Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Group 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments on individual drafts

Comments on draft 0

Draft 0 rationale

I drafted this based on my best understanding of where the consensus was just before the page was full protected. I kept VnT, but used alternative language to "threshold". I think/hope this version addresses the community view from the last RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

How far away from Blueboar's popular compromise draft (from the RFC) is this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As I recollect, and Blueboar may be able to help answer here if I'm missing something, the proposal in the last RfC moved VnT out of the lead section and created a new section, below it, to discuss the VnT issue. There was feedback from that previous RfC that a proposal that, instead, keeps it in the lead might have had an easier time gaining consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we so sure about that, that we do not even place Blueboar's draft in for some reflection at this stage of discussions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Participants do not need permission to add a draft.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but is there anybody who wants that draft? I just found it surprising that it was not put forward. It is not necessarily my first preference, but for this particular group I was expecting it to be put forward. If no one else sees the issue, then there is not point taking too much time out for it. What do others think? Is Blueboar's draft worth considering still or are the others all definitely better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

First, let me point out that this is becoming a discussion that does not in any way pertain specifically to Draft 0, but rather, to the entire Group. That said, I guess my take is that the community already gave feedback on the proposal from the last RfC, so wouldn't it make sense, here, to try to improve upon it further, based in part on that feedback? That said, perhaps a case can be made for creating a draft more similar to that version. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 1

Draft 1 rationale

I did this one very similarly to Draft 0, but with a few differences that came from the talk thread where I said what my expectations were, and two other editors in this mediation added some more expectations of their own. The differences from Draft 0 are: (1) "and particularly influence when verifiable but inaccurate material should not be included," in the second sentence, (2) the first footnote, and (3) the third footnote. Otherwise, the two drafts are the same. I'd be interested in hearing from other editors whether those three differences could have been done better. Personally, I could happily support either Draft 0 or Draft 1 in the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 2

Things that are good about draft 2

• Like Draft 3, I think this version adheres to the instructions for a Group 2 draft, and offers some useful language choices. Thus, I like the idea of trying to come up with a draft that incorporates the best of Drafts 0, 1, 2, and 3. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Per very recent discussion at WT:V, changing "cited" to "reliable" near the beginning is an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 2

• Although the whole "threshold" thing is no big deal to me personally, it might be best to avoid the controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what I think about the verify/verification thing. Does it raise new questions? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 3

Things that are good about draft 3

• In my opinion, Drafts 0, 1, 2, and 3 are all good, and are all getting at pretty much the same things. I tend to think that we should be looking at how best to craft a final draft that incorporates the best of each. To accomplish that, it might be helpful to identify the specific strengths and weaknesses of each of the four drafts. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Per very recent discussion at WT:V, changing "cited" to "reliable" near the beginning is an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 3

• I've never liked using language where we say what the sentence just before "means", like a dictionary of special usage. Better for the reader to explain or illustrate, than to define. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what I think about the verify/verification thing. Does it raise new questions? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

When I wrote this, there were three things I made a point of putting in / leaving out, in order of decreasing importance:

1. A statement that positively prevents reading other things into "not truth": "Not truth" means that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement.
2. Leaving out the word "threshold". It is ambiguous in a place where the ambiguity does harm.
3. Injecting the word "considerations" in: Verifiability is not the only requirement for inclusion nor does it guarantee inclusion; other policies, guidelines and considerations apply. There can be material that is not forbidden by policy that is still a bad idea to put into the article.

Everything else is just me taking a stab at good wording.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right about points 2 and 3, and I'd be fine with using those as we go forward. Point 1 is something you will remember me discussing with you before. Please take a look at drafts 0 and 1, and see whether or not you are satisfied with how they attempt to address point 1. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever we come up with as far as VNT goes... I think we need a version that includes "threshold" and a version that uses a different word. The community can then choose which they prefer. Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we looking at Group 6 now? It seems to me that it's a much smaller controversy (outside of V regulars) than VnT, and I don't think the last RfC indicates that a large part of the community, outside of those who will in any case opt for the Group 1 version, will oppose a Group 2 draft that fails to include "threshold". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, with the limited number of drafts, I don't think that there are enough drafts to deal with a second question (threshold) beyond VNT via version choices. That's why I proposed 8 drafts in order to deal with the second big question (threshold) as a second question. North8000 (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I know that my #1 is awkward from a prose standpoint, but it goes right to the heart of the most common problem with VNT. I don't think that drafts #1 or #2 here handle it. I think that what's in wp:ver right now (which I think that you wrote?) is a compromise which just barely enough handles it. Or maybe there is a better way. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's take a look at the options we have so far, for that specific point:

From Drafts 0 and 1: "nothing, such as perceived truth or personal experience, can be a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is also verifiable."

