Wikipedia talk:Verifiability: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 1,102: Line 1,102:
::::I agree we need how WP:V and [[WP:GNG]], [[WP:WEIGHT]], [[WP:FRINGE]], Etc should work together but is WP:V ''itself'' '''really''' the place we want to do such things? Personally WP:V should have a little blub basically saying 'you can run into this situation but the details on how to address are provided in x, y, and z)' Let's not go Rube Goldberg on WP:V, ok?--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 19:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I agree we need how WP:V and [[WP:GNG]], [[WP:WEIGHT]], [[WP:FRINGE]], Etc should work together but is WP:V ''itself'' '''really''' the place we want to do such things? Personally WP:V should have a little blub basically saying 'you can run into this situation but the details on how to address are provided in x, y, and z)' Let's not go Rube Goldberg on WP:V, ok?--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 19:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''One source is enough.'''  In [[Taquan Air]], I could only find one Examiner source that stated that Sen. Ted Stevens (R Alaska) was float-plane qualified.  Examiner is blacklisted, but in many cases established authors write for Examiner, and upon petition, administrators at Wikipedia will remove the specific page from the Wikipedia blacklist.  They did so.  There is no reason to doubt that Sen. Stevens was float-plane qualified, he was a decorated WWII pilot, and float planes represented a valuable constituency as well as a useful mode of transportation.  One source is enough.  [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 23:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''One source is enough.'''  In [[Taquan Air]], I could only find one Examiner source that stated that Sen. Ted Stevens (R Alaska) was float-plane qualified.  Examiner is blacklisted, but in many cases established authors write for Examiner, and upon petition, administrators at Wikipedia will remove the specific page from the Wikipedia blacklist.  They did so.  There is no reason to doubt that Sen. Stevens was float-plane qualified, he was a decorated WWII pilot, and float planes represented a valuable constituency as well as a useful mode of transportation.  One source is enough.  [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 23:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''WP:GNG is not a content guideline'''  The concept of wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article.  See also: [[WP:N#NNC|[WP:N#Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article]]] and [[:Category:Wikipedia content policies|[:Category:Wikipedia content policies]]].  [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


== SPS section ==
== SPS section ==

Revision as of 00:10, 27 April 2012

Replacements for VnT

Jehochman:

One standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Material in Wikipedia must have been published by a reliable source. Editors may not include content merely because they think it is true.

Becritical:

Verifiability is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, and only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information. Whether editors personally believe the information is true or false should never determine Wikipedia content. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion. If the verifiability of any text in Wikipedia has been challenged, or if it is likely to be challenged, the source must be stated in the form of an inline citations. Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed without further discussion, and unsourced contentious material about about living people must be removed immediately. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace.


Blueboar: (This is a re-working of the entire lede section)

Verifiability is one of the core concepts of Wikipedia. Our readers must be able to verify that the information presented in an article has been presented accurately. This is achieved by citing reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Editors should not add unverifiable material, even if they are convinced that the material is true. In this context, the initial threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth.

However, Verifiability is not the only threshold for inclusion. There are other policies and guidelines that influence what information may be included in an article. The fact that information is verifiability does not guarantee its inclusion.

Note that the policy requirement is for verifiability, not actual verification. It must be possible to attribute the information in a Wikipedia article to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged (see below).[1]

Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

  1. ^ Also see the section Using sources of the policy No original research, that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources. Appropriate citations demonstrate that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed. Unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace.

Edit request on 27 March 2012

Change the first sentence from:

"Verifiability on Wikipedia is the reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article."

To:

"Verifiability on Wikipedia is the reader's ability to check that cited sources directly support the information in an article."

Currently, the first sentence implies that 'cited sources that directly support the information in an article' definitely exist, and that 'Verifiability' is the ability to of a reader to 'check' them (dunno what that means, read and grade them?). This is a typo I believe. By moving the word 'that', the sentence takes on a more reasonable meaning, that verifiability is about the ability to check (verify) that cited sources directly support information in the article. LK (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the former is what readers do and the latter is what editors do. Seems correct to me as is. — Bility (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like the change but oppose making it now. This section is the reason it was locked and it a subject of a mediation effort. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As North says... we are currently in the process of mediation over the opening paragraphs of this policy... so we should hold off on making any changes until that mediation is complete.
That said, the suggested change highlights a question that has been looming in the background and has never been adequately addressed... when we cite a source, what exactly are we verifying?
The current language implies that we are verifying the fact that sources supporting the information exist. This reflects the original intent of the policy... the requirement for verifiability on Wikipedia grew out of WP:NOR, and the original concept was essentially that we needed to verify that the material we add to our articles is not Original Research.
The suggested change would shift us away from that original intent... if adopted, we would be saying that we are verifying the information presented in the article. That may be the way we want to go... but it would be a fairly significant change from the original intent... and not a step we should take without a lot of thought and discussion. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought that a piece of information is not supposed to be in an article in the first place, unless there is a source for it. (Except for information about which there is no dispute, or at least that's what this policy implies.) And hopefully, it is a source that says (or implies) that the information is true, otherwise it isn't worth much as a source. So I think that in a way, we are using the source to "verify" that the information presented in the article is true, in fact we are using the source to provide the information that we put in the article. Right? Neutron (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "cited sources" bit is wrong. We care whether (reliable) sources exist, i.e., have been WP:Published in the real world. Material must never be included unless "there is a source for it—in the real world." Material may be included without a source being WP:CITEd in the article (unless it is one of the four types of material listed at WP:MINREF, for which iWP:Inline citations are mandatory [only one of which has a deadline for providing the citation; the other three require an inline citation either before the heat death of the universe or whenever your fellow editors choose to deal with it).
I generally do not support changes to the lead during the mediation, but this is actually an error. The simplest solution is to remove the word "cited" entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, "cited" clearly is an error. Possibly a non-controversial fix? Note that this is not the original edit request. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is inevitable with any one sentence pseudo-summary/pseudo-introduction, it is imprecise. And, upon rigorous dissection, "imprecise" means "wrong", so we should not give it a rigorous dissection. In Wikipedia, the definition of wp:verifiability is "complies with the wp:verifiability policy". And that's not using a word to define itself; the first is an attribute, and the second is a policy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this issue is likely to be fixed by what ever we come up with at the Mediation... so there is really no point in discussing it too much now. Blueboar (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To remove the erroneous word "cited" from the first sentence, per comments above. (The link to WP:RS should be kept.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the change because I do not believe that "cited" is an error. A reader has the practical ability to verify the content of an article only if the sources for this content are actually cited in the article, and not if they merely exist somewhere but are not cited. Therefore, verifiability does require that sources are actually cited in the article in conjunction with the material that is thereby made verifiable. I also do not support the initially proposed wording change for this reason.  Sandstein  17:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Please get consensus for the change before requesting an edit. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 15:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, I'd like to learn more about your views here. Consider your first claim: "A reader has the practical ability to verify the content of an article only if the sources for this content are actually cited in the article, and not if they merely exist somewhere but are not cited."
The "content of the article" says that the human hand normally has four fingers and a thumb. Do you stand by your claim that "A reader has the practical ability to verify the content of an article only if the sources for this content are actually cited in the article, and not if they merely exist somewhere but are not cited" for this particular piece of content, or do you agree with me that in at least some instances, the reader does have "the practical ability to verify the content of an article" even when the sentence is unsourced? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a practical matter, verifiability is a concern only for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged because it is not common knowledge or because it makes an unusual or extraordinary claim, or concerns a living person. In the example you cite, verifiability is not likely to be a practical concern in any good faith situation.  Sandstein  20:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But the statements made in the lead about what constitutes verifiability and what must be verifiable aren't limited to CHALLENGED or LIKELY material. They are (explicitly) about all material, as in "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia..." It seems to me that all material must be verifiable, and that some material can be verifiable without a single source being cited.
Consequently, I believe that the claim in the current first sentence—the claim that all uncited material is, by definition, unverifiable—is wrong. Common knowledge, for example, ought to be verifiable even when uncited. Do you agree with me? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable means "the reader is in a position to verify the accurateness of a statement". This means that if something is truly common knowledge, it is verifiable even if it is uncited, because the reader already knows that it is true without having to look it up. But as I said, that is not a situation in which verifiability is a practical concern for us. Most things in an encyclopedia are not common knowledge (or there would not be a need to write an encyclopedia at all), and therefore they need to be made verifiable (at least if challenged) by a citation. And the same applies if something is not in fact common knowledge to at least one person who challenges it in good faith.  Sandstein  06:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the first sentence is incorrect. Verifiability is not dependent on the reader's ability. Material is verifiable if there is a reliable source that verifies the material, whether or not an inline citation is given, and whether or not the reader knows how to find the source. Inline citations come in when someone questions whether material is verifiable. An inline citation is then required as evidence of verifiability. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, the definition you give in this last reply is not the one on the page at the moment. The one in the first sentence on the page says that material is unverifiable unless it is followed by a citation. You seem to agree that common knowledge is verifiable even if not followed by a citation, and therefore you don't seem to agree with the first sentence on the page. Would you therefore please withdraw your objection to fixing it?
(Bob is correct, BTW: material is verifiable even if any given user is not in a position to verify the accuracy of a statement. Some user needs to be able to verify it, using whatever resources are available to him [or her], but that user need not be me, or you, or any other specific reader.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't withdraw my objection because common knowledge is a rare special case for which it might be better to say that verifiability is not a practical problem at all. In all situations where verifiability is an actual issue, i.e., where something is not common knowledge, verifiability (that is, putting the reader in a position to verify the truth of a statement for themselves) can only be achieved by citing the corresponding source directly in the article, not by expecting the reader to find it for themselves. It is a mistake to consider that something is already "verifiable" if the sources exist somewhere but are not cited. That assumes that the reader is just as competent at finding the proper source as the person who wrote the article - but even if that were so, finding the correct source can be a lengthy process of research, including in offline documents, and may involve adjudicating between conflicting sources. We cannot expect every reader to repeat this process for themselves. Instead, to put the reader in a position to verify that what we write is true, we need to provide them with a specific citation that they only need to look up and compare with the article. That is what is meant by "verifiable" – looked at from the perspective of the reader, not the editor.  Sandstein  05:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definition of the term in the lead is not about "practical problems". The rest of the page should be, but the initial definition is not.
  • The lead actually specifies "all information", not "all information, except for rare special cases". We therefore need a definition that applies to "all information".
  • You are a reader. Are you completely unable to figure out whether some bit of information is verifiable if you are not being spoonfed sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Compare this sentence:

"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources"

with this one:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."

In the first one, and certainty in the linked essay - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost, the implication is that accessibility is not regarded as a high priority; while in the second one it is clear that accessibility is a high priority. As we are not writing doctorates or other scholarly papers, but general interest articles for a general encyclopaedia for the general public, who are usually looking for quick and reliable information rather than an in depth scholarly analysis or a degree course in the subject matter, then accessible sources should be the priority. We should prioritise a decent and recent text which has been scanned on Google Books, over a 100 year old text only found in an out of print bookstore in Greenwich Village or in the vaults of the British Library. We should be directing readers to decent accessible sources, not making matters difficult because we have no clear policy on it.

