hard to explain physics, biology or chemistry without recourse to the concept of "truth" (S. Hawking made a good attempt in A brief history of time). Most Wikipedia editors alas do not have the fluency in science that most Nobel Prize winners have. So it is much harder for us to explain these things without appeals to "truth." As in so many areas, in creating an enecylopedia written by non-experts, we take it upon ourselves to work a bit harder than most experts would have to in writing a good encyclopedia article.

But "truth" is a crutch we really need to avoid. "Truth" in the sense that it is our readers'" starting point starts them off on the wrong foot and in the wrong direction, and will at best produce misunderstandings. However challenging it is, we must find a clear and accessible language for explaining scientific knowledge to laypeople. I am sure this can be done without having to bring in Peirce or Wittgenstein or even poetic quotations from Dyson. But if we tell our readers that science or scientific knowledge is "the truth," well ... we would be lying to them! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I respect your very valid arguments. Nothing is more frustrating for me than to sit in a faculty meeting which has devolved into a childish fight between two profs. from the social sciences, arguing over how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. That said, one can take the philosophical argument that there is no 'truth' to be had and use it as a justification to do serious harm. One need only look at the battles in the LGBT articles (no, I am not a broken record, yes, I contrast my experiences there with, oh, say 'teacakes' which is proving rather fun and tasty to research in the last days). Even if we accept that any definition, any policy is going to be flawed- the very nature of language use limits our ability to be specific in describing reality - there still remains the fact that in quite a few areas, people on a crusade (take that literally) are very consciously using the current policy to enforce their views across many articles.

If we just say, well, there is no truth, then it may be satisfying in a very late 19th century philosophical sense, but it does not promote good articles. I don't see why Jimbo's suggestions are so horribly bad, other than that there is a strong antipathy towards any contribution he makes in some quarters here. Maybe we are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?Pauci leones (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Because relying on false claims that Jimbo (or editor X) knows the truth, are useless and may even be harmful. He didn't and doesn't know the truth of the matter. He says someone told him something and he believes them; well, we can't expect anyone else to, because they won't. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have granted neither Jimbo nor 'editor x' the knowledge of 'truth. I have raised the point- and can back it up with a frighteningly long list of articles which demonstrate exactly this problem - that however satisfying it may be in a philosophical sense to claim truth does not exist, in a practical, real-world encyclopedia, there has to be a policy. A clearly stated, carefully delineated policy which prevents one side or another in some very highly emotional (and boy, my own obscure field in IT can get very emotional, who'd a thunk it?) areas from wikilawyering and leveraging policies to grant non-truths the exact same status as truths.

I can live with differences of opinion. I can live with subtext and carefully worded statements which say one thing and mean another. I don't think an encyclopedia which wishes to be taken seriously can continue to regard these conflicts on such a, frankly petty level of first semester freshman 19th century German philosophy analysis. Somewhere in between a Platonic ideal αλήθεια and Heinlein's analysis: I know a radical book by the smell of it, lies a group of solutions. The one we are applying right now is not working. We should try to find a better set.Pauci leones (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I, too, favor the pragmatic, and CS Pierce and Wittgenstein and Rorty are my touchstones, and I believe that truth is conditional on axioms and usefulness within a context. This is not to say there's no objective reality, but rather our perception of it can be problematic, and I don't think anyone here is really arguing that truth does not exist in some form--people who believe that are likely running to check on the continuing subsistence of the fireplace. We're not here to debate philosophy, however, so the questions becomes, how can we establish what is true in a communal sense. Being told something is true is how we start learning what truth is. Someone told Slrubenstein that Pluto was a planet, and Slrubenstein believed that. Someone tells person X that we never landed on the moon, and if they believe that, it is the truth to them. So as I see it, the problem is not that we say there is no truth and that the result is that anyone can argue what they like, it is rather that there are many truths held by different people that contradict one another, and thus emphasizing truth becomes problematic. We need and have a mechanism for deciding what is "true" (in prior discussions over the month "accuracy" was presented as an alternative phrase), and we value the opinion of communities with established procedures for defining what it thought to be true and documenting that. Truth is a messy concept, but we cannot avoid dealing with it. I like 'not truth' as a phrase to clearing the decks, and a good explanation as to why we say that and also to say that we support the notion of truth and accuracy, and the proposed wording in the RfC is the best effort yet to retain the phrase and treat the concerns of those who see non-truths the exact same status as truths. And POV pusher will always be amoung us-as has been said, no policy will be wored well enough to prevent them, the best we can do is have a policy that aids in dealing with them. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

@Slr … or "true" just is not a useful concept for the sciences.

• Wikipedia is not “the sciences” and is not edited mostly by scientists, or philosophers or people with nuanced understandings of epistemology

As I see it, the attempt use "truth" as a criteria for editing articles on anything …

• Who is attempting to do this? Removing “not truth” from the lead, or even, for the sake of argument, from the entire entry does not amount to using “truth” as a criteria … that seems like a straw man to me.

"Truth" in the sense that it is our readers' "starting point starts them off on the wrong foot and in the wrong direction, and will at best produce misunderstandings.”

• I’m not sure I entirely understand what you meant here, but most people associate “truth” with “factuality” and hence with what we can most accurately know about something. To some the most accurate understanding one can have is indeed an absolute truth while to others it is something less absolute. Those others may even be savvy enough not to conflate “fact” with “truth” for that very reason. Yet that doesn’t change the basic association. I don’t think anyone in this discussion would argue that we need to write an encyclopedia based on “truth, not verifiability,” but again that’s different from worrying about the cognitive impact that “not truth” has on people, and the door it opens to problematic arguments in practice. If people associate truth with what we can most accurately know about something they are likely to think that "not truth" means that we are not interested in accuracy. If I read Jimbo correctly, that’s what he worries about. It is a legitimate concern to have within Wikipedia but also outside of Wikipedia in terms of how our various audiences see us. I appreciate the nuanced epistemological arguments but we have to remember two very important things here about who we are as a project and a community. 1) Most other references sources are not edited by non-academics, but ours is. 2) Most other reference sources do not have publicly available rules that describe how they are put together and edited, but ours does. Why the comparison? Because those arguments would be fine if the community of contributors and editors all understood them and if they weren’t laid bare to the general public to scrutinize. The general public turns to a reference source because it the closest thing to the “truth” (as in most accurate) they can find on a subject. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Editors, Policy, Bla bla bla.

It's a well known fact that most editors on Wikipedia never look at the policies until they are encouraged to, and when they do they read the first sentence and then it's 'bla bla bla'. Likewise, regardless of what we may think about it, many editors have English as their second language. The first sentence needs to catch attention, hold attention, and have one strong, clear message that will remain. Yes, my opening phrase was ironic. (20040302 (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

No. It is editors who need to have an attention span. If they don't they should not be trying to write encyclopedia articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. Who are you or I or anyone else to dictate that only people who are able to understand complex policy documents are allowed to edit Wikipedia? Yes, editors need to follow the five pillars, but these must be expressed so that they are easy to grasp. I absolutely agree with 20040302's statement "The first sentence needs to catch attention, hold attention, and have one strong, clear message that will remain." It may not be quite right at present, but the alternative is not better. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, editors without an attention span also tend to misunderstand what their source is actually saying; but doing something about that counts as a hardy perennial, unlikely to be dealt with before WP:DEADLINE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, anyone can edit is the core mantra of wikipedia. It's true that everyone needs to be more considerate, everyone needs to think of the community before themselves, everyone needs to understand and celebrate the differences between us - and we need to stop war, etc. The issue I raised is not about what editors need. They are who they are. The basic fact that is policies aren't looked at, and when they do, most people don't understand them. They tend to be multi-paragraphed (or even multi-paged) semi-legal or pseudo-legal documents that do not demonstrate a clear, distinct message. I would consider that the phrase "V, not T" is a triumph of memorability and sense - it's ironic also, which is a good thing. People remember that their truths count for naught without the ability to contextualise them via Verifiability. (20040302 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

Pmanderson, It's not just a lack of attention span - it's also the ability to comprehend complex concepts which tend to be compressed and convoluted. The WP:5P each have a single sentence open which is understandable by a ten year old, which is memorable, and which is ten words or less. They follow with a paragraph that is understandable by a ten year old, which expands on the sentence in a meaningful manner. The remainder of WP policy documents should follow a similar requirement. WP:CCPOL nearly has it, and a part of that which I particularly applaud is the phrase verifiability, not truth along with the gloss that follows. (20040302 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

