Talk:Truthiness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Truthiness is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 17, 2007.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
WikiWorld logo.JPG Truthiness was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)
Truthiness comic.jpg
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Comedy (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

"Truthy" and "falsy" in programming: pre-Colbert or post-Colbert?[edit]

As a non-American I'm wondering: do these terms actually pre-date Colbert's penning of the gut-truth definition or are they obvious references us foreigners couldn't possibly spot? In programming the adjectives "truthy" and "falsy" refer to values which evaluate to the booleans "true" and "false" (rather than the boolean values themselves). In JavaScript, for example, the numerical value "0" or the empty array "[]" would both be "falsy", other numerical values or non-empty arrays on the other hand would be "truthy". The terms are probably limited to dynamically typed languages, though some statically typed languages seem to allow using non-booleans as booleans (though this may be related to how booleans and boolean comparisons are implemented, so this may be very different). --- 78.35.107.83 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on this, but it needs a bit of help (eg, with citations). FWIW, here are some relevant links: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/116883/is-truthiness-a-legitimate-programming-term,

http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/713894/Truthy-Vs-Falsy-Values-in-JavaScript RichMorin (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Truthiness (as an intensively discussed topic) has a long history in coding, particularly in weakly-typed languages like JavaScript, SQL or Visual Basic. Crockford would be a solid ref for this. Unlike strongly-typed languages (Pascal being one of the first popular ones to have a specific Boolean type) or like C, where programmers counted every bit mentally, JavaScript and especially the varying notions of false / 0 / null / empty / void made a robust abstract model of their interpretation as truthful essential for reliable coding. I doubt the word truthiness is etymologically any older than Colbert, but the concept certainly is. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hm -- this paragraph seems to have been cut. Strange. Does anyone know why? I've found uses of "truthy" going back years before Colbert. --winterstein (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Just the regular edit-warring from GliderMaven, who is equally omniscient on all technical topics.
For sources, Niklaus Wirth might be good as an early one, as he had some heated debate with Kernighan and Ritchie over C's fairly free-wheeling use of truthiness for a wide range of values - probably the first time that such behaviour had been codified in a language spec and encouraged as best practice, rather than being an accidental side effect. Pascal of course took a strictly typed approach with an explicit Boolean type.
The concept of "truthiness" has at least 40 years well-documented and sourceable history in computing, with a meaning of, "That which evaluates as true, no matter its actual value or representation." The specific word used here probably dates from Colbert. I'm in the UK, I've heard the term in use since around 2006, but still don't know what a Colbert is.
For a recent use, Crockford's slim JavaScript book (O'Reilly, Butterfly cover) uses the notion and term. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
None of which has anything at all to do with the topic of the article, which is when a human being believes in something irrespective of facts. The other definition of 'truthiness' is only there because it's been connected to the topic via an on-topic reference saying that the word truthiness already existed, and that was done specifically in context. That doesn't mean you get to list every other definition of truthiness in the article. That's OR, and violates WP:NOT. Even if you reference it, that's not sufficient to some javascript book or whatever; you have to reference it in context.GliderMaven (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
In your opinion. However RS use this word, as a derivation post-Colbert, in the context of computer science.
Why are you against truthiness for CompSci appearing here, but you're OK with "Mathiness" being included? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm opposed to off-topic and unreferenced material appearing in any article, and I would hope you would be too, but apparently not. I hadn't noticed mathiness, but that appears indeed to be off-topic, and I have now tagged it. This contrasts with the pseudoword "trustiness", which is linked by the references.GliderMaven (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@GliderMaven please show respect for your fellow editors. You say that CompSci-truthiness" is separate from Colbert-truthiness -- I expect you're probably right there. But CompSci "truthiness" is a notable topic, arguably more notable than Colbert-truthiness. I think having this article handle both uses is the best solution. An alternative would be to have two articles and a disambiguation page -- that feels like overkill to me, but you could make the case. To resolve this, please could you say: Where and how do you think CompSci "truthiness" should be covered? I think if we answer that, we'll fix this issue. Thanks. --winterstein (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
You have to find a place to put your edits. I don't know off-hand where it should go. Generally speaking where it's a 'usage' thing it should be in wiktionary, not wikipedia, or covered in a compsci specific article. It should not go in a non compsci article like this.GliderMaven (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe add it to Boolean data type.GliderMaven (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Truthiness is the opposite of a strongly typed Boolean type. It is the working principle that a pragma of regarding some definable set of values as "truthy" is workable and reliable, even without a strictly defined type system. A "truthy" value is not necessarily True, and cannot (correctly) be compared to a Boolean True. It may be though, and is, assumed to stand in for one. This has much more in common with Colbert's logic than Boole's. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I am understating the case to say that I have considerable difficulty in understanding how anyone could ever seriously think that a reader would expect the programming-related definition of the word 'truthiness' in this article, as opposed to in boolean data type, an article which also covers C-related languages, which have no boolean type per se.GliderMaven (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
A page that states, "the effective identity between Booleans and integers is still valid for C programs." is dangerously wrong. People have been killed by that assumption. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That whole article could be completely and dangerously wrong in the extreme, and it would still be the better place to put programming-related information than putting it in this completely unrelated article.GliderMaven (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Crockford refers to "truthy" in an article The Elements of JavaScript Style — Part Two: Idioms from 2005-09-21 ... Sept 21, just under a month before Colbert uses "truthiness", however Crockford does not use "truthiness" itself in that article. Sdp61 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Truthiness in particle physics[edit]