When reading a Wikipedia article I tend to check the sources, and if the sources are print only (even if easy to obtain), then I am frustrated. If I need to go to my library to get reliable information, then the ease and much of the value of using Wikipedia is lost (and if I have to go to my library, then I will first get whatever texts my library has - regardless of what texts have been used in building the Wikipedia article). I have done more than a handful of Good Article reviews where on checking sources I find the information in the source does not quite match what is said in the article, and even highly respected and experienced editors have made mistakes in copying over/summarizing information. I have, over time, learned not to completely accept sources in good faith - indeed the actual point of sources is that they are there for me to check, and additionally for me to learn more from. The less accessible the source, the less verifiable and reliable the article becomes, and the less I am able to learn. I would regard accessibility to be a high priority, and if the same information is contained in a closed source and an accessible source, then - at the least - the accessible source should also be included, and, if appropriate, preferred.

A suggested alternative wording:

The principle of verifiability implies that information is able to be verified, so consideration should be given to citing reliable sources which are the most accessible. Ideally a search should be done to see if there is a freely accessible online version of a text on a website such as Project Gutenberg, Google Books, Feedbooks, or Wikisource, and citing to the scanned page so that a reader is able to immediately verify the information in context. Occasionally information may only be found on online sources requiring payment, or in print sources only available in research libraries; such restricted sources are encouraged if no accessible reliable or comparable sources are easily found. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material.

Does my wording go too far in the direction of accessibility? Could it be better balanced? Thoughts? SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a tension between making it easy to check articles and making it easy to write them. I think this proposed change goes too far in the wrong direction: we still need to write material. For example, we should clearly have something on Flora of France, but when I finally get around to writing it, I don't want to take any grief for using the foreign-language print sources that are on my bookshelf. I do not wish to trawl around the snippet view in google books looking for a way to satisfy suspicious and hostile editors of my integrity. Therefore, I am opposed to this change.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Your proposal is flawed for several reasons. First, we are not just writing "general interest articles for a general encyclopaedia for the general public". By its breath and being a digital encyclopedia we have lots of specialist articles. You may want to read up on pillar 1. Quoting: "[Wikipedia] incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Second, we are aiming for the best sources on a topic, not for its most recent and most accessible one. If the best books are in hidden in a library then you should consider entering one. Third, inline sources are first and foremost provided to comply with our verifability policy; at the same time, they should indeed help you to learn about a topic. But you cannot seriously expect that all the best books are flying around on the net for you to download for free. If you really want to learn something, going deep into a topic, you should certainly consider buying some good books or textbooks on it. Fourth, nothing is more annoying that someone with no knowledge on a difficult topic, coming along with some Google Books searched references and claiming that these are to be put into the article, when they are clearly poor and inappropriate. But on finding a better balance: certainly, when you've got two equal-quality sources, and one is free and the other one is not, you should go for the free one. But preferring a worse source for a paywalled one, no. Btw, there is always WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Nageh (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Hear, hear! To write a high quality article, you have to draw on the best available material. And for some years to come, these will be on paper. Researching the article on Robert Oppenheimer, I read several high quality books from cover to cover, one of which won a Pullitzer Prize (the subject is quite well covered); but few of these are are available online, and some may not be for decades. Reviewing another article recently, I travelled to a nearby library to obtain the books necessary to perform the spot checks. Someone will be able to repeat this process in a few years; but this may not be true of online sources, which come and go due to link rot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this would discourage the use of almost any post-1923 academic journal material in citations. Content must be verifiable in principle, not necessarily in every single case. In a research paper, for example, or a nonfiction book, references/sources are often present but that doesn't mean there exist for every reader to be able to access. Sources should be accessible to at least some number of interested readers, but not all of them. Yes, English and free sources are preferred because it makes verifying easier, but we should not have to spend extra time finding similarly relevant sources if using a nonfree or non-English one suffices. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is exactly backwards of where this project needs to be going. There is much too much sourced out to quasi-semi-dubious web sources because that stuff is "easy"... What's needed is for people to get their asses down to the library and start making use of university press monographs and journal articles. The BEST sources are often times less accessible or FAR less accessible than the web gunk. Nor should we be kissing Google Books' behind, since that is getting to be more and more of a for-profit enterprise, as expected. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And here's an example of what I'm talking about (work in progress, don't go all ONESOURCE on me!)... Compare the very accessibly-sourced, lightweight, and shitty A versus the correctly sourced out B. Carrite (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below, where I indicate that the book you are using is available for snippet views - [1]. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snippet views aren't the least bit helpful for anything except selling books. Carrite (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I suggest you manage your frustrations on your futon, and leave encyclopaedism to people willing to audit the full scope of available sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately Oppose. For many subjects, the best sources are still relatively inaccessible. Perhaps we should revisit the issue in 4 or 5 years and see where things are at. Kaldari (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as exactly how not to do it. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, compiled from the best sources we can find, not a collection of trawlings from the net. As for Google books, it should never be cited as a source, because it isn't one. The source is the book itself, and if you don't have access to it, you shouldn't be citing it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually arguing any point as I can see there is currently no consensus - I just want to clear up a misunderstanding. Google books is not a source, it is a resource - it contains sources. It may help to think of it as a library where texts may easily be found. So if someone is using a text, it seems worth checking to see if the text is available on Google Books. It's a quick check, simply copy and paste the name into Google Books, and see what is available. For example, Carrite is using James N. Giglio's H.M. Daughterty and the Politics of Expediency for the Harry M. Daugherty article. His first cite is to support that Daugherty's father, John H. Daugherty, was the son of Scotch-Irish immigrants and worked as a farmer and tailor. Well, the book is not available fully scanned, but it does have a snippet view that supports the info. It's not much effort to link to that page, but can aid the reader. While a snippet view is not ideal, it's a bit better than nothing at all. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And who tells you that just because a snippet view is available this is really a good source on the topic? Maybe it is really poor one otherwise, and you are misled into further looking up this source (wanting to learn more about it as you claim)? It really is at the discretion of the editor to decide which sources to use, at his/her best knowledge and in accordance with our guidelines. Nageh (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above. While we don't get points on Wikipedia for tracking down obscure theses or editiones princepes we shouldn't discourage the use of print sources or paywalled scholarly databases where they are the best sources, as they very often are. A sentence pointing out the desirability of using (or at least linking) freely available source material might be crafted, but this is not it. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above. Further, Google links should be viewed as transitory when pages cited have been checked, read and the book is properly cited per WP:RS standards. Kierzek (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Many times, the best source for something may only be found in print and may not readily accessible online. The proposal seems to reek of FUTON bias, in my opinion. --MuZemike 07:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a search engine. Warden (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose articles should be based on the best sources available, regardless of whether they are online or not. Demoting the use of offline sources to "occasionally" could seriously damage article content, especially if the policy were to encourage editors to cite public domain material (the vast majority of which is very old). Obviously we shouldn't go out of our way to make sources as inaccessible as possible but that is in no way a justification for the proposed change. The comparison to the sentence on foreign language sources is not a good one: the average reader will not be able to check whether a foreign language source supports a statement because we can't assume the average reader speaks any language other than English. On the other hand it isn't unreasonable to ask a reader to go to a library, something that would be normal in an academic setting. Hut 8.5 18:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The reality is that most resources are in paper form. As I have stated before Google and similar search engines are of limited value:
1) They only lists things for which there is an internet presence and not everything even as recent as 2002 and 2004 is accessible on line.
2) Such search engines use text so if the information is in a format like a pdf composed of photoscans, or archived away in some compressed format (like .zip) they will not directly see it.
3) Many times such searches will display the most recent version of a page so if the page is updated then odds are if will find that version and NOT the one for several years ago.
4) poorly designed or limited access sites that can restrict what these engines can find.
For example, the Economic Crime Summit site is not a very Google or even Internet Archive friendly site. It is very graphics heavy providing Google with little to nothing to look for and many missing pages when Internet Archive archived it. So while you can bring up the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference the overview link that would tell you who presented what doesn't work. The 2004 Economic Crime Summit Conference archive is even worse as that was in three places and none of the archived links tells you anything about the papers presented.
Furthermore, what little Internet archive has of the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference shows how limited Google is. "Impact of Advances in Computer Technology in Evidence Processing" and "Impact of Advances in Computer Technology in Evidence Processing" were two programs for the Wednesday, May 8 2002 Economic Crime Summit Agenda. Google cannot find them! I will repeat that; Google cannot find two programs we know were part of the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference and at one time had an internet presence.
The search engines are a tool and at times a very limited tool. They are not nor should they ever be a replacement for paper sources. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Verifiablity means that the fact can be verified, not whether the source is in English or on line. Of course, if English and/or on-line sources are available they can always be added, but that is not a matter of verifiability policy. Because if such sources are not available, then the Sanskrit source in an obscure library is just fine (as long as it's reliable. Rlendog (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Get reliable sources wherever you can find them. No limits here. Dream Focus 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not truth example

Here's a perfect example of why the original "verifiability, not truth" statement was important: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Newspapers. Its a real shame that this has been watered down to the extent which it has. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." springs to mind.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO that looks like a fairly straightforward implementation of wp:ver. I don't see how "not truth" relates to that at all. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That reply exemplifies the disconnect that's been in play here for the last several months. The editor on the IRS talk page said: "editor should be sure that in fact that newspaper professionals did report & edit the story firsthand", which is original research, and is absolutely not something that Wikipedia editors should be doing. Frankly, we're not trustworthy enough (as a group) to be doing that sort of work, even if it may be blindingly obvious in some cases. In a hypothetical example involving an old newspaper article which misreports some event, it's still important to talk about the newspaper report. The vital issue is discussing the fact that the newspaper report was later discredited (if it was), which has the side effect of conveying "the truth" naturally. Neutering "Verifiability, not truth" opens up all sorts of conflict on Wikipedia, mostly about fringe theories and political conflicts.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The only antidote to bad or mistaken RS reporting is later correction by other RS'es. RS != perfect, RS'es can be wrong, but we can't and shouldn't use OR to combat RS mistakes. We use better, more current RS'es that discuss the other RS' error. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But what if the mistake is in the best, most current (or only) source? Formerip (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's what we say, unless and until something else is printed which contradicts it (at which point we usually report both, unless the original is somehow intentionally damaging or something).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. That's the whole reason why VnT is stoopid. Formerip (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose we be more correct than the most current RS'es without engaging in OR ourselves? This is why "VnT is stupid" is stupid. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's spelled with a double "o". We can be more correct that the most current RS - if we know that the most current RS is wrong - by declining to include the information in Wikipedia. Formerip (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather the root of my concern below. Who gets to declare that information that has been accurately added from an RS is inaccurate? I don't think a single editor should have the authority to declare such, and I'm not sure that multiple editors would necessarily be any more reliable than the supposedly "reliable" source. I suppose there is an argument to be made that Talk page consensus can determine that information should be withheld, but do we really want to set a precedent that information that appears to meet all of the criteria for inclusion can nonetheless be excluded solely because there's a consensus on the Talk page not to include it? I'm not sure how to feel about this notion. This is why I feel it may be inappropriate to remove reliably-sourced information only if another reliable source can be provided that contradicts the first. Doniago (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That whole linked section was about whether or not it was an original story as published. I don't even see any "truth" issues being discussed much less how "not truth" wording would be helpful there. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
uh... I don't think that's true... one or the other of us has misread what was said in the linked section, I think (or we're misunderstanding each other here).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the example I gave in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence/Archive_1#Verifiability_Fact_vs_Truth is much better on how VnT has taken on this weird Twlight Zoneish quality where editors are saying that we should keep in a source even when it can be proven to be wrong as demonstrated by the following:

"Maybe the author of the source cited is in error, but correcting sources is not within the scope of the Wikipedia project. The source was published and vetted by the Oxford University Press, so it is certainly a reliable source. This is another one of those instances in which "verifiability, not truth" is what matters for Wikipedia. It can be verified that the author claims that the first recorded use was from 1909, whether or not his claim is accurate. In this case, it looks like you're correct that the phrase appears in earlier publications, but it's beyond us to counter the author's claim because doing so would be original research." (John Shandy` • talk 04:52, 8 September 2011)

"So it seem to me we have two choices, either to remove that particular bit or to see if we can work in the material without violating OR. The former is not particularly attractive and the latter would be difficult as some of the sources BruceGrubb has found are primary sources, and I'm not sure that the secondary sources are about conspiracy theories per se but may be passing mentions. Do any of these source appear usable to others?" (Nuujinn (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2011)

"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. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)" — (Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/RfC#The_case_where_a_reliable_source_is_wrong_in_their_statement)

Here we see the totally off the wall accuracy be damned mentality VnT as it currently exists can produce.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So... you know better, and what people may actually read before they come here should be vetted... by Wikipedia editors? Seriously?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is ignoring basic structural questions. Are you saying that policy should forbid removal of material based on inaccuracy considerations? North8000 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It never has, so I don't see the point in creating straw-men here. Anyway... I slogged through Bruce's rant already this morning. I'm getting weary of this topic, again. Here's the thing: You guys can filibuster and talk all opposition into submission here, and you can even change the text of the policy page itself. One of the main things that I think of when I think about "Verifiability" is the old "Verifiability, not truth" statement. That obviously bothers you, but I have yet to see anything more than hand wringing and whinging over the subject, and so my opinion remains.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bottom line should be that whether or not we "know" a statement is "inaccurate", we can't remove it just because we "know" it is "inaccurate" if it is reliably sourced. A reliable source needs to be provided that refutes the "inaccurate" information or we're back to talking about original research. Of course, then there's the question of the precedence of RS'es...I suppose perhaps both should be used with a note indicating that they do contradict each other. For a wikipedia editor to remove sourced material solely on the grounds that they "know" it is "inaccurate" though...that doesn't seem supportable to me. It's OR via deletion. Doniago (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we can remove such things, and we do all the time. It may be that the text was misread, or that the author said something unclearly, or that the author is just wrong. In any case, our articles should not reports things inaccurately, and when the best way to avoid that is just to remove something, we should. "Original research" only refers to content in articles, it does not refer to the exercise of editorial discretion to decide what to leave out. That is just called "writing". — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that WP editors are entitled to remove sourced material solely because they believe that the material is inaccurate, even if they would be unable to find a source that contradicts the material in question? Doniago (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we do that all the time. The only thing that the OR policy prevents is for us to actually say "this is wrong" in the text of the article without a source. We do not need a source for things that are not in the article. The writing process is entirely about deciding which things to include and which things not to include, and verifiability is just one consideration among many others. The consensus process is how we ensure that things are not removed frivolously - if someone objects to a removal, the matter can be discussed at length on the talk page until agreement is found. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it must be a matter of the articles I patrol; I can't recall any instances of an editor removing reliably sourced information claiming it was inaccurate...if I was to see that occur I would likely challenge the removal and ask the removing editor to provide a reliable source contradicting the one that included the allegedly inaccurate information. Doniago (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many times the appearance that a statement is sourced does not match reality, because sources can easily be misinterpreted or taken out of context. In such cases, it's unlikely that any other "contradictory" source would exist, because the supposed source for the claim being made is being misused. In general the best way to handle a passing error in a single source is "don't bother to mention it", since the due weight for such things is zero, and the consideration of due weight is just as important as verifiability (if not more). — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know man, I'm not trying to be snarky but the one thing that keeps springing to mind when I get into these discussions is: [citation needed]. I mean, in these hypothetical cases, if you know that something which is cited in an article is incorrect then just add an explanation as to why it's wrong along with another cite. Or replace it with an updated cite, depending on the situation. The whole "say where you got it" expression comes to mind. Simply trying to bury viewpoints that are published in sources doesn't seem very constructive, you know? I think that what you're saying may be something like "verifiability isn't the only consideration" though, which is a sentiment with with I agree wholeheartedly (and, not coincidentally, is the reason that I've never understood the hand-wringing over "Verifiability, not truth").
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; I thought it was clear that I was referring not to situations where an editor has misconstrued the source, but where the accuracy of the generally reliable source itself is being called into question. Doniago (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even in that case, it depends on many things, like what source it is. If we're talking about a single passing error in a newspaper story, where no other source had that info, and it appears the story was just wrong, the due weight is again probably zero. If we're talking about something that is cited to one source but in principle could be cited to many other reliable sources, that's different. Editors are expected to use their judgement on each case. But as a general principle, just because one "reliable" source has said something doesn't mean that NPOV would allow it to be included in our article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "filibustering" is what's gone on to keep VnT in, despite the fact that for the last year or so, a clear majority have wanted it gone. Wikipedia editors can and must make judgments about which sources are trustworthy and which aren't; it's our duty as people who presume to educate and inform the public, and it's enshrined in WP:RS besides. The purpose of making those judgments about the reliability of a source is to ensure that Wikipedia's articles are reasonably accurate, and words like "accurate" and "reliable source" and "trustworthy" are only meaningful in the context of truth and falsehood.

    Ohm's Law and Jclemens, I don't like to disagree with either of you because usually I'm broadly on the same side of an argument. But in this case I'm forced to, and I find your attitude to this quite alarming. There's something really quite sinister about an encyclopaedia writer who doesn't mind articles full of lies.—S Marshall T/C 19:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks... The VNT debate is the subject of an on going mediation. May I suggest that we allow the mediation process to work. Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
pfft... mediation, what a joke. What, is some "mediator" going to tell me what I can and can't have an opinion on? am I not allowed to have an interest in what our policies say, simply because some group of editors decided some where, some time, that "this policy shall say this!"? These "it's in mediation" things piss me off. You guys have fun with your dispute resolution procedural BS, I'll just wait here for you all to finish.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine... my point was to ask that you do wait until we are finished. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ohms law, it would be much simpler and less BS if you just said what you think should be and everybody else obeyed. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, cause that's not at all what you've been doing... *roll eyes* Anyway, whatever. I'll be around 6 months from now when you all are done with talking about this page in places other than it's talk page...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@BruceGrubb, please stop bringing up that example to argue your case. It's disingenuous and actually quite dishonest to pull (at least my) quote out of context, because you didn't find a secondary source to refute a single assertion of an RS, but rather found primary sources that offered contradictory examples and yearned for us to editorialize the article's text with commentary on the inaccuracy. Plus, we immediately removed the content for which you called its accuracy into question. I have expressed my disdain for your misrepresentations of that conflict in the past while also respecting you as an editor and commending your ability to find sources. I have never used "VnT" to keep inaccurate content in an article, only to keep out editor commentary and juxtapositioning that breaches WP:OR by WP:SYNTH.

@Ohms law, I have great respect for Blueboar and I must recommend that you lighten up on him. First of all, Blueboar has been extraordinarily patient as one of numerous editors committed to a literally months long if not year long or greater dispute over VnT. Blueboar helped setup a mediation as attempt to resolve the issue for both proponents and opponents of the current verbiage. Second of all, Blueboar is actually one of the strongest proponents of "VnT" (and some of its slight variants). I also advise against assuming bad faith with regards to North8000. I don't think anyone truly intends to stonewall because, face it... this has got to be one of the most boring (yet not unimportant) disputes and nobody's sanity wins as long as it persists. Frankly, I think it boils down to the two factions having experienced predominantly one of two possible fundamental misinterpretations of VnT (either using VnT to exclude accurate content for lack of RS, or using VnT to include inaccurate content for presence of RS). It seems more and more to me like a debate over "which is the worse offense and what language is the best at deterring/compensating for it." You don't have to participate in the mediation, but perhaps consider giving it its one chance? It's no sweat off your back. John Shandy`talk 08:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we've ever interacted directly, so "hi!" Anyway, I do respect both Blueboar and North (See, for example: Revision as of 22:08, July 17, 2011). What I don't respect is Mediation, which is a toothless farce. I swear, once the Mediation thing is done, when I end up getting it thrown in my face (which I can guarantee will happen) then we're going straight to arbitration. Mediation has absolutely zero jurisdiction here, and I find it's use to attempt to control the content of policy to be disruptive, to say the least.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record... Ohms has never shown anything but respect for me ... and I did not take his (her?) comments personally. (I could quibble about the depth of his respect... he really should show me more deference, by agreeing with my opinions more often. But then that is a character flaw that many Wikipedian's share.) :>) Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does condition #2 of WP:SPS mean?

Let's say I have a self-published source. The source makes a claim about a third party. Is it OK to cite this source as long as I use in-text attibution? IOW, can I say:

"Source A says third-party is C"

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That's the essence of what clause 2 is designed to prevent. On the other hand "Organization A's website says its corporate goals include foo" would be perfectly OK. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any opinion about IRMEP case if the source was established unreliable in WP:RSN could be used for its opinion on the third parties?--Shrike (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a self-published book is taught at the university level, is it considered reliable?

This is purely out of curiosity. Given:

  1. Person is a published author through a non-self-publishing house.
  2. That person later self-publishes a book in a related field.
  3. An accredited university hires the person to teach a class which then uses the book as part of the curriculum.