My problem is, "Bla bla bla" is also writing as if we have not thought of this before. I am quite confident that everyone working on policy pages has striven to explain things as clearly as possible. Sure, in some cases we can doa bettter job, and I am all for that. But editors have been trying to do this. In any case, it has nothing to do with any of the current discussions on this page. People who find the phrase "Verifiability. not truth," are simply unaware of the reasons scholars do not use the concept of "truth" except in sways that would really confuse most people. Look, I think an algebra textbook needs to be well-written. But any reader is going to find that it takes some getting used to. We do not require our editors to have higher degrees to edit. This is something I would agree, we cannot demand of our editors. But that does not mean that we have no standards!! If someone does not know how to research a topic properly, or have other skills required for writing an encyclopedia, sure, yes, i hav eno problem telling them not to write encyclopedia articles. I think many (not all, but many) people who think "not truth" is the reason why so many of our articles are poor are really just blaming policy because it is easier than blaming sloppy editors. It is too easy just to blame policy, as a crutch or excuse. In the end, the quality of ANYTHING: a curve-ball, a cabinet, a cake, an encyclopedia, depends first and foremost on the quality of the person making it. No cookbook is going to help a lousy cook make a good omelette. Sure, anyone can edit Wikipedia. But if they are not willing to put the proper effort into it, should they be? I do not think it is for me to judge someone else, or for anyone. But people should be responsible for judging themselves. Before making that omelet, or getting behind the wheel of a car, or writing an encyclopedia article, each person should ask themselves whether they have the skills necessary, or are prepared to do the work it takes to learn them. And some policies, no matter how clearly written, can only really be used appropriately if one has judgment and experience. One can get this by reading talk pages carefully, and watching how other editors write, for example, or by asking another editor for help. But for many people it requires effort, and this is unavoidable. That is my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I hear you. But take any phrase or concept, and spend weeks or months staring at it with a group of like-minded individuals, and even the most innocent looking phrase starts becoming complex, taking on new ramifications, requiring additional thought, expansion, explanation, etc. For the naiive, even those with Phds, the results will be hard to read. I guess I'm saying that there's a lot of trees in the woods, and it's hard, really hard, for the policy writers to remember what most people are looking for - a simple, straightforward guide to the woods. I agree that I doubt that anything I have written shows originality also. If we stripped the hundreds of paragraphs on this discussion down to novel ideas, I would be surprised if there are as many as the fingers on my left hand. In answer to your objection to the word truth, it should be a wikilink to a rewritten, less ironic/humorous version of WP:TRUTH. What I also read in your response is a tension between 'anyone' and 'anyone who should'. I believe (and I know I'm not the only one) that glossing the WP mantra to "the free encyclopedia that anyone (who should) can edit" totally misses the achievement of what WP has become. In the last few days I was involved in moderating a proposed article which was energetically written by someone new to WP, and it was nearly impossible not to say - it' s not the WP way to have a how-to; it's not the WP way to use personal pages as references; it's not the WP way to use images for which you have not checked the licensing, etc. Of course, the editor - who had put days of work into the article - ended up defeated, disgruntled, and sore. This also is nothing new. I have been on WP for only 7 years or so, and I still have little idea about the core policies beyond the 5P, and some little experience with WP:V and NPOV. As for processes, arbitration, etc. They all seem to change every other year, so it's a total discovery each time I try to contact an admin. Nothing new. For those of us who monitor and assist in the editorship of a few web pages (my watchlist is only 250 or so), we spend a lot of time referring new editors to these policies, which -as I've said before- are not understood by people who have a lot to offer wikipedia. Especially when dealing with niche subjects, such as the history of an argument between two medieval Tibetan scholars regarding a 9th CE Indian philosopher, expecting experts to have to learn the WP way before they can contribute just isn't going to happen. (20040302 (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

I thought I had written that pople can learn on the job as it were. My point is only that it requires a willingnss to make some effort. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why we need "Not Truth"

• Here is a current example of editors arguing that their personal evaluation that an academically published source written by a professor who is an expert in the topic is wrong, is sufficient argument for excluding it. While we do not need to use "Not Truth" to argue against this kind of practice, leaving it out is a clear signal (already described as such by several editors in these discussions) that this kind of argumentation is valid.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  Maunus...I could be wrong, but it appears that you are misunderstanding the proposal. Are you aware that the proposal retains "Verifiability, Not Truth"?... the idea is keep it but move it to a new section so that it can be better explained. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I know what the proposal says, but I also know what people say about the proposal and several editors think that by moving the "not truth" out of the lead we are a showing a degree of tolerance for "truth" type arguments. Jimbo himself is explicitly arguing that this is the intended effect. These arguments are in effect setting a precedent for how the policy change is going to be iunterpreted and used even before it is instated. If this was just about moving text around noone would be having this argument - it is about moving text around for a reason. The reason is the problem - and why we need to cement the fact that unverifiable assertions of truth does not trump sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, just making sure. Doesn't the first line of the proposed new section deals with your concern? It says: "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"" Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As I've said my problem is less with the wording of the change, than with what people are already taking that wording to mean.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, you're not addressing the other aspect of the "V not T" concept. It means (1) don't add material simply because you believe it to be true. But it also means (2) don't remove material simply because you disagree with it.

Of course we do remove material where the reliable source (no matter how reliable) has made what all agree is a simple error. But there are lots of cases where reliable sources write material that experts disagree with, or which the subject disagrees with (where a person or company is being written about). Those are the cases "V not T" is there to protect. It ensures that Wikipedians publish the debates and disagreements between sources, so that our readers can judge for themselves. It stops Wikipedians from deciding that Reliable Source A is just wrong, and should be given no space. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure that a proposal beginning "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" can be mistaken as one that might allow inclusion on the basis "unverifiable assertions of truth". I can appreciate your concern that some may want to go down that road but let's be realistic. It's not something that's ever going to happen because it doesn't make any sense and so it isn't a hidden sting in the tail of BB's proposal. What the change in emphasis would achieve is some clarification of the misconception held by many both inside and outside Wikipedia that we are happy to publish bullshit as long as someone else did it before us. --FormerIP (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the arguments given by several supporters including Jimmy Wales is that that is exactly the road they want to go down by implementing this change. I agree that it is not a necessary outcome of the proposals form - the proposal is theoretically fully compatible with reasonable OR-free editing. I am worrying about the way that it relates to projected change to practice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But, surely, passing this proposal would settle the matter because it would give a new mandate to the central principle of WP:V. The very small number of editors (although I will agree that it is troubling that they seem to be senior editors) that might like to abandon/compromise that principle will be held at bay. There is no possibility that the wording proposed can be used as a basis for deciding content by editorial assertions, because the wording is crystal clear about that. Those who hold a contrary view will, doubtless, not be silenced. But they will be stuck with the policy. --FormerIP (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I agree with you that we have to be free to change policy, which means that proposed changes do not have to "comply" with the policy being changed (but, we ought to ensure that they do not conflict with other policies. And I o think with policy, we must have consensus to make such a change). But I do not think this was Maunus's point. She opened this thread by pointing to an argument over the contents of an article occuring as we write. As I understand it, the example Maunus provides shows that despite the first sentence of this policy, some editors are still trying to make articles conform to their view of the truth regardless of what reliable, credible sources say. This suggest to me that if anything, we need to make "not truth" an even stronger and clearer component of this policy. This is not an argument for policy inertia, it is an argument that the importance of the value of "not truth" is evient in content disputes. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Maunus's point was not about how to go about changing policy but, then again, neither was mine. I think you might be referring to my comments in another section of the talkpage.

The problem with what Maunus is saying, IMO, is that is can be seen as amounting to "the current policy is ineffective, so we mustn't change it". I like Blueboar's proposal because - although the change is not radical - it shifts focus away from a pithy but confusing soundbite and onto a clearer elaboration of policy. In the Nonviolent Communication example (which I haven't looked at in detail, but let's say Maunus is right about it, for argument's sake) it would actually be more helpful, I think, to be able to quote more precise guidance such as "An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia". That's clear, no-one should be mistaken about what it means and it ought to be effective in settling disputes. The current forumlation "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" is unclear. What is meant by "threshold"? What if a reliable source is wrong? Does it really not matter if editors think information is true. Of course, these questions have answers. But the problem that needs addressing that the process of interpretation is currently too fraught for the policy to be properly authoritative.

"Verifiability not truth" is probably the worst bit (although, have you noticed how the second sentence of the lead is just a pure self-contradiction?), because it offers itself up as a soundbite, yet it fails to capture what it is supposed to mean. "Verifiability", once explained, actually covers everything. Under any situation of the type Maunus is referencing, all you need to do is ask "how is this information verifiable?" That automatically covers the "truth" question. it doesn't need underlining, because the job is done. On the other hand though, "not truth" most definitely does result in editors contentedly maintaining information in the encyclopaedia which they know to be false. So clarification is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Separate sections for support and oppose leads to bias

In a large RfC such as this one, readers arriving at the page see first a great number of support comments if the comments are separated into sections. This leads to a subtle bias in favour of support. I appreciate that this makes counting easier but an issue as important as this one needs the framework of the debate to be scrupulously neutral. SpinningSpark 09:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect may I ask how you have arrived to this conclusion? Psychological studies? I'm not aware of any evidence that this is actually occurring or that it does occur generally in similar circumstances.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

He raises a simple point that, IMHO, should be rather intuitively suspect to anyone giving it a moment's consideration. If the placement of the positions is, indeed, bias-irrelevant, then simply reverse them for the remainder of the RfC. It should take all of about 10 seconds of editing to effect.

As it is plausible that this RfC may be heading for some type of reincarnation, perhaps consideration can be given to applying a side by side table format which will, at least, mitigate any suggested/implied ordering bias. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but those inferences are just opinions. Are you a psychologist? A sociologist? A social scientist of another sort? Someone who studies human behavior? The effects of these types of things on human behavior are not usually in line with what non-experts assume they are by way of "inference." Switching the positions around at this point would be confusing and strange. I've never seen that done in an RfC. What I have seen, throughout Wikipedia, is that when oppose and support sections are created separately at RfCs, RfAs etc. they always follow the same pattern. Support comes first, followed by oppose. Are you saying there is a systemic bias towards support in our very conventions? If anything, the fact that this is how its always done, should sway your inferences in the other direction, because you'd think Wikipedians are used to this format. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying, putting the "support" comments first introduces a systematic bias to support. I am surprised that this comment is being challenged, it is a well-known effect amongst professional pollsters. It is a form of response bias known as starting point bias. See [17] for instance. SpinningSpark 13:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The effects of these types of things on human behavior are not usually in line with what non-experts assume they are by way of "inference."

An interesting postulate...but "not usually in line" is rather unpersuasive.

