Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Draft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Narrow vs sweeping changes

[edit]

I would like to suggest that we try to avoid using this as an opportunity to address every small wording disagreement we have had with the policy. The more changes we make (even if we think the change is relatively small), the less likely it will be that this will achieve consensus. It is with this in mind that I think we should retain the word "threshold"... personally, I don't really care if we use "threshold" or some similar word... but I know there are others who do care about that word... and will oppose the attempt at compromise if they see it changed. So... I think we should save that for another debate at another time. I think we should focus on resolving the "not truth" debate... and save other wording change suggestions for another time. In other words... let's keep as much of the old language as we can, for now. Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments have not been followed so far. Please consider the proposed version which just has the simple changes of 1) removing "not truth" from the first sentence and 2) adding Verifiability, not truth to the See also section.
The first sentence would look like this:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
and the See also section would look like this:
See also
Otherwise, I fear the greater changes that are being worked on, will have little chance of success. The issue that should be addressed for now is what to do with the phrase "verifiability, not truth", which is addressed with the above. The other changes should be worked on only after the most difficult issue is settled if you want any chance of success. Please be careful not to be lulled into overconfidence here and propose too much. The main hurdle is the issue of the phrase "verifiability, not truth". The other changes would be more acceptable if this hurdle was first put behind you. If anyone has an alternative to the above suggestion that is also simple, please come forward and share your idea. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob... the entire point of this version was to omit using the words "truth" and "true" in the lede (and to deal with that issue as a separate section). Your most recent edits reversed that concept. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, That point, and your way of implementing it with a whole new section in policy, etc., contradicts your first message which I had wholeheartedly agreed with.
  • For those trying to follow this, here is the draft before my previous message.[1] As you can see by this diff, the change from the current version of policy contradicts Blueboar’s first message.
  • Here is the draft shortly after my last message (with a minor change by Pesky).[2] The changes from the current version of policy were small and addressed the main issue which was the phrase “verifiability, not truth”, while being consistent with Blueboar's first message. (Please see my last message.)
  • Blueboar then changed the draft but didn't add the new section that he wants, and here is the diff. These changes and the new section that he wants are contrary to his first message. Please see my previous message and Blueboar's first message regarding the implications of these type of changes to the success of the proposal.
I've said about all I can on this. My first message says it all. My second message is just an attempt to mitigate the confusion after Blueboar's previous comment and actions. I'll let other editors pick up the discussion from here if they care to. Bye, Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another page that's not on my watchlist?? I came here from Bob's comment at one of the other pages. I've read Bob's comments here, I promise. They don't make sense to me, sorry. I still think Blueboar's proposal has promise, precisely because it is not trying to do too much. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob K31416, what I am responding to is your "proposed version" here, I would suggest that people will have difficulty in responding when it is so closely associated with the primary proposal.  But in response, I oppose the "proposed version", as per the reasoning at WP:V/First sentence#Poll V_FC_P_12 Do not remove the "not truth" phrase from the policy page, even if deprecated.  I do not consider the essay as sufficient explanation of the 500-1500 pages that mention the (as Jimbo calls it) "mantra".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bijou changette

[edit]

I italicised "think". I think it makes for slightly greater clarity without actually changing any words. Is that OK? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we omit discussing "true" or "truth" in the lede (which is the point behind this draft), then there is no need for "think" either. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(why) is verifiability the only requirement for inclusion?

[edit]

Lambian, why do you think the policy has said "the" threshold for several years?  Was there a reason for this?  I agree that I could live with having new levels for inclusion, but I think we are losing clarity here, and I wonder if I can influence some opinions to stay the course with "the" vs. "a".  I also have a concern that we will see this change mentioned in opposition positions in some future RfC, which IMO would be an unnecessary burden to the main proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy has said "the" for many years... but that does not (necessarily) mean it should continue to say "the". That said, I definitely think that verifiability is the initial threshold... ie the one that must be crossed before we consider the others. While there are other policies that affect the inclusion of information, they come it to play after we have established whether the material is verifiable. To put this another way... verifiability (on its own) does not guarantee inclusion, but the lack of verifiability (on its own) does guarantee exclusion. 14:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)
Why respond without answering the question?  It is not wisdom to be changing something that you don't have to change, when you don't know why it exists as it is.  Right?  So let's not start down that road.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental requirement vs. crucial threshold

[edit]

Just trying this for size - one of the problems with 'threshold' (like the threshold of a doorway) is the implication that once you cross it, you're in, no arguments. I know we've had a load of discussion on this - but how about letting it stay this way for a little while just to see if it seems to read OK once we've passed the knee-jerk reactions to change (if any!) :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. Please be nice to me - real life is shite at the moment! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Draft&oldid=470857446"