Is that self-published book considered reliable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is "generally reliable" at step #2. #3 doesnt really matter much. I cannot think of anything that would "disqualify" it at step #3 that wouldnt have been applicable at step #2. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say you need to look at specifics. If the university hired him to teach his opinion, then it's probably reliable for his opinion, but not more; and if they hired him to teach factual matter, then it's probably reliable for that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book makes claims about third-parties, basically market analysis in the technology sector. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are too many variables here. Is the original publisher OUP, Random House, or Regnery? Is the "related field" as related as classical thermodynamics and nuclear physics or as related as Summerian pottery and Akkadian pottery? Is the "accredited university" Yale or Liberty? I'd be somewhat sceptical - most academics publish their textbooks through reliable publishers (and publishers like to publish decent books because the students are effectively a captive audience). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that third-party humans or third-party businesses? It matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the particular case that inspired my question, it's about third-party tech companies such as Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Facebook, Twitter, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPS's prohibition on statements about third parties is a BLP-imposed limitation. It does not apply to businesses because they are not living people. You may use a self-published source to say things like "Alice Expert said that Microsoft's advertising campaign involved giving lollipops to young children", but not to say things like "According to Alice Expert, Jerry Seinfeld starred in television advertising for Microsoft products". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, and thanks for the clarification. You forced me to double-check WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF and you are correct. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifics, please, AQFN. In most cases, arguably yes. If this is, for example, Professor Patrick Holford, then no: absolutely nothing he's ever written is reliable, self-published or not. Need to look at the actual case to answer the question.—S Marshall T/C 23:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for lack of specifics. The other books are from a respected publishing house, roughly similar to Wrox Press, so no, not like Regnery Publishing. The university isn't Ivy league but ranked by Forbes in the top 100 universities in the US. However, the fields are fairly distant, software development and market analysis of tech companies. No, it's nothing like Patrick Holford. My question isn't so much about the rules of WP:SPS, but rather the fact that it's being taught at a university level. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if any of this really helps, but... This being WT:V, rather than WT:RS, I'd say that being actually published (in contrast to, for example, a class handout) helps a lot with verifiability. As for reliability, I'd think of it as being sort of similar to a faculty member's university web page. Being self-published means that it isn't peer-reviewed (which would be a potentially fatal flaw if the subject matter were, instead, medical, and subject to WP:MEDRS), but on the other hand, the combined facts that the person has published traditionally and the person has an academic appointment tend to give credence to the source. (If those two facts were absent, I think there would be a lot of doubt.) It sounds like this is the kind of case where it is probably reasonable to use the source, but write the page so as to attribute it. In other words, "According to John Doe, tech companies are such and such" is better in this case than simply "Tech companies are such and such". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could take the actual situation to WP:RS/N and get a suitably specific third opinion on the source's reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How reliable are newspapers in non-free societies?

OK, so I'm watching a content dispute - at a distance - and the issue of the reliability of several sources was raised. I checked into one of the sources and apparently, it's run by the propaganda department of an authoritarian regime. Other examples of such countries might include North Korea, Iran, Cuba, etc. where freedom of the press doesn't exist. How reliable are such newspapers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples of countries where "freedom of the press" exists? I can't think of any... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS/N is the appropriate place to discuss the specific reliability of specific sources. Your use of analytical categories developed by the propaganda wing of the United States during the Cold War indicates that you're driving an ideological line, rather than questioning the reliability of a particular source. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An unfortunate effect of the WP:NPOV policy is that we are required to report the views of totalitarian, dictatorial regimes at topics where their official stance is significant. If you have concerns with their reliability with respect to a particular topic, you can always treat them either as a WP:PRIMARY source or as a WP:RSOPINION for topics where the government is not directly involved. Encyclopedic neutral content needs to include what propagandistic governments say about themselves; if this helps to ease your conscience, remember that you should also report the opinion of other sources stating opposing views. Diego (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example, is Rodong Sinmun reliable for the fact that Lee Myung-bak (President of South Korea) and his political allies are obsessed by sycophantic treachery and are using tricks to suppress and stamp out the progressive forces and maintain its fascist system of dictatorship?[2] Now that I think about it, my question is ridiculous. At best, they're useful for explaining the authoritarian regime's opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In such cases, wp:ATTRIBUTEPOV is key. Readers must know whose POV they are reading. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion about the composition of a government or a newspaper doesn't matter—take it to RS/N in a specific form if you have a specific reliability concern and stop soapboxing this talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately assessing the reliability of a source is an editorial decission, so the judgement of Wikipedians does matter. Diego (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently suggesting to an editor that their uncritical use of US Cold War ideology to judge sources is "insane". Similarly "insane" is suggesting that source reliability is always specific and conditional, and we don't give generic answers. A Quest For Knowledge currently isn't displaying the kind of editorial judgement in relation to sources that is desirable; nor are they displaying the kind of editorial judgement in relation to civility that is desirable (diff, diff). Fifelfoo (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not disappointing me. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have something to say about evaluating sources? Talk pages are not for discussing editor behavior. I'd be more interested in a link to the discussion where these disputed sources have been debated - is it to be found at the articles linked above? Diego (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diff.[3] Talk page discussion is here.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the obvious answer is, that it depends on the particular information being sourced. Generally all newspaper information needs to viewed with an critical eye and in particular those being published under an authoritarian/totalitarian government without a "free" press. However being part of the "free" press carries not particular reliability status as such, it only means there is possibility for quality journalism, which doesn't mean that it is actually pursued by all (or even any) publication. In fact the free press has produced plenty of publications (much of the yellow press and plenty of other publication with "opinionism" replacing (informative) journalism), for which the average reliability is even below many publications of the "unfree" press.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self Published summary sources

Are self published articles written by a private organization like the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) considered reliable when there is no author/expert taking credit for the authorship? The policy reads: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. (emphasis mine) I have seen some editors use a web-page article from the TJF as a reliable source, but there is no "established expert" or author and the info in the article has not been published by reliable third-party publications. Are these web page articles with no author considered reliable sources? (Have posted this in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard also but would appreciate feed back here, per citing current policy.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One clarification to your understanding of SPS... to qualify for the "expert exemption" it is not necessary for the specific information appearing in an expert's SPS to have been published in another source ... what we require is that the expert has published material in the relevant academic field (and thus have a reputation as being an expert on the topic.) For example, if a scientist has written lots of books and journal articles on quantum physics, we can consider him an expert on quantum physics... so if he comments on something related to quantum physics in his university's departmental blog, we can consider this self-published source as a reliable source.
Having said that... back to your question relating to TJF... If there is no expert author credited, then we can not apply the "expert exemption" to WP:SPS. We don't know if the person writing the material actually knows what he/she is talking about. The website is only reliable for facts about TJF and attributed statements as to the opinions of TJF, subject to the limitations set out at WP:ABOUTSELF. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the right venue for a question about a specific source, WP:RSN is, I don't know why you have double posted. Whether it is reliable or not depends on the nature of the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This policy has always treated self-published sources as being one person, or a few persons, who are the author(s). Publications by substantial organizations are not considered self-published unless the organization is equivalent to a vanity press. I have objected to this point of view in the past to no avail. Whether a particular organization is actually substantial or really consists of a handful of people would be a matter for the reliable sources noticeboard. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "substantiveness", the advisory board of the TJF's Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies includes Bernstein, Freeman, Gordon-Reed, Onuf, Rakove, of NYU, Yale, Harvard, UVirginia, and Stanford, respectively - all major figures in current Jefferson research at major universities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "author" of an unsigned piece is almost always the organization itself, i.e., Coca-Cola, Inc. is the author of www.coca-cola.com. The SPS policy is not written well enough to accommodate this aspect of reality. It's extremely unusual for an organization to be published elsewhere, so the "previously published by reliable third-party publications" measure simply doesn't fit. An equivalent measure would be whether the organization (not individuals within it) is quoted or cited (favorably) in properly published pieces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for a new section about accuracy

This is an idea that emerged from the mediation we've been having about wording of the lede. Some of the people in the mediation were concerned that "verifiability, not truth" has been used (in their view, misused) to stop people removing glaring inaccuracies that came from a verifiable source. Others were worried that a wording which makes it easier to remove inaccuracies can leave the way wide open for tendentious deletes.

Basically the same question has been discussed on this talk page recently in the thread "Not truth example".

An idea that emerged in the mediation, was that the lede may not be the place to resolve this -- it might be better to include a new section in the body of the policy.

We've tried a few wordings on the mediation talk page. Several participants (including the mediator) have suggested we move the discussion back here. Let's see if there is sufficient support for an RfC.

The wording below is an edit by myself, based on earlier ones by my learned colleagues. (That's a general description of everyone at Wikipedia.) Like everything in WP, it's a work in progress... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

The fact that material is verifiable does not necessarily mean that it is accurate. Sources are not infallible. Even very reliable sources may contain simple errors (like the headline Dewey defeats Truman), or may be outdated or superseded on a specific point. Editorial judgment, based on willingness to consider a variety of sources, is needed to decide what material to use and how to present it.

If you are deciding whether to add new information to an article, but you think, based on other sources, that a source contains an error, you may choose to rely on those other sources instead.

If you find sourced information that you think is inaccurate in an article, it is usually best to discuss the issue on the talk page until a consensus for removal, rewording, or retention has been established. Such discussion needs to address source reliability, neutral point of view, and due weight, rather than rely on the personal views of Wikipedia editors. Rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely.[1]

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not sit in judgment on reliable sources. If they disagree, we note that disagreement. If everything but one source says something, we note the disparity and handle it with appropriate weight. We do not suppress reliable sources, even if widely believed to be incorrect: we balance inaccuracy by showing the preponderance of evidence goes the other direction, not by deciding that minority views that do not agree with the mainstream can be excised from an article.
Other than that, though, I generally agree with the thrust of this. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read that where WP:V says, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources."  If an editor couldn't sit in judgment of a reliable source with an extraordinary claim, the editor couldn't require extraordinary sources.  That also seems to be counter-indicated at WP:IRS, which says, for example, "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."  A summary of these IRS points exists at WP:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the contextWP:ELNO #2 believes that editors can know if a website contains "factually inaccurate material".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not suppress reliable sources, even if widely believed to be incorrect: we balance inaccuracy by showing the preponderance of evidence goes the other direction, - this would often end up producing WP:UNDUE weight on the discrepancy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are entirely and definitively wrong. WP:UNDUE expects us to "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", and includes a caveat that tiny minority views need not be covered at all. My phrasing above is simply a restating of UNDUE, and UNDUE cannot be used against itself: If we're covering a controversy in proportion to its RS prevalence, we're entirely DUE, and that's that. (note: fixed a missing 'of' in my original, and your quotation of it.) Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By that theory, newspaper retractions might be "fringe viewpoints" that lack sufficient due weight to even be considered.  On 3 March 2012, at least a half a dozen media outlets worldwide reported that a baby was blown 10 miles (16 km) by a tornado.  Editors should be concerned that the baby was blown North while the tornado traveled East, and that the local sources don't mention the story.  The article is March 2–3, 2012 tornado outbreak, and the sentence was quickly removed.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re:

If you are deciding whether to add new information to an article, but you think, based on other sources, that a source contains an error, you may choose to rely on those other sources instead.