Are you a psychologist? A sociologist? A social scientist of another sort? Someone who studies human behavior?

Nope, just a plain old wikipedia editor with a healthy sensitivity to WP bias issues.

...If anything, the fact that this is how its always done,...

I believe I recall at least several prior Rf*s where responses were not segregated. It may be a better way to do this. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Spinningspark, "starting point bias" seems to only be mentioned in terms of economic valuations. Ironic that you badly misuse citations in a comment on a discussion about verifiability. No other poll system lets you see what people before you have voted and detailed rationales of it. You can't apply any kind of traditional studies to our system, it's unique. For example, people may be equally biased to oppose something that they see is succeeding so far just because they are afraid of the status quo changing. As well, they might be more likely to support a failing proposal because it's the "underdog", or they feel like the opposition is missing a redeeming trait of the proposal which they believe should be highlighted. Gigs (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The context for this and for a traditional polling system are vastly different.Griswaldo (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)My point is that when they are segregated this is what is always done. RfA is a good example of this being the norm for instance. It is a format that most Wikipedians are more than used to. Support goes first, oppose goes second, neutral goes third.Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

RfA is exceptional, because it is, by design, an actual vote; the count matters. In other contexts (AfD, RM) most polls mix supports and opposes in chronological order; there are exceptions when the number of comments is very large. So this arrangement is reasonable, but not normal.

In short, this is another reason to be skeptical about the claim that the ever-declining percentage of support, now barely over 60%, is "consensus". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not "ever-declining" at all. There as an upsurge of oppose initially that took it down from 66% to around 60% and it's been pretty steady since then. If you look at Nov. 1st only, for instance, there is an uptick of support actually. 20-9 is the margin for today so far in favor of support. So you're observation is wrong. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been watching hour by hour. All I can see is that this discusssion began with a handful of people declaiming that 2/3 was "consensus"; when I commented before this thread, nearly 2/3 was "consensus"; now 60% is "consensus". Where will it end? Is 51% "consensus"? how about 47%? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How about 39%? Is that a consensus? --JN466 19:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How about 42%, although that would also be non-consensus since it's the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything. A supercomputer said so, so I think that's best. Dreadstar ☥ 02:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

From my personal perspective... 2/3 (66%) qualifies as a consensus (this may be my perspective as an American.. but here in the US, it takes ratification by 2/3 of the states to enact an Amendment to the Constitution, it takes 2/3 of Congress to over turn a Presidential Veto and 2/3 of the senate to end a fillibuster... that fraction seems to work well in real life, so I suggest it here on Wikipedia as well). Let's not start declaring consensus (or lack of consensus) now... we still have several days to go. A lot could change between now and then. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction. It's 60 votes to override a filibuster, but yes 67% is generally considered a consensus where I'm from.∞陣内Jinnai 17:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not run for admin, either of you; I will have to very strongly oppose you. The examples you give are from governments, which usually do not have the space to leave matters undecided; we are not one; we do not have to act. Our policy is to look for what almost everybody can live with - and another go-around should achieve that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely the majority needed should vary according to the number of votes cast overall (?). The more voters you have, the more likely they are to be representative of community feeling and so the slimmer the majority you ought to demand. Hypothetically, if a valid vote from every active Wikipedian could be obtained then there's no good reason why the thing couldn't be decided by a margin of one editor. --FormerIP (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The community feeling is clear enough; this is not a question of sampling error. The proposed change is not consensus; it could be if people would only read and reflect the comments, instead of trying to Wikilawyer the outcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Again your opinion is not reflected in the actual trends going on here. There was an upsurge after SV's AN/I post and the ensuing drama fest for oppose .... since then the trend has been reverting back to where it had been before that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a policy RfC, which is different from a content RfC, in that it's not possible to scrutinise the votes and see if they are all in line with policy. So, the issue of whether changes to the text mid-flow invalidate the process put to one side, every vote is equally valid. It really is just a numbers game and it really is about how many people vote, IMO. All we are looking to answer is whether a prevalent view within the community can be identified. There's no logical basis for demanding any particular special threshold be crossed. If it's genuinely not possible to discern a community preference, then we will have "no consensus". But that doesn't arise simply because an arbitrary threshold has not been reached. --FormerIP (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Septentrionalis - for one, I did not vote support. I do not fully support this proposal. Secondly as the second line of WP:CONSENSUS reads "There is no single definition of what 'consensus' means for these purposes," I think that's not a questionable effort to try and say my definition of consensus is somehow wrong.∞陣内Jinnai 20:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You are attempting to lay down a single definition, unsupoorted by policy or practice. If the sentence you quote has any meaning, any such attempt is -well- wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Point is that any definition that is lower - or higher - is no different. Any definition that tries to require unanimous consent is also the same because that's trying to hit a percantage (100%).∞陣内Jinnai 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

{left) Which is one reason that WP:Consensus has said for some years that "consensus" (on Wikipedia) does not mean unanimity. (It does in the real world, but what is that to us?) We don't aim for any numerical value, even 100%; we aim for the greatest degree of agreement that is readily achievable - and for something to be policy, we expect that level of agreement to be quite high. This text isn't; too many opponents, and supporters, have suggested changes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Without judging whether the current version has consensus or not, what makes you think any future versions will gain more support without alienating others? While I agree that if this went around again and some things were changed there might be a higher level of agreement, I cannot see given the statements here of getting anywhere near some of the extremely high percentage numbers thrown around because some people - on both sides - seem unwilling to let "venerability, no truth" be removed from the lede or kept at all and those people seem to constitute a high percentage of the people likely to comment and vote.∞陣内Jinnai 16:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Several opposes are over fixable problems with the wording. Those can be attracted.

Also, the responses as to what should be done are cross-ways to the !vote; many people (supporters, opposers, and most of the neutrals - Cynwolfe may be clearest) would be happier with this if verifiability not truth were left in the lead; probably more than those who oppose its presence altogether.

And many of those who oppose its presence altogether are !voting on the wrong proposal. Some actually oppose what the policy now means - and not just the phrase; their remedy is to form consensus strong enough to reverse core policy - much more than two-thirds, and they don't have even a majority.

Others misunderstand what the policy now says: we do not mean opinion; truth is not enough. The phrasing from which this arose puts the hypothetical: what if Professor Hawking told you over a beer that his latest publication was just garbage? It is true that he thinks so; but you can't put it in Wikipedia - our readers have no reason to believe you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Two thirds is not consensus

We define consensus as "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised." The repeated claim that we can achieve consensus, not by amending the proposal to take account of the concerns raised, but by blowing them off and charging ahead with the proposed text exactly as it is, is destructive to comity - and will produce a worse text that following policy would.

When we deal with a genuinely unamendable matter, like RfA, we rarely act on anything like 2/3 (and the only occasion I can think of was extremely controversial, only justified as being the restoration of an admin). To propose we should do when amendments are both possible and desirable is bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I hope and expect that the closing admins will decide what does or does not constitute consensus here, and I see little good to be accomplished by using this talk page to, in effect, try to lobby for how the RfC should be closed. Philosophical discussions of consensus in general should (if anywhere) go to WT:CONSENSUS. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

8*All I ask is that this invalid argument be dropped. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• PMAnderson, what should be dropped is these attempts to define consensus as a numerical figure. You are oppose !vote #24. Your opinion that the bar for consensus should be set high is noted, and I think most opposers would agree. The supporters would, I think, feel otherwise. My personal opinion is that you and those who agree with you will succeed in stopping this change from going forward, despite its clear majority support.

  The counterargument is that if an RFA led to a promotion by general acclaim, or an AfD led to a delete, but then the closer was reverted without discussion by an interested party and the discussion was re-advertised to try to achieve a different result, then the subsequent closer would need to take account not just of the final tally, but also the underlying strength of the arguments and the previous close. They would give weight not just to the surface aspects of the debate before them, but also to the original close. They would need to try to subtract the effect of any bad faith or gamesmanship to help them discover where the true consensus lies. But personally my expectations are low. I do not think SlimVirgin's bad faith will be seen in its true light; experience with Wikipedia makes me think it will be fudged, overlooked and forgiven, forcing a no consensus outcome.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