On a similar vein, I could swear we referenced "truthiness" as an alternative to "topness" in my particle physics class from older papers. Might anyone know more? SamuelRiv (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Off topic because wikipedia is not a dictionary; what are we going to do, add communism to the red article?GliderMaven (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Colbert-truthiness.jpg[edit]

FYI, File:Colbert-truthiness.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This reads like a Colbert Puff-Piece[edit]

Someone complained: "This article is not about the word "truthiness", it is about the way Colbert popularized it." I agree with that thrust. The article has the feel of being authored by a fawning Colbert fan(atic). Please keep in mind that words (like concepts) owe no loyalty to their origin, and in general that origin is only slightly of interest. For example, Colbert nor any other person has ANY authority regarding it's current, evolving definition and meaning. All words are defined by current usage, often with optional side-notes of any past or obsolete meanings. It is possible this word will quickly fade into obscurity, since face it, unless one is a Comedy Central or dictionary fan, one would naturally assume nearly the opposite definition...a fool's truth is a good joke but this is an unnatural word and definition.

1). Truthy: Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition.
2). Truthy: Dictionary.com: Truthy, a. Truthful; likely; probable.
3). Verisimilitude: the appearance of truth; the quality of seeming to be true

In any case, Colbert seems to be repeatably, gratuitously mentioned (fawned over) in the article, to the point of distraction or confusion regarding the topic of "Truthiness." This needs to be cleaned up or moved to Stephen Colbert or elsewhere. The topic is the word or concept: Truthiness, this article ain't.
--68.127.90.135 (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Doug Bashford

Most of the sources here are primary, not secondary. Such a vast account of the popularization of this word is not given anywhere else. DAVilla (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If it wasn't for Colbert, we wouldn't have an article at all. It would be as notable (or less) as the word "truthfulness", which redirects to the pitifully stubby Honesty. The puff is the only thing holding this cookie together. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides, this is a Featured Article so your opinion is in the minority. Not to say it is a perfect article but merging it into another article is not a good idea. Fix don't destroy. 184.88.242.142 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

US Focus[edit]

This is an article that focuses on the US as that is where the action round "truthiness" seems to have been. The problem is that it doesn't say "US public conciousness" but just says "public conciousness". I don't think there was any controversy in the rest of the English speaking world, in spite of the BBC piece, I am not sure that it noticed that much. I think we were still trying to deal with "I'm loving it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.27.50 (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Better link?[edit]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but here's a suggested link for ref5: http://wikiality.wikia.com/Truthiness#Wikiality kthxbai TheLastWordSword (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikis generally aren't acceptable as citations, because they're not WP:Reliable sources.
What we want, in this case, is simply an uptodate link for the episode in question. I suspect this is the udpated link (but I don't live in the US and therefor cannot see it or confirm that it works).
That link is indeed the updated link, all the Colbert Report shows and clips were moved to his separate site. Also, it does work, at least where I am. Rubenpuma (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
If no link can be found, then a non-web-linked citation is also completely acceptable. –Quiddity (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)