  • This has the problem that not all errors in published reliable sources are discussed in published reliables sources.  The key word we should be using is "evidence", not "sources".  As stated at WP:Inaccuracy#Approaches to reporting potentially inaccurate material, "As with other editorial decisions, editors must consider the forms of evidence that are available."  For example, the personal experience of editors, as reported at WP:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context for the case in Oslo, constitutes evidence.
  • It is also misleading because it leaves the impression that inaccuracy is a reason to exclude material from the encyclopedia.  Inaccurate material may or may not have due-weight prominence, and we have the example Dewey defeats Truman as a case in which we report inaccurate material.
Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with an editor making content decisions based on personal experience is this: How are other editors (who weren't in Oslo at the time) going to check what that person says they experienced?Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IRS does not consider this to be a problem.  WP:IRS states, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."  Unscintillating (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started with Kalidasa 777's version and came up with the following.

Accuracy

Reliable sources are usually correct but not always. Sometimes they may be outdated or superseded on a specific point by other reliable sources. At other times they may contain errors that are obvious to all the editors involved. If the accuracy of sourced material is questionable, a consensus of editors can decide whether or not to include it in an article. In reaching a consensus, editors should consider source reliability, neutral point of view, and due weight where appropriate. Rewriting how the material is presented is sometimes a better choice than removing it entirely. [1]

I got the four links at the end from Kalidasa 777's version. The first one is policy, the second one seems to be nearly at the policy level with regard to reliability, whereas the last two are essays which I'm not sure about.

BLP considerations may need to be added since the bar is lower for removing questionable BLP sourced material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I like -Bob K31416's version though WP:IAI doesn't address what to do with information that can be verified as inaccurate so I would recommend something along these lines:
Accuracy and Source Conflict

Reliable sources are usually correct but not always. Sometimes they may be outdated or superseded on a specific point by other reliable sources. At other times they may contain errors that are obvious to all the editors involved. If the accuracy of sourced material is questionable, a consensus of editors can decide whether or not to include it in an article. In reaching a consensus, editors should consider source reliability, neutral point of view, and due weight where appropriate.

Note just because sources conflict does not mean that one or more are inaccurate. They can be portraying the subject from different POVs and be essentially accurate within their respective points of view. The Conflict between sources section in the Wikipedia:These are not original research essay goes into greater detail on how to determine the difference between a "potential inaccuracy" (simply a conflict between information provided by sources) and an actual "inaccuracy" (where a statement can be shown by verifiable sources to be factually inaccurate).

Rewriting how the material is presented is sometimes a better choice than removing it entirely. [1]

I don't want editors to think just because sources are in conflict that one or more has to be inaccurate.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, important point. Binksternet (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above, JClemens says: We do not sit in judgment on reliable sources. If they disagree, we note that disagreement. If everything but one source says something, we note the disparity and handle it with appropriate weight. We do not suppress reliable sources, even if widely believed to be incorrect: we balance inaccuracy by showing the preponderance evidence goes the other direction, not by deciding that minority views that do not agree with the mainstream can be excised from an article. I think there is very substantial evidence that this position is wrong, and that we very much do sit in judgment on reliable sources, and we very much do suppress them. This is why glucojasinogen is a redlink is controversial even though there are two academic sources for it; it's why our article on species mentions evolution but does not mention baraminology; and it's why our article on the Apollo program has nothing to say about the moon landing conspiracy theory. There are sources that meet WP:RS for all these things, but in the relevant articles, they have been suppressed entirely. I could go on and on, but in fact I think this suffices to show that editors absolutely do sit in judgment on reliable sources, and they absolutely do make the judgment to remove sourceable material from articles, and my position is that they are quite right to do so. We should document this widespread practice more clearly in WP:V.—S Marshall T/C 08:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Judging (and subsequently summarizing) sources is one of the core activities/requirement for writing an encyclopedic article, so yes JClemes line is completely wrong as stated. However that line is probably due to a misunderstanding of the policy (NPOV & Co), that we normally do not judge on different notable opinions or not yet fully established/(within the science community) universally accepted theories, but simply describe them as their are (including notable published criticism). And maybe also from the fact that published knowledge (= content from a reliable source) normally trumps private knowledge and that we do not allow arbitrary private corrections of reliable sources, but we rather require it to be the correction of an obvious error all knowledgeable editors agree on (say a typo, a "simple" calculation error, misquotation) and/or other (more) reliable sources (in that context) backing up the correction.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not wrong. We can assess the reliability of a source, which is what WP:RS/N is all about, but once a source has been deemed reliable, we do not have any basis with which to say "No, wait, that's incorrect". That would be WP:OR, and is the bane of WP:V. Let us not forget that Wikipedia is not responsible for getting things 100% right: RS'es, which Wikipedia is not, have an accuracy responsibility. To avoid OR, we are necessarily constrained at being no more accurate than our best RS'es around. Perfection is both unachievable and undesirable; if we cover all of human knowledge to the level of accuracy that the best RS'es do, we will have done something miraculously wonderful. Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good; accept that we are constrained and embrace the pillars, because to abandon our reliance on RS'es is to throw us into chaos, where everyone is pushing their own pet interpretation, arguing that certain RS'es are inaccurate, or the like. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Jclemens we do have as basis with which to say "No, wait, that's incorrect". I have repeatably given examples of how that can be achieved. If a otherwise reliable source talks about Washington DC in 1785 or something happening in the state of Utah in 1890 we can clearly state "No, wait, that's incorrect" because those places did not exist in those times as demonstrated by other RS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. We have a ton of other RS evidence that demonstrates that those typographical errors are nothing more than a "tiny minority", and can and should be excluded without compromising UNDUE. We don't need to state that that RS is incorrect, because the lack of concurring support is already enough for us not to mention it. Judgment of correctness is just not needed--we judge preponderance in reliable sources and, on well-covered topics, that will essentially amount to mirroring the best consensus understanding in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC
Well yes we do. It is more a matter of how we phrase and whether the policy explicitly needs to state those minority cases over there is usually no dispute anyway when they occur. However that doesn't change the fact that we do judge on the reliability and correctness of information in reliable sources and in those "tiny minority scenarios" even correct them as well, but we don't do so simply based on personal opinion or whim, but by carefully comparing and weighing "all" sources available. I agree we need a strong policy to keep editor from going astray and I agree the tiny minority scenarios need not to be covered explicitly. For that reason the current policy formulation is actually fine with me.
Nevertheless we will have a problem, when we get an increasing number of editors taking the policy all too literally in every case (as an absolute thing) without any regard for context and hence conclude that an editor's job in WP does not involve any judging/comparing/weighing of sources (at all) and is simply a "transcription monkey thing". Because then we reach a point where it becomes an obstacle to any intelligible writing and appropriate summaries.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--While this is all true your examples are less about Verifiability itself and more about NPSA (No Policy Stands Alone). The glucojasinogen example seems to have Wikipedia:Notability issues (what exactly is this? I have no freaking clue and the article that now exists is no help. Heck there is not a single reference reliable or otherwise in the entire thing) while the evolution-baraminology and Apollo program-moon landing conspiracy theory examples are prime examples of WP:FRINGE.