could we please not declare consensus or lack thereof until the RfC closes ... we still have a few days to go. It may be that there will be a clear consensus. It may be that we will end up with yet another "no consensus". Both results are valid. If we do end up with yet another "no consensus" we can go back to square one and work out a new proposal that takes into account the comments from both sides, and try again. Remember, the goal isn't to get some specific language placed into the policy... the goal is to find language that resolves the legitimate concerns of both sides in the debate. That is how we achieved the compromise language we are voting on now... and it would be how we achieve any future compromise language. Everyone needs to be willing to step back a bit and actually listen to what the other side is saying. If it comes to trying again, fine... we now have even more information to work with. That's a good thing. Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with both of these comments. (And I voted oppose because a support with the same alternate proposal and reservations would be effectively ignored: counted as whole-hearted unconditional support - as the example of those who qualified their support shows.) We don't need to go back to square one; this is a valiant attempt. It needs to be rephrased in the light of the comments - and it would need that even more if it winds up inserted into text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no rush nor reason to close this by the fifth. Newyorkbrad and Black Kite have said that they will attempt to close it by November 10th.[18] Until that time, I suggest that the active supporters of this proposal begin to examine the oppose comments (and the conflicted supports) and attempt to incorporate their concerns into either a restatement of the current proposal or into a revised proposal. RfC's work best when there is an active effort to work towards a modified version that will have consensus. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Viriditas, this proposal is the modified version that is, in our opinion, the most likely to achieve consensus. It's the outcome of nine months of very closely-reasoned argument. If there's going to be a revised proposal, then it has to come from newcomers to the debate, because we've tried absolutely everything else that we can think of and this is genuinely the best that we can do.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• S Marshall, the purpose of an RfC is to break through the stalled discussions and inflexible editorial positions that lead to gridlock and "no consensus" results. If you want to ignore the comments of hundreds of members of the community and act like a roadblock to good faith negotiation, then that is your choice. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that Viriditas is making some very good points here. Although I personally am getting so tired of this whole debate that I would prefer to see some finality following this RfC, it it definitely correct that editors who favor a proposal should pay real attention to those who oppose it. It's absolutely false to say that the present proposal is the best that anyone can do. I know. I was there while it was being developed. And I warned that there were things in it that would get pushback from the community. And I was told, in effect, to go away when I said that. But there are still things that can be changed that would make the proposal more widely accepted. The purists need to realize that they will be frustrated if they overreach. But, that said, I'm not yet convinced that this proposal is going to fail in its present form. I'm really impressed with how many members of the community have proven to be more receptive to the changes than I was myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think SandyGeorgia made a good point about the reliable sources noticeboard (rather than, or as well as, the article talk page) being a good place to hash out concerns about a sourced statement. This is something we could include ("If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and/or the article talk page, ...") --JN466 02:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We could decide this by an RFC. If we have a larger fraction in that RFC that say that there is consensus for change than the fraction that voted in the current RFC for Blueboar's proposal, then we should implement that proposal. Most people will tend to vote the way the voted in the current RFC. What matters is how undecided people break down and if people who voted to oppose in this RFC would still agree to close the RFC as consensus to change or vice versa. So, you want to measure the difference between the fraction that voted to support in this RFC and the fraction that will support to close the RFC as consensus for change.

If the support for there being a consensus is larger than the fraction of supporters, that means that the momentum lies in the direction of inplementing the proposal. If its the other way around, then that would mean that the community has more reservations of actually implementing the propsal than suggested by the fraction that actually voted to oppose. In that case, it would be better to stick to the present version and have more discussions. Count Iblis (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'm not acting like a roadblock. I'm saying that this is genuinely the best that the working group can come up with. I think my position is pretty far from inflexible. Over the past nine months I've made substantial amendments to my original view and I've allowed myself to be persuaded to support Blueboar's proposal. In reality, I'm with Jimbo: I want the toxic trio gone completely, if at all possible. But in the interests of harmony and out of a genuine desire to achieve something everyone can live with ("consensus") I've fallen in behind Blueboar's compromise.

The comments of these hundreds of members of the community have all already been considered by the working group. There have been no epiphanies in this discussion, no new revelations, no brilliant suggestions about how else we could go forward. The question is: Do we want the toxic trio in the lede or do we want them in their own, longer paragraph immediately after the lede? At the end of the day it's a very simple either/or option. We know the wording isn't perfect and will need to be refined by the normal editing process, the question is whether the community is behind the compromise or not.

If your position is that we need a whole new compromise, then that's up to you, but as I said, the impetus for that will need to come from those who weren't on the previous working group, because people like Tryptofish and Nuujinn and I have done what we can together. Without fresh eyes and fresh input, I don't think we can meaningfully improve on Blueboar's compromise.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's well said. I think a number of editors misunderstand the degree to which supporters of the proposal actually disagree about the core issue, and fail to grasp the work that went into crafting what was proposed. I do see lots of the arguments that we mulled over reappearing here now. I am also struck by the notion that people keep talking about !vote ratios, when my understanding was that such were really irrelevant, and the key question was the quality of the arguments. I'm content to let a group of uninvolved admins decide the outcome. And Viriditas is absolutely correct that we should all look closely at the arguments, I would say on both sides, since we have a good data set here to work from, but I'd rather not recast the RfC as it stands now, since there have been too many changes already. Let's see how it goes and proceed from that when we get there. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Without plowing through the nine months of discussions, then this is a form of words that is plastering over a deep division in the drafting committee. Is it between the loud, but few, voices who genuinely oppose this policy and those who merely like to clarify it? If so, this is appeasement; no form of words will actually solve any problems here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's anyone who genuinely opposes this policy, then they're not here. As far as I can tell, everyone participating on this page believes we should have a policy called "verifiability" and that verifiability should be a minimum criterion for inclusion. There are some who oppose particular ways of wording this policy. But a desire to move VNT from the lede into a separate section is a pretty far cry from "opposing this policy".—S Marshall T/C 19:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not follow all this business about saying there is no consensus for a change unless it is overwhelming. I agree that unless there is a clear consensus for change one should stay with a status quo. However if one has a couple of hundred people along then there is no need for a two thirds majority, just the balance of the argument should be judged. Dmcq (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Then do read WP:Consensus until it sinks in.

If those who set up Wikipedia had meant Wikipedia to run by supermajorities, let alone majorities, our policies would say so; they say the opposite; Wikipedia is not a democracy. That does not mean that nothing can be done; but the way to do things is to amend the proposed text until it does have an overwhelming majority. I think this can be done; at that point it will be the opinion of almost all Wikipedians (polled or unpolled). That's what policy pages are supposed to be; if it is not consensus, do not say it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In practice that isn't remotely practical. The only time majority != consensus is in a situation where the majority are arguing against a standing policy which is assumed to have a very large consensus to begin with. However, in the case of changing a policy, for which there is no larger to consensus to fall back on, the only thing that can be viewed as consensus is a large uncontroversial majority. There simply is no other way to do it. You can't make a case that 5 people represent consensus if 20 opposed them for example. You couldn't even make that case if 4 people opposed them.--Crossmr (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think one can say the status quo has a consensus in this case. There is such a large number of people come in on this that one has to either say the policy is null and has no overall consensus or else the new form is consensus. Saying the old form still has consensus when it does not is just silly. It was a consensus. It no longer is. Dmcq (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make the point here that, even if a two thirds majority was a consensus, this proposal has not come anywhere near a two thirds majority. I have tallied the totals at frequent intervals, and "support" on every occasion has been at 60% ± 1.5%. That is simply not a large enough majority to represent a consensus on a major policy change. Scolaire (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson wrote

“Then do read WP:Consensus until it sinks in. “

If those who set up Wikipedia had meant Wikipedia to run by supermajorities, let alone majorities, our policies would say so; they say the opposite; “

The policy WP:Consensus did say so before PMAnderson recently changed it.[19] Before PMAnderson’s recent change, the policy WP:Consensus said,[20]

”Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed one sentence, after this discussion, in which nobody objected to removing the idea, and some supported it. The reference to "majority" was put in, without discussion, some months ago; the proponent joined amicably in the discussion, and asserted was that his major point was that we do not require 100% agreement. He is correct, and the policy still says so.

An unqualified majority vote is, however, inconsistent with the rest of WP:Consensus and with WP:NOTDEM, which I did not write. It may, under extremely rare circumstances, be supportable under IAR, but no such case has been made here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Scolaire: the proposal is not a "major policy change". The policy itself is not changing, only our wording of it is changing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree there. The change to WP:CONSENSUS was more what I would have said was a major change and it was done without an RfC. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to take a pragmatic approch to defining a major versus a minor change - I mean, there is no single absolute and universal measure. If this were a minor change, it would have been easy for editors on this page to reach consensus prior to the RfC. We do not need an RfC if there is consensus for a minor change. The fact that people were not able to reach consensus earlier, and the fact that this RfC has brought forth so many concerns and questions as well as outright opposition to the proposal is the best evidence that what is proposed is not a minor change. I understand that many editors perceive this as a minor change. My point is that too many editors do not share this perception. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A compromise suggestion that may satisfy all sides in the debate

Having examined the comments among the supporters and opponents would this suffice as a compromise addition to policy?

1. First two sentences of lead, with a proposed new second sentence (rest of the lead remains the same):

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" means that verifiability through a reliable source is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). The source must also be appropriate for the material in question, and must be used carefully.

2. A new summary-style section directly underneath the lead, linking to the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, which can be expanded and tided as needed.

=="Verifiability, not truth"==

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

That we require verifiability, rather than truth, as the threshold for inclusion does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect the facts.

Wikipedia's articles are intended as an overview of the relevant literature within the field in question, a summary of current published debate. The Neutral point of view policy, another core content policy, holds that all majority and significant-minority published views be represented in articles. But sources are not infallible. They may make simple errors, or be outdated or superseded. Editorial judgment is required to decide how to use the best sources in the best way.

When there is agreement among editors that an otherwise reliable source has made an unambiguous error, simply ignore that material, and when in doubt discuss on the article talk page, or on the reliable sources noticeboard. The concept of "verifiability, not truth" does not mean that anything published by a reliable source, no matter how mistaken, must be included in Wikipedia.

Thoughts?