From Draft 3: ""Not truth" means that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement."

From WP:V, currently: "truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable."

The first and third of those include a second sentence, addressed to the reader, about what "you" should not do. My opinion is that it is helpful to the reader to make that clear, and I'm not aware that there's a problem with it. Each of the three differ slightly in how they address what "truth" means here. Drafts 0/1 use an m-dash to indicate that this is a definition of VnT (and the current WP:V version uses a semi-colon, which I think works less well than an m-dash); whereas Draft 3 uses the explicit words ""Not truth" means...". How convinced are you that the m-dash leaves things vague, in a way that needs to be solved by using what I think is a clumsy definition style? Something that I like about Drafts 0/1 is the phrase about "such as perceived truth or personal experience" which was suggested in talk by JakefromJoisey (an opponent of change, please note, so this might be a way of gaining supporters!), and which I think helps clarify the meaning, as opposed to vaguer language that, I think, just says that "only verifiability satisfies the verifiability requirement", to which I want to reply: "duh!". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's going to take more thought. But just for clarity on where I'm coming from and what I'm after here is a litmus test example. An article (with 4 editors) contains a sourced statement which all 4 editors know obviously in error. 3 editors say so, and even #4 does not claim it is correct. The editors start a discussion about possibly leaving that material out. Editor #4 says "End of discussion! per "verifiability not truth", accuracy is NEVER a legitimate topic / consideration in Wikipedia!" I want something to point to that says that wp:ver does NOT say that, it just says that truth is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. So, accuracy is a legitimate topic to discuss in this case. I think that this example represents the heart of the main problems with wp:ver. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very helpful to me in understanding! I agree with your concern 100%. I'll try to think this through, on that basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

One possibility is to have this (rather thoroughly) in a footnote. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you said that, because I was thinking along those lines too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 4

Draft 4 rationale

This is an attempt to simplify the text without changing the meaning, so it will be more likely to be read and understood. As instructed, it keeps the VnT phrase, but as this is supposed to be a compromise version, it does so only in an explanatory statement of historical context, with the intent of the policy instead resting on the preceding statement. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As such, it is similar to Draft 6. In what ways do you feel this is better than Draft 6? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft 6 represents VnT as current policy, not historical.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that identifies a really good point. Perhaps we can bridge the perceived (at least perceived by me!) gap between the various drafts in this group by focusing on finding ways to still treat it as current policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 4

This has the key things that I'm looking for. Clarifying / limiting "not truth" and avoiding "threshold". Even if it were changed to address Tryptofish's concern, I would still like it as long as it retained these elements. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 4

• Keeping in mind that this page is about creating a draft according to the instructions given to Group 2, this proposal has a significant problem in that it only refers to VnT dismissively, as something that is of historical significance. It seems to me that, for our upcoming RfC to be useful, a draft such as this should either be coming from Groups 3 or 4, or should be presented as an additional, fifth, draft proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree. This is the compromise VnT group, while 3 is the compromise no-VnT group. The goal here should be to keep the buzzphrase but de-emphasize it, while 3 should eliminate it while keeping its intent. However, if the word "historical" is troubling, I'd be just as happy with This has been referred to as "Verifiability, not truth" instead. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Those are very reasonable points, and I appreciate it. But let's consider this: you interpret the instructions to make a "compromise VnT" version to mean de-emphasizing it; I interpret it to mean keeping it, but explaining it better than the Group 1 status quo version does. I think that it can be agreed that the last RfC yielded a lot of support for each of those things, de-emphasizing and explaining, but didn't necessarily prove that either one was clearly more popular than the other. Why can we not give the community both options, and let the community choose? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Why is Group 1 limited to presenting the community a poorly-explained version?  That is a rhetorical question, that would be a poor use of the resource, and I think they are not so constrained, so one approach is to use Group 1 for an improved explanation.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
        • My answer to that question is simply that, as a matter of giving the community a choice in the upcoming RfC, we have to offer the option of rejecting everything that we have offered. (Of course, we will do so in the hopes that this isn't the choice that they will make.) As such, I feel that one of the group drafts has to be something that is the status quo, as opposed to improving upon it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 5