NPSA is the real problem here. We seem to have some editors think that WP:V stands alone--it doesn't. It works (or rather is supposed to work) in conjunction with WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and so on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V does work in conjunction with other policies... I think the proposed new section is trying to highlight this... and trying to explain how WP:V works in conjunction with with those other policies when it comes to dealing with inaccuracy. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with the "We do not sit in judgment on reliable sources" statement by Jclemens. If a source is inaccurate, an alternative source "must be found" that says it is inaccurate or one that contradicts it. Else we have a "recipe for a nightmare". And I really mean that: A "recipe for a nightmare". I have seen cases where users have started to judge the contents of WP:RS sources, and one user who wanted to "dismiss a scholar" because they did not agree with him. If Wikipedia users are allowed, or even encouraged to debate the accuracy of WP:RS sources based on their personal knowledge that is a "recipe for a nightmare". A 12 year old user can then begin to argue that professor X is just incorrect without having to present professor Y who disagrees with X. The door to disagreeing with what the professors write must not be opened. The only way should be to find another professor who disagrees with them and use that as a WP:RS source. The only exception is antique sources, say a book published in 1921 which has now been outdated. Those are, however, currently covered under general policy. History2007 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JClemens line is wrong nevertheless. Even if other reliable sources are needed, we do consequently judge on using (or rather dropping) the inaccurate information from the original source. The issue here is that you cannot apply these policy/guidelines in an absolute purely formal manner, but you to consider them within a given context and cooperation with the other guidelines and in connection with the overall project goal (providing accurate information on established knowledge).
In some (relatively rare) contexts you wouldn't even need a separate reliable source, say an obvious typo or a computation error in "simple"/straight forward calculation error, but you'd simply either correct them or drop them from the article. Also we do not allow editors to make (arbitrary) corrections of reliable sources based on their personal opinion, but we do certainly expect editors to use their personal knowledge (and critical minds) to assess the reliability and accuracy of sources. The latter is fundamental requirement for any meaningful selection of sources in the first place.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry I can not agree with that line of reasoning, because it opens the door to debate about the content of WP:RS sources. If professor X says that "John Smith died in 1723" and you and I agree that it is 1732 and he made a typo, we should not be allowed to go and change that to 1732 without finding professor Y who says "John Smith died in 1732". If the year is 1732, there should be no problem in finding alternative sources. The problem I see with this proposal is that it opens the door just one crack to weakening WP:V, weakening reliance on WP:S sources and eventually opening the door to WP:OR in about 3 years. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the term obvious error above 1723 versus 1732 in too different reliable sources is no obvious error at all (nor can I see a reason why (sane) editors would agree on either figure unless they have other sources). However when writing about a person known to have lived throughout the 20th century then 1932 versus 1032 would be an obvious error (typo), i.e. in that context 1032 is clearly false and should be corrected by the WP editor. Of course you can always construct examples where the WP editor you should not correct typos (because they are not really that obvious) and cases where he should. Which brings me back to my statement further up, that you cannot apply this policy in an absolute and purely manner without consideration of the concrete context. A general policy simply cannot cover all the scenarios that may arise on all the different fields of WP in literally fashion, we are way too diverse for that. You often don't have to cite an additional reliable source to correct obvious typo/error in elementary math or science book, but that is of course something completely different as scholarly opinions say in history, sociology or philosophy, which of course you cannot correct as you see fit.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue is "how obvious is obvious?" If there are other WP:RS sources, then there should be no problem in any case. However, in the absence of WP:RS sources that say otherwise, accuracy should not be disputed. And it is not just a clear cut difference between mathematics and sociology. I have seen that issue happen on Goedel's incompleteness page too. And again, I really see this whole issue as the beginning of a "watering down process" for the verifiability and reliability processes, and an eventual cozy relationship with tolerating WP:OR as the "this source's reasoning is obviously incorrect" argument gets presented again and again by editors who do not like what a source says. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goedel's incompleteness theorem is not exactly elementary math. Of course you have similar sources in science or math topics as well, where an editor cannot simply correct a presumed inaccuracy in reliable source. The issue is not science versus non science but obvious versus not(so) obvious. And yes the critical question here is indeed "how obvious is obvious", but this issue can neither be resolved by "there is no such thing as obvious" nor "obvious is simply whatever an individual editor", but in doubt it has to be judged based on the concrete case.
I'm very well aware of the "watering down problem", i.e. I see that danger. But formalistic frankly braindead application of a single policy without regard of other policies and concrete context is a real danger as well. Or to put it this way, there are no single "golden policy" which can be always be applied in formalistic absolute and ultimately braindead fashion, that simply doesn't work. You always need to consider (=think) what makes sense in a concrete situation, there's no way around that. However you may very well make an argument, that this is aspect is implicitly covered by WP:IAR and doesn't need to codified here explicitly--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Step 1: You stop using the word braindead to refer to suggestions made by other editors. Understand? Be polite. Now, the "watering down problem" is inherently built into this issue. Wikipedia has enough problems with reliability that it does not need a weakening of policies related to verifiability and original research. If editors who do not like a WP:RS source are given the smallest window of opportunity to use as a method arguing against it based on their determination that "the source's reasoning is obviously incorrect" they will use that window, and point to the policy until they wear down the opposition. That is why the door to that type of argument should not open, for it will certainly lead to the watering down of reliability. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Braindead is not comment on other people's suggestions, but merely pointing out what purely formalistic approach actually is (applying formula without thinking). Using common sense isn't really watering down much nor opening any doors, but it points that a formalistic policy interpretation simply does not work all the time.
Yes, POV pusher or people with an agenda will try to use any (presumed or real) opening, but you are sorely mistaken if you think a formalistic use of the policy would prevent that. On the contrary it even opens door and that is a problem we already have. People will simply argue that any generally (formally) "reliable" source will need to mentioned, because the editor is not allowed to perform any selecting/judging of reliable sources (as indicated in JClement's line further up). So first you make you sure, that your source (publication) is "generally or mostly reliable" (without considering any particular context) then you pick an article in your source (which considering a given context might be extremely unreliable) and claim any "reliable" source must be mentioned in the article and editors are not allowed to assess/judge it, since we it is already considered "generally reliable". Viola - you can push almost any fringe you want and of course you will insist on their formalistic policy approach until the opposition is worn down.
Now the case where you reasonable can correct obvious minor errors/typos in reliable sources without resorting to other reliable sources are so rare, that we do not need to codify them in a policy. the few times they might arise editors are likely to agree on them anyway. However the case where editors may need to discard or correct inaccurate or outdated information in reliably sources based on other reliable sources, is something we may have to spill out explicitly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the above it was stated: "We do not suppress reliable sources, even if widely believed to be incorrect: we balance inaccuracy by showing the preponderance evidence goes the other direction" I think that is a valid statement except that I think "widely believed" should clarified as widely believed by editors present on a page. That is the idea of WP:V and there is no reason for watering it down by an amendment which would in the end water down reliability. History2007 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That varies from article to article. See Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_10, Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_11, Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_12, Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_13 for an example of just how crazy (as in insane silly stupid) some of those arguments can get.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are too many items on some archive. And I am not sure how that is supposed to influence WP:V. The long and short of it is that no door should open to a process of watering down WP:V, and ushering in WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dreaded but it is too long excuse followed by the slippy slope fallacy, sigh.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re: Kmhkmh's comment above, "we do consequently judge on using (or rather dropping) the inaccurate information from the original source", dropping any relevant RS is a violation of UNDUE, unless that source is itself (part of) a "tiny minority", however that is determined. By policy, we do not drop things just because we believe them to be inaccurate. We drop them only because the crushing weight of other RS'es demonstrate them to be a tiny minority, regardless of real or perceived accuracy. That is, measuring the accuracy of an RS is itself a wrong metric, already taken care of by UNDUE, and risks putting us into OR territory. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, in the scenario I'm talking about it is rather the other way around, simply stating fringe position that exist in some formally reliable publication is a violation of WP:UNDUE. I agree that doesn't need to be covered here but covering it in WP:UNDUE is good enough, but that is exactly what I was saying above you cannot apply (or correctly understand this policy) without considering the concrete context and related policy. Also it is not just always just an issue of tiny minority versus large majority, but also of ranking sources "fornally reliable" sources. To give another example here. Let's you have an article in the NYT and in American Mathematical Monthly on some new math result, which are contradicting each at some (the NYT reporter obviously got it wrong/misunderstood something), then you should not simply state both versions ("both are reliable sources"), but you toss the NYT article instead as math journals have a higher reliability on math subjects than general newspaper articles.
The problem here that were are looking from different angles at the issue. WP has conflicting goals here: a) preventing WP:OR and POV pushing b) be as accurate as possible and avoid the unnecessary copying errors from source. We want a) and b) but they occasionally conflict in policies.
You are worried, that editors may start to correct reliable sources as they see fit and simply tailor them to the personal opinion or ideologies or similarly bad simply suppress notable opinions disagreeing with them. I completely agree, that we cannot allow editors to do such things and we need a strong policy here. But this is not the only issue we need handle (and as explained above not the only form in which POV pushing can occur). Editors (ideally) need to summarize and compile a large number of reliable sources and they need to be able to prioritize and rank them to weed out fringe position, outdated/clearly false publications. This is exactly the point of WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE and a fundamental part of an editor's job in WP.
There is is also a macro and micro perspective that needs to be distinguished. While editors are not supposed to correct reliable sources in terms of their overall content/opinion/theories, they are supposed to correct minor obvious errors (typos, spelling errors, misquotations, miscomputations) and to avoid copy them into WP. If a reliable source on Einstein (say some journal article) gives his lifetime as (1879-2055), the editor is not supposed to copy 2055 into WP and in fact he can even correct that typo without the need of another reliable source as common sense (the information in the rest of the article, life span of humans) obviously suggests that the correct date is 1955. In other case (the typo would have would 1945 instead of 1955) you might have to refer to other reliable source for his correct date of death, but note as a result you are still suppose to drop/correct the false information bit from your original source. The only case where you actually state different dates (=show the information from original source or all reliable sources), when it is not an (obvious) typo and various (equally) reliable sources do indeed disagree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I think it would actually be good to add "we do not drop things just because we believe them to be inaccurate. We drop them only because the crushing weight of other RS'es" to this page, but in more formal language. That is the central issue really. If the door is opened at all to deletions based on user perspective, nightmares will ensue. Really nightmares in which 12 year olds can disagree with books written by professors. History2007 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There I agree, the point is however that in such cases we do drop the inaccurate information. I don't think anybody here has suggested correction on mere belief or personal disagreement, but rather concrete situation where any sane editor (and other reliable sources) would agree that a particular information from an individual reliable source is wrong.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in the present policy that prohibits editors from removing or excluding reliably sourced material that they think is wrong? If so, please give the excerpt and link. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WP:BURDEN? Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see it there. Please give the excerpt as requested. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a valid question actually, and I do not see the answer in WP:BURDEN either. My guess is that WP:PRESERVE covers that. Is that right? History2007 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it there either. Excerpt? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Start from: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained ... " end with "... instead of deleting text, consider: rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar" That says it. History2007 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that and it didn't prohibit the removal of material that an editor thought was wrong.
  • "Preserve appropriate content." — An editor can think material is inappropriate because it is wrong.
  • "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained..." — An editor can think that the facts or ideas do not belong in a "finished article" because they are wrong.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the way to read it, per WP:V the criterion for being in an article is not being "right/wrong" but verifiability. Anyway, feel free to apply your interpretation of policy to a few pages and see what happens. Do let us know. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is the way to read it, if you're following policy. However, there are unwritten rules that editors use in practice, which may change from situation to situation, with non-policy based consensus determining what stays or goes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just noticed your addition re WP:V which indicates a misconception. Verifiability is not the criterion for being in an article, but rather a criterion. And being right or wrong is a consideration in practice for verifiable material when it comes to excluding or removing it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No editor wants to include information they think is wrong just because it's verifiable. This is why I believe this whole discussion over VnT is a waste of time. We are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They would if it fit their agenda, such as promoting a point of view or personal long-held misconception that they would rather support with incorrect info than lose face by admitting they were wrong. It's just human nature. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Actually, it doesn't even have to be a long-held misconception. It could be just a position an editor took in a heated discussion on Wikipedia, which gets to the point of wanting to win by any means. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bob asked whether WP policy prohibits an editor for removing a bit of info the editor thinks is wrong. Actually WP policies seldom either prohibit or compel anything, except where there are legal issues like copyright. In general, WP policies, like the Pirate's Code, are not hard and fast rules but more a set of guidelines. I agree that WP:PRESERVE is relevant here.
What about WP:V? The traditional wording of the intro, which described that VnT as the "threshold", has sometimes been used (some say misused) to mean that you can't remove something that is verifiable even if it is untrue. The current (locked, disputed) version includes the words: "All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion."
Does that mean you should remove verifiable material only if you have a reason based on "other policies or guidelines"? Or does "no guarantee" mean you should feel free to boldly remove verifiable material for any reason you think fit? It is really quite ambiguous... Which is why I think that more needs to be said. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Actually WP policies seldom either prohibit or compel anything" — WP:V prohibits adding unverifiable material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the combination of (WP:PRESERVE + WP:V) does provide policy here. However, WP:V by itself is not and has never been enough for inclusion, e.g. the fact that Elvis recorded a specific song may be totally verifiable, but may have no place in an article on physics, etc. But when WP:RS referenced content is relevant, (WP:PRESERVE + WP:V) point to its being kept rather than deleted.
However Kalidasa I would like to suggest that you close this discussion (given that you started it) for I have serious, serious fears of the impact it will have on quality by providing loopholes that may be used to water down verifiability requirements. History2007 (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to continue the discussion about how to maintain verifiability and quality. Unscintillating has just started a new thread below with Draft 4. I'd suggest that is the place to continue the discussion, and the three drafts in this thread can be considered alongside Unscintillating's new one. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No editor wants to include information they think is wrong just because it's verifiable." Quest, that is not the problem. The problem is as demonstrated by the examples I have repeatedly given is editors failing to admit the information being given is wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob K31416: A POV-pusher is not going stop POV-pushing by this section. In fact, this won't have the slightest effect on them. Likewise, this section isn't going to get an editor who refused to admit they were wrong to change their mind.
@BruceGrubb: OK, let's say we have an editor who is failing to admit the information being given is wrong. How is this section going to change their mind? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your comment "No editor wants to include information they think is wrong just because it's verifiable. ", which you apparently admit is incorrect.
Re your recent comment "A POV-pusher is not going stop POV-pushing by this section. ... Likewise, this section isn't going to get an editor who refused to admit they were wrong to change their mind." — If you believe that, it seems that you should believe the same thing about the whole policy. In any case, could you suggest what would be needed for the accuracy section to change your opinion of it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that the words "accurate" and "wrong" are beginning to intermingle here. Is the word "false" not getting invited to the party here? So please see the question in the section below about why "accurate" is being used instead of "true". History2007 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I tried to show with my Why We Fight example above you can have a source that is both accurate and inaccurate depending on how you want to use it. The kind of "smoking gun" examples I originally presented are very rare but the fact even months later you had editors saying that even in the face of clear and more importantly Verifiable evidence the source was talking factual nonsense that it should be used anyhow showed that VnT was being read in some really bizarre ways.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and "watering down"