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem to address all the concerns that are listed above, in particular, the last one. Uniplex (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is an excellent suggestion! It means that VnT is kept ("oppose" position) but not as a standalone ("support" position). May I suggest one small refinement? What if we were to enclose the word truth in quotes: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth"? It would sound the same, and have the same impact, but it should make it clear to the new reader that actual veracity is not being sacrificed. Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried that once, as I also think that putting truth in quotes emphasizes the fact that's it's not actual truth we're talking about, but rather the "truth" explained by the second part of the sentence: what people think is true. Doc talk 10:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of scare quotes, but I wouldn't object if it helped to resolve things. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I love scare quotes, personally ;) At any rate, one would think that putting it in scare quotes would dispel the false impression that what the sentence is saying is, "One can insert deliberate and provable falsehoods so long as they are verifiable." I have never once read the sentence to mean this; but apparently a great many people do interpret it this way. Since it's not at all what the sentence is supposed to mean, it's unfortunate that we have to explain "truth vs untruth". Doc talk 13:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems with scare quotes. MOS people don't like them, so they will attract a certain amount of opposition just for that. Perhaps more seriously, the scare-quoted version will fail to deter the people we need to deter; they will say, That's fine for some "truth" somebody made up, but what I'm insisting on is the truth, plain and simple. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm one of those who favour keeping VnT in the first sentence, so I really hope a compromise can be found which does this but yet rules out the false interpretation that Wikipedia doesn't care about accuracy. It appears that the use of "threshold" supports this interpretation. For me, the "necessary but not sufficient" explanation just shows that "threshold" is the wrong word. Something like the medical use of the word seems to be natural to many people when faced with the first sentence; it's treated as meaning that once the threshold has been reached (i.e. appearing in a reliable source) then suitability for Wikipedia automatically follows. What you're really doing in the proposed second sentence is explaining away this meaning of "threshold". If I were writing for an academic audience, I would suggest saying "A necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth ...", but this wouldn't be right here. "An essential condition for inclusion"? "A key condition for inclusion"? (But whatever we write won't actually deter editors who just want to push positions.) A separate problem is finding words that work for the full range of article domains. "Wikipedia's articles are intended as ... a summary of current published debate." Not those I've worked on recently (e.g. Schlumbergera, Roscoea); they are almost entirely an attempt to summarize currently published information. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • How about "the minimum criterion for inclusion..."? Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

    Not "the" minimum, which implies again that this is all that matters. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• My own preference would be "A necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion is ..." But keeping it simpler, if "threshold" is an issue for lots of people, we could change it to something like:

Wikipedia articles rely on verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. The phrase "verifiability, not truth" refers to the idea that the existence of a reliable source is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). The source must also be appropriate for the material in question, and must be used carefully.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I like that, but I think this is better (save for the last sentence which warrants further consideration) ...

Wikipedia articles rely on verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors believe it to be true. "Verifiability, not truth" means that the existence of a reliable source is a necessary condition for the inclusion of material, though not a solely sufficient condition. The source must also satisfy editorial consideration as being appropriate for the material in question. and must be used carefully(strike last as just too self-evident and condescending). JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, too, except that I'm not keen on "solely" sufficient. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "solely" isn't necessary or useful. For me JakeInJoisey's formulation says what needs to be said, but I'm still a bit uneasy about these very techie words ("necessary" and "sufficient"), but can't see how to manage without them. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's statements have to (or must) be verifiable, but that is not enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I like using those terms, then rephrasing in brackets: "The phrase 'verifiability, not truth' refers to the idea that the existence of a reliable source is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough)."

But we could simply use the terms in brackets: "The phrase 'verifiability, not truth' refers to the idea that the existence of a reliable source is a minimum requirement for the inclusion of material, though it may not be enough. The source must also be appropriate for the material in question ..." etc. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I like using those terms, then rephrasing in brackets...

"Rephrasing in brackets", at least to me, suggests a compositional failure to adequately employ appropriate language. Surely the wealth of wordsmithing here can and should do better. YMMV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Stop. So far, during the course of this RFC, you have shown highly controlling behaviour throughout. You have changed the way the question was asked and the way it was advertised. You have taken control of the timescale, forcing a re-opening of the debate because it did not comply with an agreement apparently made between you and Blueboar on Blueboar's talk page. You have caused an administrator to resign. During the lead up to the RFC, you tried to incite editors not to participate in the discussion. You successfully forced the discussion to take place on a subpage of your choosing because you did not want it on WT:V. You rearranged questions and discussions to suit own preferences. There has been a constant process of manipulation and micromanagement from you. And now, partway through the RFC, you're trying to change the question. Will you please cease and desist.

  For the avoidance of doubt this means that I am asking you please to cease all attempts to engineer or micromanage this RFC in any way, and confine yourself to expressing your opinion. The debate should clearly go through on the basis of the question we've already asked. If, after the RFC is over, it's found necessary to change the question, or otherwise manage the debate in any way, then neither you nor I nor anyone else previously involved should be the one to do it. An uninvolved editor should take charge, and this should not happen until the RFC is over.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• No more attacks, please. I asked that the RfC stay open for the full 30 days to attract more input. That's happening, and it has led to new commentators not only in the RfC, but elsewhere on the talk page, which is exactly what we need. If there's a negative atmosphere on the page, they will be discouraged from contributing again, so please let's focus only on finding language that might satisfy everyone. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

All those of us who have contributed in this section are trying to do, as far as I can tell, is to debate the issues, in the hope of trying to find better wording for an important Wikipedia policy. No-one owns either the current wording or the proposed replacement. If we were voting, then sure, we would vote on the proposal exactly as tabled. But we're not; we're trying to reach a consensus. As part of that it's quite legitimate to consider other possibilities. Neither you (S Marshall) nor any other editor has any right to try to control the debate. (Ad hominem/feminam remarks just undermine your credibility; what matters is open debate, not who said or did what in the past.) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be here only a couple minutes per day this week. I think that the RFC should run its course, and run a couple weeks more. And that given the clarification-only nature of the change, the extensive input that went into crafting it, the extensive input that it received, a clear majority should be sufficient to implement it and right now (a landslide favors the compromise proposal) it has far beyond that), all of the wiki-lawyering to the contrary aside. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

At last check, we're at 59% in favor. I can't recall any discussion were only 59% was considered consensus. And this is with the non-neutral title and the non-neutral description of the proposal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

59% is overly gracious. When the closing admins eliminate the "me-toos" and the "Yes, I agree" comments, supporters like myself will be lucky to slink away with 25%. I'm surprised that my fellow supporters don't already see this. Viriditas (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that they don't already see this.

Perhaps the expressions of pique and regrettable ad hominem suggest otherwise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What depresses me, and makes me seriously regret ever having got involved in this debate, is that way that so many editors see this as one side versus the other. "Slink away" is totally unhelpful language. This is a key area of policy, which is very difficult to word appropriately. There are a very few comments which suggest that editors want a change in policy (either more emphasis on truth over verifiability or less), but as far as I can tell, most detailed comments are about the best form of words to use. The situation appears to be that there isn't a consensus for the existing wording and there isn't a consensus for the proposed change, given that in this crucial area we need a way of saying what we mean that the overwhelming majority of editors can understand and give assent to. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Viriditas: the whole point of the RFC was to have a vote (or a !vote) on the wording change. Why would anyone ignore votes that say "me too"? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." But, you knew that. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas when a proposal has been laid out in detail saying "me too" amounts to "per proposal" or "per proposer." That's very obviously the case. The reason why opposers offer differing rationales is that they don't exist at the top of the page. If they agree with what another opposer has said they say, "per so and so" and there are plenty of those out there as well. So no you cannot discount people who simply agree with the proposal as stated. Their voices of agreement count as much as anyone else's voice here.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem with a poorly worded RfC. The best RfC's are extremely brief and give participants a choice that requires them to give their reasoning for support. In turn, this makes it extremely easy for a closer to establish consensus and to discard the "yes", "no", "me too", and "per so and so" comments. I have yet to see a closing admin gauge consensus on a major policy RfC by counting heads. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Maybe CBM has not been following this discussion. CBM, if you have not recently, with respect I sk you to review our guidelines on WP:RfC

"I'm surprised ..." may seem condescending, and perhaps unnecessary. But, I suspect Viriditas is responding to the fact that some of the advocates have been crowing about victory for the past three weeks. This is purely a personal opinion but: I wonder whether some people are responding so hysterically about what a debacle and train-wreck and disaster this is, because they had convinced themselves several weeks ago that they already knew with absolute certainty the outcome. Maybe I am wrong, but this would explain why they repeatedly insist that any other outcome is the result of some theft or corruption of the process. Most of my on proposals are shot down or ignored, which is virtually the same thing, so when I expressed opposition to the proposal I had no great expectations that lots of editors would agree with me &mdah; but I also knew that WP is a fluid community and majorities and minorities on talk pages can flip like eggs at a diner. For weeks, up to the apprantely premature closing of the RfC, some editors have been insisting that the decision was clear and "already made" (that "already" is often a slippery word and I think everyone would be better off if we used it more cautiously). I think Viriditas may be responding to this. Sorry to put words in your moutn, V, but I think you are saying that if people who support the proposal stopped leaving comments that suggest that they take its approval for granted, we could discuss things more coolly.

I have my own ideas about how to make V a better policy. I floated an idea during the discussion of the RfC because that is what RfCs are for, comments from people who had not been active in earlier discussions. When I thought that the RfC was over, and it was time to discuss the comments, I floated one of my ideas again. So, I forwarded a proposal. No one liked it, but no one criticized me for suggesting it.

At this point I will not forward my ideas for how to improve this proposal, not until the RfC closes and we discuss the results. But that doesn't mean others, in this case Slim Virgin, don't have a right to propose an alternative. I can't find anyting in our policies or guidelines that say she cannot do it, and given that I ofered my own proposal I just am in no position to fault her for doing the same.

