Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/truth

This page has been set up for the discussion of the value that should be placed on truth as a complement to good sources in Wikipedia.

Basic rules: a discussion

"If there is a consensus amongst the editors that something is not true as far as they have ascertained to the best of their endeavours, then:

1. they should not include it, even if it complies with all other requirements of WP policy

   OR

2. if it complies with all other requirements of WP, they can include it, but it should be indicated in the article that it is not thought to be true (but not necesarily thought that it is not true either. ie presented in a reported manner. (It is said by many/some that so&so is a raving...) "

--Light current 04:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with the second option because it is like allowing criticisms that are origonal research. These criticisms should be first published in a reputable source and then cited in the article. So I propose:

• "If there is a consensus amongst the editors that something is not true as far as they have ascertained to the best of their endeavours, then they should not include it, even if it complies with all other requirements of WP policy."

No two options anymore.

I think we could even suppress "there is a consensus amongst the editors that" in the rule because it is implicit in Wikipedia policy that a consensus must be called when there is a dispute or a doubt. So, we have:

• "If something is not true as far as the editors have ascertained to the best of their endeavours, then they should not include it, even if it complies with all other requirements of WP policy."

--Lumière 17:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a rule that is not negotiable

• Non significant viewpoints should not be included in an article, even if they respect all other requirements of WP policy.

Note that it is implicit here that the editors will assert the significance of the viewpoints to the best of their endeavours, and that a consensus will be seeked in case of doubt or dispute. This rule is essentially identical to the rule that uses truth, but it replaces it with "significant". Experts behind the Wikipedia policy explain that the meaning of "significant" is self-evident and need not be precised. See talk page of WP:Neutral point of view for more details. --Lumière 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

Now working on definition of Truth...this may take some time!--Light current 03:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC) --Light current 03:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolute truth cannot be known. Truth is a difficult concept (said by Alan Clarke (possibly/probably)). The definition of truth that must be used is:

:That which is generally accepted to be the correct representation of reality as far as can be known by a collection of editors knowledgeable in the subject in question whether by means of their own knowledge and/or by their researching and agreeing many and varied references which appear to them reliable

This is my first draft of the defn WP should consider using--Light current 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Truth

I would like to know why these two words are now heavily emphasised at the top of the page, when before, the the statement regarding verifyability was a lot milder, and was containd further down the page where it fitted better (IMO).

Can people not see that the present version gives the impression that WP is not interested in truth at all. As I asked before, would all editors playing on this page like to see that first line as the headline in a newspaper. It could happen if it remains here in this form. Dont say you were not told! --Light current 06:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Very worrying development

Just as a matter of interest, try putting 'Not truth' into Google. The result should worry everyone considerably. How long before this gets to the news papers--Light current 07:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Modified Wording

I suggest most strongly that serious consideration is given to modifying the first sentence to read:

The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not just truth.

ie emphasising verifyability, but also mentioning truth or accuracy as being necessary. Otherwise we leave ourselves open to the accustation of publishing any old rubbish as long as its been printed in a comic!--Light current 06:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)