Several times in the above discussion, History2007 states that dealing with accuracy would lead to a "watering down" of verifiability. I must disagree with this, strongly. Accuracy is in addition to verification, not against it. Erroneous statements for which a citation can be found ought to be excluded, and this does not imply inclusion of unverified material. Indeed, the insistence upon including patently incorrect material is itself creating original research, because it creates phony controversies and uncertainties. Anyone who has ever looked over the "wealth" of 9/11 conspiracy material can see where relies on citations of statements that turned out to be untrue; there's no problem in dismissing these in assembling an accurate account of events. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that 9/11 is one of the most controversial issues of the last decade, so I can not address who is right/wrong there. However, what I think is that the argument above demonstrates two things:
  • With the best of intentions you want to present information that you consider important to get to readers.
  • Your arguments are well intentioned, but aim at presenting "truth" - whatever it may be, while addressing the topic of accuracy.
So we now have a case where the opening of the door just one crack to deal with "accuracy" will allow the T-word to walk in right behind it. Basically what I was trying to say. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re "So we now have a case where the opening of the door just one crack to deal with "accuracy" will allow the T-word to walk in right behind it." — Maybe you ought to explain that remark since it suggests that you want to keep accuracy and truth out of Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIRCULAR

I think a little more clarification in WP:CIRCULAR is needed, in that it should state that if a website uses "any" Wikipedia information to compile an article of its own, then the entire website is useless as a source. About a week ago, a user debated that although a website said some of its information was from Wikipedia, given that we do not know which parts came from Wikipedia, it could be used. Eventually after wasting a good deal of time someone else stepped in and ended the debate. But there needs to be a really "clear statement" that as soon as a website says its content is Wikipedia-based then it can not be used as source at all. That user argued that because a website used some Wikipedia and had also compiled information from multiple other sources it could be used. So I think the "one bullet, the website is dead" argument should be clarified in WP:CIRCULAR. It should probably say: "if a website uses any Wikipedia information, that usage alone will automatically disqualify the website as a source for Wikipedia, given that it may not be claear how that information has been mixed with other items on the website". History2007 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction to this was that it went too far... that (assuming we can tell which information on the website comes from Wikipedia and which information comes from some other source), it is OK to cite the website for the non-Wikipedia derived information.
But upon further reflection, I realized that if we know where the website got the various bits information it presents, then there is no need to cite that website for the non-Wikipedia derived information... we can skip over the problematic website and use the non-Wikipedia source that the problematic website used.
For example, if "compiledfacts.com" cites both Wikipedia and the Oxford English Dictionary, and we know which bits of information comes from the OED... we can go to the OED, confirm those bits of information... and cite the OED directly. :So, I am leaning towards support for this proposal. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I really think we must always err on the side of caution. My general issue is that I am very unhappy about the glut of slef-published websites, and now self published books that are appearing based on Wikipedia. I was once looking up something in a book in 2011 and said "Didn't I write that?" Then realized that the book had used a large part of a Wiki-article I had written in 2010, verbatim without reference or acknowledgement. That is, of course, a separate issue, but highlights the fact that people realize that the price charged for Wikipedia content is pretty reasonable - so they just use it. These days Wiki-information is getting mixed in with many websites and once it has been mixed in, it may be hard to unscramble the egg. So we must be cautious for the sake of reliability. History2007 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, on the third hand, very many standard news sites now use Wikipedia as a source, wether openly or without acknowledgement. There is the famous case of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg's alleged nth name "Wilhelm", which was introduced in the German Wikipedia, then removed as unsourced, then published in several quality press publications, who had picked it up from Wikipedia in the mean time, and then reintroduced to Wikipedia, now referenced to those newspapers. Errors happen, so we should not disqualify sources based on occasional problems. Self-published web sites are usually bad as sources for other reasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the issue is not whether a particular source at some point references WP as well (even scholarly works do that occasionally/increasingly), but whether we actually do have a concrete case of (likely) circular information. Those example websites or books being essentially WP clones are suitable for a different reason. Usually they are not reliable to begin with (no reputable author, no reputable publisher) and then usually have plenty a concrete circular information anyhow (in case of clones), for which they couldn't be used either. I it is important to cautious, but caution always needs to be applied in a concrete context.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes any source that uses information from wikipedia should be set as unreliable as we can't necessarily tell where the information from wikipedia is being used. "Scholarly works" that reference wikipedia should also be thrown out to avoid circular referencing. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, they should not. It completely depends on what they actually reference WP for. Essentially it is the same problem as above you cannot apply a policy in a braindead purely formalistic manner.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The heart of the difference we have may be that I may have seen more editors who want to use "weak sources" and I see your line of reasoning as an invitation to endless debates about useless sources. Why not let them find a really good WP:RS source instead of relying on some compiled website which mixes information from Wikipedia? That type of relaxed attitude towards source quality will in the end lead to lower reliability. History2007 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree regarding compiled websites. My point however is that you cannot decide between good and bad simply based whether WP reference exists in a source or not. To give a concrete example the probably most authoritative and comprehensive source on the Monty Hall Problem is a math book by the mathematician Rosenhouse, he does however at one point describe in his book the problem's representation in WP as well and maybe draws inspiration from it, but by no means rests his arguments on WP claims and it definitely would be a rather bad idea to through him out because in one paragraph of his book he has referenced WP. Though that scenario is no doubt less pressing and clearly less common, we do nevertheless have occasionally a problem with editors trying to apply policies in a literal manner without thinking and regarding any context (what i called "braindead" above), maybe i have come across them more often than you.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with IRWolfie. The problem is the scrambled info-source. I do agree that if the NY Times mentions Wikipedia in an article that does not disqualify the entire NY Times website, but the Guttenberg issue was time-based, was noticed and corrected. However, compiled sites do need further clarification in WP:CIRCULAR, and I started this thread because I hope for policy that helps me avoid debate in 3 months about yet another Wiki-derived website. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How reliable are modern newspapers for general news, considering there appear to have been hoaxes which have caught out practically every major newspaper [5]? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a page called Journalism scandals and after three (yes three) Afds, it was deleted. It mentioned Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke etc. So the newspapers do have problems. But that is a separate issue. History2007 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think this goes too far. I'm aware of at least one instance in which something I wrote here appeared on the website a disease-related charitable organization. The fact that they re-use my text as part of one lay-oriented summary page does not invalidate the signed articles by world-class experts on the other pages at that website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the website? What is the page? History2007 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new accuracy section, Draft 4

New section, to come after the existing section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, as follows:
== Accuracy ==

Verifiable material may or may not be accurate. That material is potentially inaccurate is not by itself a reason for exclusion of the material.[1][2]

 === Footnotes ===

  1. ^ A famous example of verifiable material that is potentially inaccurate is the front page of the Chicago Tribune on November 3, 1948—we have an article about this headline at Dewey defeats Truman. In this case, we have a retraction from the newspaper which provides strong evidence that the material was inaccurate. The headline also serves as an example of potentially inaccurate material that is included on Wikipedia.
  2. ^ For more information on choosing what should be included, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. See also, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

  • Rationale:
  1. This proposal clarifies the original intent that the WP:V policy is silent about what to do with reliable published material that is potentially inaccurate. It is WP:DUE that provides guidance in balancing the material from sources.
  2. There is widespread misunderstanding that we don't publish potentially inaccurate information.
  3. This proposal is compatible with both the long-standing first sentence of WP:V commonly known as VnT, and the current policy statement.
  4. While compatible, the proposal moderates certain interpretations that have been applied to VnT, by clarifying that VnT does not mean that we don't care about accuracy.
  5. Although a consensus could be established that Dewey defeats Truman is "inaccurate", in the general case it simplifies the analysis to discuss the likelihood of "potential inaccuracy", rather than the likelihood of "inaccuracy". Therefore the text here encourages the wording "potentially inaccurate" over "inaccurate".
  6. If this issue (some say that it is not a problem) is not sufficiently covered at WP:DUE, the place to fix the issue, if any, is at WP:DUE, not WP:V.
  7. This draft is designed so as not to be a guideline in the middle of WP:V.
  8. Newbies do not recognize cryptic references to other policies, so the references here are given with their full title, and where anchors are available, the Wikilink goes through the anchor while retaining the full name.

Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest making that less absolute, e.g. "Verifiable material may or may not be accurate in the eye of the beholder", or something to that effect. The words "is/be" are inherently subjective there. Else it may work. So we can try:
  • Verifiable material may or may not appear to be accurate in the opinion of some editors. That material may seem potentially inaccurate to some editors is not by itself a reason for exclusion of the material.
That may work. History2007 (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it is too short and leaves out important information:
== Accuracy and Source Conflict ==

Verifiable material may or may not be accurate and can appear to be in conflict with regards to facts. Because sources can portraying the subject from different POVs and essentially accurate within their respective points of view a conflict between sources does not automatically mean that one or more is inaccurate.