But S. Marshall is way out of line saying "stop." It is cynical, and it is bullying, and has no place at Wikipedia. S. Marshall writes stop in bold, and then has the temerity to accuse SV of "highly controlling behaviour!" Temerity, or true condecension to us other editors, as if we are too blind to tell the difference between SV's forwarding a proposal and inviting comments, and S. Marshall's demand that this discussion stop — how much more controling can one get? She accuses Slim of changing the way the proposal was advertised, but urely, if the purpose of a request for comments is to request comments from outsiders, advertising more widely is a good idea. She accuses Slim of taking control of the timescale, but if Slim has suggested a close date (other than the 30 days our guideline suggests) it has been drowned out by othe editors who are discussing an appropriate close-date, hardly "control." She accuses Slim of forcing a re-opening of the debate, but our RfC guideline says that whenever an RfC closes we have to discuss the comments, so debate can always continue (and it was me, not Slim who first made this point). She accuses Slim of having caused an administrator to resign, an accusation that is hysterical and ludicrous on its face. I have no idea who SarekofVulcan really is or here she lives, and I doubt Slim does either, so I m not sure how she managed to sneak into Sarek's house and point that gun at Sarek's head forceing Sarek to resign (plus, I looked over Sarek's talk page when I learned she had resigned, to try to figure out why, and ithout seeing a clear explanation I saw that many others had been questioning Sarek's judgment concerning several matters); anyway, it was Sarek's decision to make. If you don't like it, blame Sarek. She accuses Slim of forcing the discussion to take place on a subpage rther than V, but all I can say is this is the V talk page and the RfC is here ... that said, RfC's are usually on sub-pages and for good reason and if Slim pushed for this she was pushing only for us to follow our own guidelines.

SV proposed an alternative. If there is a consensus for the proposal at the top of this page, or if SV's proposal is unappealing, people will ignore it, just as they ignored my proposal. But it looks like two or three other people find SV's proposal promising. They have proposed some changes and SV has not stopped them from doing so, although she has expressed her own preferences. I was about to write that I actually liked her proposal a lot (even though it is not what I myself proposed!!)... and then I read S. Marshall's Stop. S. Marshall, feel free to express your own view, if you wish, but do not tell me what I can and cannot do. You can do anything you want to except tell me to stop. Let's be clear: S. Marshall is trying to stop me, and Peter Coxhead, and Jake in Joisey from expressing our own views because S. Marshall just doesn't like it. As is often the case, it is the bully who accuses anyone who disagrees ith her of being a bully. Get used to it. The simple fact that SV has forwarded a suggestion and a few others like it doesn't force S. Marshall or anyone else to do anything — accept learn to live with the fact that they cannot dictate what other WP editors think. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I see brevity is still eluding Slrubenstein. Look, politicking aside, it's not exactly news that SV has control issues about this and other pages. My allegations are entirely justified. Shall I repeat them with diffs? I'm not saying that I should control this page. What I'm saying is that Slim should stop trying to.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I very much appreciate what SV is trying to do here... I will remind editors that the goal is to find language that addresses the concerns of all sides in this debate... and that includes both those who supported and those who opposed my proposal. I think SV's suggestion was made in that spirit. That said... given the tensions surrounding this RfC, I think she is a bit premature. We have already had people complain that this RfC was being closed before its time... let's not repeat that mistake. It is possible (even if unlikely) that a last minute rush of comments will change everything (in either direction). So... let's wait out the full 30 days, close the RfC and then we can start discussing how to suggest further compromises and work towards ending this long debate with a consensus that is solid and uncontested. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge. 59%? When did you do the last count. I've been tracking the percentages for at least 24 hours and it hasn't dipped below 60% since then. Right now it is as 62%. A 3% difference is a pretty big misrepresentation when you're dealing with total figures now close to 300. I would very much so appreciate it if people are commenting on these figures, or trends in these figures, that they take the time and look at them carefully before commenting. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Griswaldo: Please assume good faith. I did them about an hour and a half ago. At that time, there was 174 supports, 110 opposes and 9 neutrals. 174/293 = 0.59.38%. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. You are counting the neutrals, while I was not. I'm not sure in this situation that it is meaningful to count people who are in effect abstaining, but what you are doing is probably more conventional here on Wikipedia but I don't know. Anyway sorry about that. My confusion.Griswaldo (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Griswaldo: No problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If one reads the neutrals, very few are abstaining. In fact, one of the clearest things about this poll is that opinions about what should be done are almost orthogonal to the !votes: Cynwolfe, at neutral/support, and I, at oppose, have almost identical feelings about what would be the best substantive solution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

SV's is a reasonable proposal. It would be useful to know if anybody finds anything actually in that draft which they hold substantively wrong. It is certainly a good start on the next proposal, which should have a wider agreement than this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental reason why I'm against mentioning "not truth" is because the word "truth" here is used in the very specific meaning of "opinion" where you indeed would rather not want that to play a role in editorial decisions. For many Wikipedia articles this is the de-facto way a claim of truth is to be interpreted and clearly don't want this.

But there are also many topics where the de-facto meaning of "truth" is that of a hard fact, and not of mere opinion. This is the case for scientific topics. If someone presents an opinion as a statement of fact within the domain of such topics, that leads to strong counter reactions, precisely because "truth" is supposed to be fact and not opinion here.

Compare the statement "Obama is a bad president" with "Global Warming has been debunked". The first statement is a normal part of political discourse, you can have political scientists discussing this, even though it is just opinion. The statement about Global Warming is not going to be taken as a serious statement within the field of climate science. The person making such statement will be a priori dismissed as some crackpot.

For such scientific topics on Wikipedia, when people think someting is true, we would want to hear from them and discuss the matter further, because by default we are talking about a claim that should be verifiable and thus merits inclusion in Wikipedia if the person is correct and if it is sufficiently notable and relevant. Count Iblis (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Global Warming has been debunked" may not be taken seriously within the field of climate science... but within the field of political debate it is taken seriously. And the fact that it is an opinion held by many people other than climate scientists means we need to account for it. We shouldn't dismiss the opinion because we think it is not true. instead we discuss it in terms of being a note worthy opinion: "Many global warming skeptics are of the opinion that Global Warming has been debunked." Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Leaving aside for the moment the question whether now, while an RfC on a different proposal is in full swing, is the best time to discuss this proposal, I still feel queasy about the following wording –
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
• What I don't like is that "not whether editors think it is true" still implies that any concern about a source being mistaken can be dismissed. As such, it feels a little inconsistent with what follows. I would suggest the following wording to fix it:
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough for an editor simply to assert that it is true.
• One could also put it as follows:
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough for it to be true.
• I think that is clearer and more in line with what follows. The reference to rules of evidence is a little opaque perhaps, but otherwise, the rest seems good and well-written. --JN466 18:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been making no secret of the fact that there's a lot that I find objectionable about what's happened with this discussion over the last several days, but I would never find fault with suggesting a new compromise version. Doing so is an entirely good and helpful thing. And what is being discussed here is very similar to what I tried to convince the group working on the RfC proposal to consider. For example see: Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence#Updated version. Unfortunately, the working group by that point consisted of just a few editors who felt much more strongly about removing "not truth" from the lead than does the community as a whole, so my suggestions then didn't go anywhere.
• Personally, I very much like the language that Blueboar came up with to describe "not truth", about the sense in which it is meant in WP:V. I'm less enthusiastic about moving it out of the lead. I think we don't really need an added section after the lead at all. We could just rewrite the lead to incorporate Blueboar's improved wording into it. When I proposed that approach to the smaller group, the objection was that there was "an elephant in the room" that needed to be explained by the new section you see proposed in the RfC. But my reading of the community's comments (both before and after the reopening of the RfC) is that very few editors are concerned with those issues, whereas a very large number of opposes are based upon moving "not truth" out of the lead.
• All of that said, I'm not at all convinced that the RfC proposal is failing. It may well gain consensus. We'll just have to see. Maybe a compromise will be desirable as a new proposal if this one fails, or maybe a compromise will be desirable as a further improvement if this one passes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Here is the new Occupy Verifiability slogan - "We are the 60%." :)Griswaldo (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Office pool: how long until someone wants to split off with 61%? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I was recently directed here by Slrubenstein. I thought I would post a quote from Karl Popper and a few other philosophical reflections that might help with the discussion:

• With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or probability) there falls one of these defenses of obscurantism which bar the way of scientific advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigour and the integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.[21]

Verifiability falls within the notion of reliability and the quest for truth - it provides the evidence and links to resources where the information is stored and replicated into literature. Facts are like mini-hypotheses embedded in our language, and as Karl Popper believed "observations exist only as interpretations of the facts of nature in light of present theories, not as the facts of nature themselves."[22] Hence, the verifiable links are like arrows pointing to citable observations, but they are not to be conflated with untestable truth on the nature of reality. The quest for truth is a virtue, but do not praise the idol nor "the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty"[23]; see Gould (2000)[24] to learn about Baconian idols in the philosophy of science and "natural truth". My post refers primarily to scientific philosophy, not metaphysics nor other forms of inquiry - but science has a lot to say about truth, verification, reliability, and the idol of certainty. I would recommend a statement that says: "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability in the persistent quest of truth" - or something of that nature. It is the malleability of theory not its rigidness that nets the best ideas. Proof is the demonstration of theory and the evidence that supports it. It is a publicly verifiable exercise, because "facts are the world's data"[25] If you are seeking a means toward adjudication on the verifiable evidence, such as scientific consensus, it must be a collective venture. Should it come down to a vote? Perhaps, but scientists like to set the terms before hand - e.g., "I will reject at P>0.05" and then launch the test. If a poll is taken a posteri you will be trapped in endless debate (see above) over what is acceptable. Set the rules a priori and a lot of problems can be resolved, e.g.: A poll will be taken and >55% is required for the change to take effect, for example. The rules of engagement should be open for discussion in the persistent quest of truth. Editors need to ask if the information is reliable enough to act on or deposit into wikipedia. The rest is down to hope for humanity to deem what is and what isn't reliable enough to act upon. Truth should be reliable as it leads to predictable outcomes, but never dogmatic.Thompsma (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Woo, 62.5%! Silverseren^C 01:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  Facepalm I guess the "off-wiki stealth canvassing" organized by the "pro-VnT'ers" is failing miserably. ;P Doc talk 01:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  63.7%! :D Silverseren^C 22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  I wonder what the split is among the heavy content contributors (although where the hell one draws the line etc....between "heavy", "light" blah blah blah...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  I'm trying to lose weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're so excited about. 214/356 = is only 60%. And keep in mind, that's with the non-neutral title and non-neutral explanation. We can only guess what the real numbers would have been if the RfC had been written neutrally. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A standard way of expressing the present state of the poll is