Draft 5 rationale

Here, I have tried as hard as I can to draw up a "compromise version" between all of the drafts in this group, including (to the extent possible) Drafts 4 and 6. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 5

• I started with Draft 1, and added the following from the other drafts, and from discussion in this talk:
  • From Draft 2: reliable sources instead of cited sources, a footnote about verification.
  • From Draft 3: "key" requirement, footnote defining "not truth" per discussion above.
  • From Draft 6: This took a lot of thought, but I think I was able to incorporate the material about long-standing description, as well as the link to the essay, in a manner that (I hope) respects the intent of Draft 6 while also respecting the intent of Drafts 0–3.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to do a draft of one which I think best merges the best of all of these. Such is done already, Draft 5 by Tryptofish circa 4/1/12. So "mine" is that one, listed as #7 to fulfill the request. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 5

• I don't think that, logically, it is possible to use the "historical" language from Draft 4 while also presenting VnT as currently being an important part of the policy. I would have no objection whatsoever to offering a draft more like Draft 4 in addition to something like Draft 5, but I would object to offering it instead of. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I could mention this in other drafts, but this one will do. We need to take out the word "perceived" ... Yes, VNT does relate to "perceived" truth... but it is about more than just "perceived" truth. VNT is about not adding unverifiable material... period... even if that material is 100% actual TRUTH. This is where WP:V directly supports WP:NOR and it is a crucial policy concept. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I see what you are saying, although, at the same time, a big part of what leads to confusion has to do with perception of truth. Let me propose this: change "such as perceived truth or personal experience" to "including perceived truth or personal experience". That gets your point across, by indicating that it is about more than just that, and there is already the footnote that North and I worked out, that defines "truth" inclusively. Would that satisfy your concern? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It still misses the point. I could see someone wikilawyering this... saying "but X isn't just my perception of truth, nor it it my personal experience... X is actually true and I should be able to add it because it is true!" The point of VNT is to counter this with... "No... as long as X is unverifiable, we don't care if X is true or not. The exclusion has nothing to do with the truth/untruth of X... the exclusion is based on the verifiability/unverifiability of X." Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I care a lot about this one (#5) because I think it's nearly perfect. But I agree with Blueboar, I think it would be better to drop "perceived". Even though it then sounds a bit weird, I think it more explicitly states the key point leaving no wiggle room. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, and, North, I appreciate that very much. My concern is that if we offer something that the opponents of change can point to, and say "it sounds weird", we'll have a problem in the RfC. So let's see if we can put our heads together and find a solution that really does address both of your concerns while also addressing mine. How about changing "nothing, such as perceived truth or personal experience, can be a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement" to "nothing, such as your personal experience or what you know to be true, can be a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement"? That takes it out of the realm of perception, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That would resolve my concern. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! North8000 (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm very glad. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And make sure you indicate that in your rankings! (Especially noting the Mediator's rules.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I heard that there was a big $$$$ prize for the selected version and figured that if I hitch a ride on yours I could get half of it.  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you, but I heard that it's just a Wikipedia tee-shirt. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That assumes we can reach a consensus on what the tee-shirt should say. :>) Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish, are you going to make that change? North8000 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, he can not... the page is locked. Blueboar (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant changing draft 5, not wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know... I meant that the workgroup page where we presented our suggested drafts (such as Draft 5) is currently locked ... so we can not make edits while "ranking" them. I assume that the page will be unlocked once that process is over. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's right: as Blueboar said, it's impossible for me to make that change on this page until the full protection is lifted. But – importantly! – I've stated in my ranking statement that I want to make that chance, so I'm already on the record in that regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 6

Draft 6 rationale

Draft 6 for Group 2 is the same as Draft 6 for Group 3, except that the VnT subsection changes the one word "was" to "is" a long-standing description.  For the remainder of the rationale, please see WT:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Group_3#Draft 6 rationale.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In what ways do you feel this draft is better than Draft 4? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 6