60% support

36% oppose

4% neutral

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Meta Comment - The dialogue in this section has been diverted to yet another debate on characterizing the parameters to be considered in the RfC close. In deference to the section title, this irrelevant content should be refactored elsewhere. Blueboar? JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Continued attempts to discredit the RfC before it finishes need to stop

Will people please stop trying to discredit the RfC before it finishes? I'm sick of hearing about what percentages are required for a consensus, how the ordering of support/oppose/neutral sections is biasing the RfC (despite being conntional), how the original wording needs to be changed for this or that reason, and now how voicing plain agreement with the proposal as written is apparently not worthy of being counted in the evaluation of the RfC. Before the drama fest started at AN/I a great number of people had commented in this RfC already. Many of them were regulars here (of drastically different perspectives), but not all of them. Many of them were long time contributors to the encyclopedia, and some admins. Those individuals were perfectly capable of discussing the proposal without all this crap. What happened in the interim? I wont speculate but I've heard a lot of people claim that this RfC is garbage who really ought to look in the mirror because it appears to have been pretty clean before they arrived. So enough already! Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The best way to stop discussion is to just stop discussing, not commands to Stop. At any rate, people "discussing word changes to the proposal for this or that reason" have happened all along, and should certainly continue. It's a "request for comment." So, comments welcome. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

If we modify it ever so slightly:

"Verifiability, not just truth". Hm? DS (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Since we are adding suggestions:

"the threshold for inclusion is verifiability in the persistent quest for truth and reliability"Thompsma (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How about, simply, Caveat emptor? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

DS, people like those three words because they are pithy and iconic and fun and because the cognitive dissonance intrigued them to actually read the policy further. All those motivations are lost when you add "just". Also, adding "just" fundamentally misunderstands the major underlying intention: VnjT implies that the editor does know what is true (and presumes contributions should be true in addition to being verifiable), but, to the contrary, a main point of VnT is that no editor really knows what is true (e.g., see quotes by Popper) and that different editors disagree about what they believe is true; reminding ourselves of VnT is one of the most powerful tools we have to nonetheless be able to collaborate constructively under such circumstances of underlying difference (the issue crops up very frequently especially among science theory topics and religion topics for example) without arguing about truth (which is ultimately futile in these kinds of cases, and at any rate requires original expertise).

But you'll notice above, there are a number of new proposals appearing which still retain VnT (without watering it down) in the opening sentence, but then immediately follow with various further explanations. I think those approaches are far more likely to achieve real consensus. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support DS's formulation: in my view, all claims stated as fact on Wikipedia should be both verifiable and true. But I think part of the reason this RFC has become such an irreconcilable clusterfuck is that we're really dealing with rather deep concepts here. When history's greatest philosophers have fundamentally different understandings of what is meant by 'true' (and 'verifiable', for that matter), there doesn't seem much hope that consensus could ever be reached on a mere Wikipedia policy discussion page. Robofish (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's really quite good, DragonflySixtyseven.  It still has the problem that using the lede for sloganeering is advertising that Wikipedia is run by and for amateurs.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And your objection to truth in advertising is what, exactly?

But DS's formulation misses part of the point: truth - plain, hard, factual truth - is not enough for us; neither is verifiability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The advantage of DS's proposal is that it prompts readers to think and even discuss what truth means. However, it isn't overly helpful or functional for resolving disputes when editors come to look up verifiable resources; Cesiumfrog raises similar points in terms of intrinsic knowledge of truth. I borrowed "quest for truth" from Popper, but it could use updating:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability in the pursuit of truth and reliability using the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. Verifiable means that readers can check if information in Wikipedia has been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Truth is a social virtue, not something that is in itself a permanent fact of reality. Truth in Wikipedia logically abides by the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates.Thompsma (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the first attempt for a similar term that uses the 3 words but not in a way that can be construed and used by others and gives negative light by some media as Wikipedia being okay with something so long as something says it even if its false (the Earth is made of chocolate) and not okay if something is obvious (1+1=5364). To those who know its history and are versed the idea it is clear what it means, but not to the average newbie. Read simply as "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (since there is a break there) it easily gives the impression that we don't care about truth - just sources. I think sometimes some members seem to place the iconic 3-word nature is on too high of a pedestal.

I made a compromise suggestion a while ago before the latest proposal by blueboar of "venerability of truth" and it was condemned by the same people who think there can be no subsistence for those 3 words ever. I can't remember the details, but it just sounded like they were making excuses why nothing but those 3 words would do.∞陣内Jinnai 05:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

DS, many small tweaks have been tried but have failed to break the dead-lock between the two opposing camps. The current proposal is a good compromise as it incorporates both views—maybe not ideal, but a steadier platform on which to stand now, and perhaps move forward from in the future. Uniplex (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a fresh outside perspective could help.Thompsma (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion was verifiability, not "truth" - the quotation marks convey the meaning better than other options I've seen. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you elaborate to tell us what meaning the quotation marks convey exactly? "Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it" - is this what you mean? Truth has a different meaning than the one we typically associate with it? How does that help to clarify things?Thompsma (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If I were having a conversation with someone and I said that I was telling them "quote unquote" the "truth", I would think that to mean that I wasn't telling the truth (not not the truth?). Shouldn't the sentence carry clarity of meaning? I don't believe that quotes achieve this. It causes one to pause, and possibly ponder the meaning that truth is something to be questioned, but metaphors like this are not necessarily the right tool for guidance on thresholds and settling disputes.Thompsma (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, for many years this policy said that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. No scare quotes. So I think the first questionis, Thompsma, in the traditional wording of the policy, what do you think "truth" (direct quotation" means? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know where to place my comment

I'm new around here and just read the majority of this discussion because there was a notice on my watchlist today that it was occuring. Someone made a comment that the first sentence of the current wording raises cognitive dissonance that prompts the editor to read further. I think that is a valid point. However, I'm very suspicious of catch phrases that try to make difficult concepts seem simple. I agree that there needs to be an explanation for casual readers contrasting what the term "verifiability" means generally and on Wikipedia. I will also say that, as a new editor, I understood the policy better from reading the new wording than the old wording. It's just my 2 cents worth, but I'd make the change.Carmaskid (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your 2c count, if you support the change click edit next to the support section, scroll all the way down to the bottom and add # '''Support''' followed by an explanation why. AIRcorn (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I did that.Carmaskid (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Are We Letting Possible Banned Editors/Socks Chime In?

No need to discuss this any further
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved I removed the "vote" of 101.171.149.26 (talk · contribs) because of obvious reasons, and per BRD I am coming to discuss it after I was reverted (Yay!). Now, it's literally the only edit from the IP. Why even consider a vote such as this, on either side? Should this sort of vote influence consensus and even be here to begin with? If so: why? This is nothing against anonymous IPs in general, infrequently active anonymous IPs, or anything like that (the good ones are absolutely invaluable to the project, of course). But it's just that it's this IP's only edit, and it could be a sock of anyone, really. It would set a bad precedent to encourage voting like this on any sort of discussion, IMHO, and it should just be removed from consideration. Doc talk 03:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) If a banned ip sock makes the decisive argument, it would be a really stupid idea to discount it. If it repeats the flawed argument of someone else it holds not weight anyway.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I oppose this removal, and ask that it be returned. It could be a very frequent anonymous editor who has an ISP which frequently changes his IP address, edits from a mobile device, edits from public terminals/internet cafes/libraries; is not currently at his regular IP but still wanted to chime in, does not have a regular IP which they use exclusively. There are 1001 WP:AGF reasons why it would be the first edit of an IP, and NOT be an abusive sock. I find it very troubling that the first conclusion you draw from such a situation is "abusive sockpuppetry". That's rediculous. If you have a specific person in mind, find a checkuser or file an SPI report. If your ONLY evidence is that this is the first edit from a particular IP address, well, that's utterly rediculous to jump from that evidence to the conclusion that it's sockpuppetry. --Jayron32 03:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Relax: it was returned and I didn't revert it. That's why I came here to discuss it. Yeesh. I don't have a specific person in mind, either, as it would be rIdiculously unlikely to figure that out from one edit and short sentence. So we can can let literally one-off IP votes carry as much weight as those of long-standing trusted editors? Great to know. Cheers... Doc talk 03:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC) What is your evidence this person is not a long-time editor in good standing? --Jayron32 04:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This is nothing new. So let's assume that it is. May many more just like this one follow. Doc talk 04:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) It will have to be down to the closing admin to decide how much weight to give to IPs with no obvious editing history - allowing individual contributors to delete other's comments 'on suspicions of being a possible sockpuppet' is totally untenable. If you want to argue that only registered editors can participate in AfDs RfCs, then do so - but not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Whether it's "untenable", "rediculous" or whatever: I followed BRD and don't need the lectures. I made a bold change, it was reverted, and we're discussing it. BRD. I never said anything like "only registered editors can participate in AfDs", Andy - RfC is not AfD, and I specifically said that this has nothing to do with the rights of anonymous IPs. Unbelievable... Doc talk 04:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC) And he was discussing it, by disagreeing with your action with reasons - I'm not sure why it upset you, though he did apparently mistype "AfD" instead of "RfC". At any rate, I agree, and from my experience it's been fairly standard to allow edits like this to stand, with a notation that the IP/new editor is an IP/new editor, and sometimes, in cases where the votes or !votes are numbered, indenting the vote to prevent numbering. The closing admin will read such comments and will almost certainly discount them, but they should be left there. Among other things, doing this ensures that in the (somewhat) rare case where an IP/new editor brings a new point up for discussion (not the case here, admittedly), the point won't be removed. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. I was in the process of undoing Doc9781's removal when Ianmacm beat me to it. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Ja ja, pat yourselves on the back. I was wrong to do what I did, I see it now, and I am sorry. Self-trout. Doc talk 07:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC) And apologies from me for getting my AfDs mixed up with my RfCs - We have more TLAs than my brain can handle sometimes. AndyTheGrump (talk) In many ways they're all the same. My apologies to you - I got grouchy, no shame in admitting it. You must know what it's like ;> Doc talk 07:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) It is possible to tag comments like this with . However, this could be seen as not assuming good faith, and comments should not normally be removed unless they are disruptive.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC) As one of the arguments made by both sides is that it is easier for new editors to understand you could argue tagging a comment with "few contributions" should give it more weight. AIRcorn (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Folks... the closing admin can decide whether or not to count the anonymous IP's comment. It isn't like we have been inundated with IP's here, and one or two in the mix will not make a huge difference one way or the other. Creating further confusion with accusations about "banned editors" or "socks" - based on one IP leaving a comment - is not that helpful. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Might I point out that if one of the points for both sides is that they are arguing that their version is more comprehensible and better for the readers, then wouldn't we want to have people involved like this single edit IP, who is likely more a reader than an editor? SilverserenC 16:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Good point. What the average reader, looking at this debate to see what the fuss is about would think of it all, I can only speculate, though I suspect that the more literate might comment on 'angels balancing on the head of a pin', and the less so simply use 'nutcases' or some other such characterisation - probably with some justification. Personally, I doubt that changing the relevant text is likely to make much noticeable difference anyway - Wikipedia isn't just a set of policies, it is a community/discourse/ongoing-custard-pie-fight, and article content is the result of more than just abstractions like 'verifiability' or 'truth'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I see this is marked resolved, but I wonder how it was determined that the edit in question was the "only edit from the IP". Is there anything to say that it wasn't a registered user who edited (accidentally or otherwise) while logged out? I realize this may stir the pot more than clarify anything, but still, I don't see it considered much above, although it is touched upon when mentioning a number of AGF reasons for the IP edit.  Frank  |  talk  17:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I have apologized for my mistake - what more can I do? I can't go back in time and change what I did. Doc talk 17:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Someone suggested that it is for the closing admin to decide how to handle comments from anonymous IPs. I have no idea where this coms from. It is not what our RfC guidelines say. It is for the editors active on this page to discuss comments, and for them to decide what weight to give any comment, from an IP or a registered user. (Obviously accuations of sock-puppetry have to be handled separately). Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC) While I generally agree with Slrubenstein, and I do agree that the next revision need not give much weight to anon comments, especially when we have literally hundreds of others, the purpose of an RFC is to collect opinions from editors not involved with the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I think we agree completely. At least, I agree entirely that "the purpose of an RFC is to collect opinions from editors not involved with the page." My point is only that this claim — "It will have to be down to the closing admin to decide how much weight to give to IPs with no obvious editing history" — is wrong; it is for editors here to make this decision via discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This unreasoning prejudice against IP users is the one and only reason I registered. Too many LGBT editors and fair admins. were spending too much time fighting prejudice against me as an IP. At this point, I think this entire process says more about us all (I'm new, but seeing as I'm participating, then I'm part of 'us') than perhaps we wanted to know. At this point, whatever 'side' I came down on, it would be mainly out of distaste for the comments of the other side more than a firm conviction that my choice was the better of the two for our encyclopedia. I would be very surprised, indeed, if I were alone in this feeling. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion for a while. One thing is quite clear. Regardless of whether consensus is achieved or not, this way lies ever more strife. It's not the productive, fertile kind of disagreement arising from dispassionate argument, just the good old fashioned 'does not play well with others kind'.Pauci leones (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) My God, why did I ever open this thread? *headdesk* Unless the IP I wrongly reverted was you, I'm not sure how this is relevant to this mess I started. What this has to do with LGBT editors, registered or not, completely escapes me. Doc talk 23:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) First, I do not sock- or meatpuppet or otherwise. Should I decide to come down on one side or the other, it will be under this name, no other and with a clear explanation as to why I so choose. I am going to apply goodwill here - something much in abeyance - and assume your comment about LGBT editors was not a slur but a genuine failure on my part to communicate. I'll try bullet points, maybe that will be clearer: I thoroughly fail to understand why a very clear policy that IP users are 100% acceptable should be ignored by so many editors and admins. Total violation of policy I was an IP editor for some time, rather adequately, too. After my IP comments (not yet edits) on an article relevant to LGBT editors and christians drew accusations that I was trolling, being a vandal and worse from several editors, several LGBT editors and an admin. interceded to calm things down. It didn't work. I then tried registering a user name and, if the conflicts did not let up, suddenly the claims that - I, who had not yet made a single edit to the article - was a vandal, a troll, even worse and the semi-protects and all the running to this that and the other conflict resolution page ceased. We fought a very very hard fight, and reached a compromise which everyone could live with. Out of gratitude to the LGBT editors and that lone admin. I decided that, rather than take away precious productive time from people, this was a fight not worth having. I hope that helps. It could have just as easily been another interest group than LGBT, perhaps the editors dedicated to The Foundation for the Satisfaction of Indignant Cats. What does remain, and it really really remains is the distinct impression that there is a great deal of unwillingness to achieve any resolution here on the part of quite a few people who really ought to get a life. I want to contribute good work to this encyclopedia. As one of those people who forbid the use of Wikipedia as an academic source to my students, I regard this RFC as an important step on the path to this ultimately becoming an academic resource I would be happy to see cited. I hope to, if only in a very minor way, contribute to that goal. I definitely, absolutely think the ayes and nays of IP address only editors are just as valid as those of editors who consider themselves rather quite something around here. This discussion reminds me of why the the monarchs tried to create a wealthy merchant class to balance the landed gentry. Attacks on Jimbo above, attacks on IP editors, below, sheesh.Pauci leones (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC) For shame! Socks of banned editors are some of our most prolific contributors. They work hard every day patrolling recent changes, sourcing BLPs, and writing featured content. They're probably doing 30% of the work on the project. And what thanks do they get? There's a significant chance someone will recognize and block them, and then they'll have to start a new account, and waste weeks pretending not to know how to format a page, and where the notice boards are. These are some of our most loyal and experienced contributors. Though other long-time editors get disgusted and leave, these guys will never abandon their work here. Shouldn't we invite, nay, beg! them to help us rewrite our core policies? Tom Harrison Talk 23:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC) If an editor, with or without an account, makes consistently acceptable edits, there is no reason to inquire whether the editor is banned or blocked under another account or IP address (unless the editor spontaneously confesses that he/she is blocked/banned under another identity). (And yes, such spontaneous confessions do occur.) Jc3s5h (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Will some kind soul please... please collapse this thread? I would have already, but I do not want anymore grief. I foolishly started this thread seeking an answer; and I have found it ten times over. If this is going to become a general discussion of AGF, mandatory registration, etc.: I absolve myself of any further responsibility. Have mercy, please! Doc talk 00:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What the "percentage of total" spin obscures

The "percentage of total" description is a spin version which obscures....it should be expressed as an comparison between those "for" and "against". For example here's what "percentage of total" obscures (assuming "neutral" at 4%)

• "50%" = "fors" are 109% (x1.087) of "opposes"
• "55%" = "fors" are 134% (x1.341) of "opposes"
• "57.6%" = "fors" are 150% (x1.50) of "opposes"
• "60%" = "fors" are 167% (x1.667) of "opposes"
• "64%" = "fors" are 200% (x2.00) of "opposes"
• "66%" = "fors" are 220% (x2.22) of "opposes"
• "70%" = "fors" are 269% (x2.692) of "opposes"
• "95.99%" = "fors" are 959,900% (x9,599) of "opposes"

Anytime "fors" are more than 150% of "opposes", IMHO that's a beyond-consensus landslide which is seldom achievable on any contested issue, and this has exceeded that. If some were successful in inventing rules that even with a a 1.67:1 landslide on an RFC with immense input, a clarification type change can't be made, then this would feel like Libya in 2010 and we'd a need a liberation. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Using a standard form for expressing the present state of the poll, we have

60% support

36% oppose

4% neutral

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are a thousand and one ways to statistically analyze poll numbers ... and (of course) each of us would prefer a statistical method that achieves the end result we would like (whatever that end result may be). The fact is... no matter how this RfC is closed, some of us are going to think it should have gone the other way, or that some other statistical method would have given us a "truer" result. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• I have put in a request at ANI, asking for an admin (one who has not yet commented on this page) to volunteer to close this RfC when it is time to do so. That closer will be uninvolved and neutral. That closer can determine which statistical methods to use or not use (indeed the closer may decide not to use any statistical method at all). Please just trust the system. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should give this extra time which would tend to reduce the impact of any "anomalies". North8000 (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The decision as to when to close can also be left up to the uninvolved admin who is assigned to close. There are equally valid arguments for closing now vs. extending. Again, trust the system. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)