Discussion on creating a new work group

Keeping in mind that this page is about creating a draft according to the instructions given to Group 2, much as with Draft 4, this proposal has a significant problem in that it only refers to VnT dismissively in a sub-section linking to an essay, as something that is of historical significance. It seems to me that, for our upcoming RfC to be useful, a draft such as this should either be coming from Group 3, from which it originated, or should be presented as an additional, fifth, draft proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Group 2 is the VnT compromise group.  Group 3 cannot allow this version of draft 6, because this draft considers VnT to be current policy.  The "fifth draft" proposal was dropped in favor of trying to work within the existing structure, and this included the previous poster's suggestion.  Moreso, this particular draft doesn't fit in the "fifth draft" group, this draft is a part of the Group 2 mandate, by treating VnT as current policy.  As for the "dismissive", perhaps if the previous poster stops reading it as dismissive, it wouldn't be dismissive?  Finally, this draft did not come from "group 3", this is a "group 2" draft.  We are trying to build consensus here.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Please don't take what I said as an insult, because it was neither written nor intended that way. If there is sentiment against a draft of this nature coming out of Group 3, that's perfectly OK, as I was merely offering that as one of several options. Here's the issue: Group 1 is charged with presenting a status quo version that, by definition, includes VnT. Here, at Group 2, we are charged with proposing a version that includes VnT, but explains it better than the status quo has done, which is very much in accordance with the previous RfC results. I expect that Groups 3 and 4 will present drafts that do not include VnT in any major way, if at all. So what happens if the Group 2 proposal presents VnT as something that is only of historical interest? (I read this draft that way, and if I do, it's unrealistic to expect that many members of the community will not also read it that way when we post the RfC.) We end up presenting the community with a choice of the old status quo or essentially getting rid of VnT, with nothing in between. But the three admins who closed the last RfC suggested that the community should work on finding exactly that: the in-between! But I'm not trying to prevent a draft such as this from coming forward. Instead, I'm offering the possibility of offering, in effect, two drafts coming out of Group 2. The mediator's rules allow for that possibility, and it avoids putting us in the position of either forcing you to accept what I say, or me to accept what you say, which I'm certain would lead only to deadlock. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This seemed important enough to move to the main mediation talk. Let's continue the discussion there. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 7

Draft 7 rationale

I was asked to do a draft of one which I think best merges the best of all of these. Such is done already, Draft 5 by Tryptofish circa 4/1/12. So "mine" is that one. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 7

• D'oh! I should have waited a little longer. Then I wouldn't have had to do the work. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Whew, you made my Sunday a lot easier! Nice work. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 8

Draft 8 rationale

• The format is related to Draft 6 here and also to Draft 4 in Group 1, in that both provide structural relief by adding a new subsection.  Analysis provided on the main talk page indicates that the absence of such a subsection has been a chronic maintenance issue for a long time—of course, Blueboar tried to fix this problem in the last RfC.  And this draft started out as the text from the last RfC.  I would say at this point that strong consideration should be given to the subsection for all drafts coming out of Groups 1, 2, and 3.  Compared with the last RfC, this draft identifies verifiable and potentially untrue material as outside the scope of WP:V.  This is useful in a case in which editors say that it doesn't matter that something is untrue, because of WP:V.  This version also says that Verifiability is not truth.  This is the first draft posted in Group 2 that specifies the changes being proposed. Draft 4 in Group 1, restores older text from the old first sentence, whereas this version parallels the old first sentence with the changes to threshold and VANT from the current policy page.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 8

• There are pluses and minuses to breaking out a second section, separate from the lead. Personally, I see it as a solution in search of a problem, in that I do not think that it makes anything clearer, and maybe does the opposite, but other editors do indeed see this approach as an improvement. This would be the kind of approach that I would support as an additional option offered in the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section states, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That's true, although it may be talking more about articles than policy pages. But I don't think it requires us to break out a new section for everything that is covered in the lead. Put another way, later sections can expand upon the basic principles stated in the lead, as opposed to re-stating them. Anyway, as I said above, I'm very friendly to presenting this approach to the community as one of the choices. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 8

• In light of Draft 4 here, could this be an approach to presenting a draft that treats VnT as something historical? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

I think we need to figure out how to condense Drafts 0, 1, 2, and 3 into a consensus draft, and perhaps also condense Drafts 4 and 6 into another consensus draft. I've tried to offer, above, what I can think of with respect to the strengths and weaknesses of the individual drafts, but I'd welcome hearing from more editors. In particular, it would help if everyone who has offered a draft could supply a rationale for that draft, as it would be a starting point for identifying what features we might want to take from each draft. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: about Drafts 4 and 6, it might also be worth considering the Blueboar version from the last RfC, as being something that moves VnT out of the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1