For this reason the fact that material can be potentially inaccurate is not by itself a reason for exclusion of the material.[1][2]

 === Footnotes ===

  1. ^ A famous example of verifiable material that is potentially inaccurate is the front page of the Chicago Tribune on November 3, 1948—we have an article about this headline at Dewey defeats Truman. In this case, we have a retraction from the newspaper which provides strong evidence that the material was inaccurate. The headline also serves as an example of potentially inaccurate material that is included on Wikipedia.
  2. ^ For more information on choosing what should be included, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. See also, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

This addresses the "oh these sources conflict so one or more must be inaccurate/not realible" migraine--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask counsel to translate that one, then get back to you. History2007 (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce, I agree with you that there is an important difference between issues of fact and conflicting points of view. For instance, it is an issue of fact whether in March 1927 the city of Nanjing was captured by forces led by the Kuomintang (as stated on the page Chiang Kaishek) or whether it was captured by forces hostile to the Kuomintang (as stated on the page Nanjing incident). On the other hand, it is an issue of interpretation whether Chiang Kaishek's leadership of the Kuomintang was a continuation of the work of the party's founder Sun Yatsen or a betrayal of Sun Yatsen.
Having said all that, I am not sure why it's necessary to mention conflicting points of view in a section about accuracy here.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained that. We are now getting editors who say "Source A says this and since your source says something different it is not reliable (effectively claiming source B is inaccurate) or it is talking about something different."--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I like the first sentence of Unscintillating's Draft 4, but the second is too much of a double negative. I also think it's unhelpful to readers to put so much content into footnotes. If it's worth saying, why not include it in the body text? Here is a revision... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New section, to come after the existing section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, as follows:
== Accuracy ==

Verifiable material may or may not be accurate. For instance, it is verifiable that the Chicago Tribune on November 3 1948 reported that the presidential election had been won by Thomas Dewey. However it is also verifiable that the same newspaper afterwards published a retraction, providing strong evidence that the initial report was inaccurate. Even potentially inaccurate sourced material can often be usable in a Wikipedia article. The headline "Dewey defeats Truman" is an instance where we not only cite an inaccurate report, we have a page about it. [1]
 === Footnotes ===

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if the source doesn't print a retraction? I'm concerned the some editors might interpret this to mean that the source must print a retraction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should add another example of a famous inaccuracy... E.g.Percival Lowell's work on Martian canals. I don't think Lowell himself retracted, but his thesis was demolished by astronomers with better telescopes... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually for that particular example we have a reliable source--Carl Sagan in his Cosmos series the "Blues for a Red Planet" episode: "There is no doubt that Lowell's canals were of intelligent origin; the only question was which end of the telescope the intelligence was on. Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • I don't like any of these proposed additions, because they appear to endorse the wrong practices. Of course we can, in a Wikipedia article, deal with a headline like "Dewey Defeats Truman". What we cannot do is to cite the headline to alter the Wikipedia article on the 1948 presidential election and declare that Dewey actually won the election. This proposed addition makes a horrible confusion of the Use–mention distinction. Verifiably, the Chicago paper actually printed "Dewey Defeats Truman", and nothing already in the Verifiability policy prevents Wikipedia articles from mentioning that the paper, did, in fact, write that. However, merely because it did write that, does not mean that Wikipedia articles should report what was written as fact; that is there is a difference between saying "The paper wrote that Dewey defeated Truman in a famous headline article" and writing "In 1948, Thomas Dewey defeated Harry Truman to become the President of the U.S." The former is perfectly allowable under current policy, and the latter should never be: several of the above proposals make it appear as though it should be. We should never give the impression that published (but demonstrably wrong) material is OK to be represented at Wikipedia as though it is accepted as correct. --Jayron32 04:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this response is avoiding the issue, it doesn't explain how we tell editors (I think Jimbo is in this group) that we don't prevent, and don't want to prevent, using potentially unreliable material.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "tiny minority" clause of UNDUE applies to "Dewey Defeats Truman", although the mistake is itself notable. Absent the anomalous nature of the erroneous headline, there is no reason for us to mention a tiny minority opinion that Dewey won, even if it hadn't been retracted, by one erroneous RS in a sea of correct RS'es, in an article on Truman's presidency. We don't have to do anything at all to V to make this work; UNDUE already covers it, and it's an established principle of our WP:NPOV pillar. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A better example would be Frank Capra's Why We Fight series which when I reviewed it on Amazon in 2006 had the following problem:
'The packaging describes the films as documentaries which they were and are not. These films are propaganda and like all propaganda there are distortions, half-truths, and outright lies. "Battle of Russia" for example says nothing about the overthrow and murder of the Czar's family or the oppressive nature of Stalin's Russia (in fact it describes them as a 'free people').'
Even those points that were viewed accurate when they were made have changed to where they would be called inaccurate. According to Capra "remember that date: Sept 18, 1931 a date you should remember as well as Dec 7, 1941. For on that date in 1931 the war we are now fighting begun." Today, you would be hard pressed to find any reliable source that says WWII begun before September 1, 1939. The Tanaka Memorial figures prominently in much of the series as a genuine plan by the Japanese government; today it is generally regarded as a forgery on par with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion though there is much debate as who was behind its creation.
Why We Fight is a prime example of how accuracy is a matter of how the material is being used. In this sense Why We Fight is both accurate and in accurate! --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Question: Accurate vs True: What does "accurate" mean? Why is the word accurate being used here rather than than the word "true"? Could it be the case that the word "true" has already been debated before and now "accurate" is the new reincarnation of "true" to perform a run-around the previous discussions? Can anything said about "accurate" also be said about "true"? So could we also say:

"Verifiable material may or may not be true. That material is potentially false is not by itself a reason for exclusion of the material"

Given that the page starts with the theme of "verifiability vs truth" why is the word "truth" avoided here and the word "accurate" is being used instead? A reader may rightly ask that. I would like to know that as a reader. Is the "reincarnation of truth" the theme here? So let us be open about that and address that question. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that "accuracy" is being used as a substitute for the word "truth". Because of the phrase "verifiability, not truth", in Wikipedia, truth has developed undesirable connotations, at least among the editors in the discussions on this talk page. In that regard, it looks like we have our own little version of the dysfunctional society in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Also, when editors here have discussed truth, they have sometimes digressed into philosophical discussions. Accuracy doesn't seem to have that problem. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was what surprised me once I saw how carefully the words "true" and "false" were being tiptoed around. So is it the case that the word "accuracy" is being used here to avoid the previous debate histories associated with the word "truth"? Let us be upfront about the issues and bring them out in the open. History2007 (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that the "truth" comes with a lot baggage (external and internal) and there is a good chance that at some point we 'll end up at more or less philosophical discussion of "the nature of truth" and will be dead in the water as far as any concrete policy or practical approach is concerned.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, truth does seem to have the extra baggage that it was the subject of a previous RFC which went the other way. Now, to avoid (or shall I say correct?) the "inaccuracies" that prevailed in said RFC, the new improved word "accuracy" may be considered a remedy to run around said RFC... History2007 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Truth" is a terrible word to use because it has two common meanings:

  • Accuracy
  • Dogma or assertions of viewpoints. E.G. if you see an article titled "The Truth about Obama", what do you expect it will contain?

Accordingly, folks against the concept of "accuracy" in Wikipedia substitute "truth" as a straw man. Accuracy is a much better term. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry North, but I can not agree with that characterization - and believe me that I have studied the concepts of truth, provability, etc. in multiple contexts from mathematical logic to economics. As a simple example, consider that the case where the summary of a dogmatic statement may be less than faithful to the original text which stated it, etc. As for "Accuracy is a much better term", a better term for what? A measure of utility always needs a defined goal. History2007 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of looking at this... "Truth" often refers to big questions, addressed by philosophies and religions. Whereas accuracy is more about precision on smaller questions, matters of detail. For Wikipedia editors to try to achieve consensus on the big questions would be a mistake -- consensus probably wouldn't happen, and if it did happen it would make Wikipedia more like a religious denomination... But the smaller questions , the matters of detail, are different. There may be many different views among Wikipedians about the historical significance of the Obama presidency. But we can probably agree about a matter of detail, like what is the correct spelling of the president's name. If 99 percent of published sources say "President Obama" and 1 percent says "President Osama", it is not that difficult to work out that "President Osama" is either a typo or a joke. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the reliance on "spelling errors" in these examples. But I do not think anyone is going to scream if spelling errors are corrected.
However, there is a serious issue here: what type of yardstick is used to measure when accuracy ends and truth starts? Is there some type of official "truth meter" which signals when we are out of the "accuracy zone" to which this approach applies and are in the "truth zone" where the first paragraph of the policy applies? Is there a DMZ with checkpoints? If no clear-cut demarcation between accuracy and truth can be achieved, then this approach and the main policy may conflict, rendering the policy page inconsistent. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this proposal, or any of its variations. The only example that has been given (Dewey Defeats Truman) is about an incident that is famous because the published information was inaccurate (or incorrect, or untrue, whichever you prefer.) As has been pointed out, the article does say in its first sentence that the published information was inaccurate. From that rare example, I do not think we can generalize that "inaccurate" or "potentially inaccurate" information is acceptable on Wikipedia. If you want to instead say that "inaccurate" information (as long as it was notable) can be mentioned in the context of a discussion about how it was inaccurate, that's fine, but I don't think we really need a policy that says that. I did think of some other examples, such as just about every article we have about a hoax (Piltdown Man, Cardiff Giant, Hitler Diaries.) Every one of those articles reports information that was "inaccurate" (the hoax itself), but they say right up front that the subject was a hoax or forgery. You might also include in this category, predictions that did not come true, such as 2011 end times prediction. We say what the prediction was, even though the prediction was untrue or incorrect or inaccurate (pick your favorite word), but we clearly state that the prediction did not come true. (Actually in the latter example it takes the article awhile to specifically state that the prediction did not come true, but I think that's ok in this particular case, where the "truth" is pretty strongly implied by the fact that we're here and having this discussion.) Neutron (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested section

New section, to come after the existing section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, as follows:
== Clear-cut inaccuracy ==

Sometimes WP editors who examine a range of sources about a topic can agree that a particular published source has made a clear-cut error about a point of fact. For instance, the famous headline Dewey defeats Truman is appropriately described as an "inaccurate". [1]

If you feel that verifiable information is inaccurate, do not remove it until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal has been established. Discussion needs to focus on source reliability and due weight, rather than on the personal views of Wikipedia editors. Keep in mind that rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely. [2]
 === Footnotes ===

Pesky (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And would the approach described above also allow a group of bright editors to "correct" statements from a book written by a Harvard professor (who may even be their teacher) if they think said professor's views are in error? In that case, it would be a very useful policy to use for noble causes such as steamrolling minority opinions. Very useful indeed. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@History2007: Yes, when the word "accuracy" is being used in this discussion, it really means "truth". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to realize that now. This whole issue seems to be a "run around the truth vs verifiability" policy via the substitution of the word accuracy for the "unmentionable word" truth which appears in the first paragraph of this policy page. This is in effect a "run around the policy" issue. If you can not change policy, run around it. Makes sense as a strategy, except that it is far too obvious now. History2007 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only way an editor can know if a reliable source has made a mistake, without delving into OR, is in comparison to another presumably more reliable source, (or in comparison to several similarly reliable sources). If a more reliable source contradicts a less reliable source then the less reliable source (I refer to for example, a particular news article) should not be used further. I don't think any mentions of "accuracy" or "truth" are required. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but those terms are inherently inter-related: mistake, error, truth, accuracy, etc. Now, to open the horizons: "correctness"? And "incorrect" vs "wrong" ? History2007 (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll shorten my wording to avoid mentioning mistakes. All that needs to be said is: If a more reliable source directly contradicts a less reliable source then the less reliable source should not be used, unless it is a statement of opinion etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, does a book published by Harvard University Press beat a book published by Princeton? How about Yale? Stanford? And who scores these sources? And what if these are discussions of economics, say Freshwater economics vs Saltwater economics? They contradict each other to death, to death, all the time. History2007 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part it's clear cut, for example; a peer reviewed review paper beats the daily mail. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying my comment, I was saying that "accuracy" is better term merely because it does not have two completely different (common use) meanings like "truth" does.
The handling/assessment/actions/processes based on accuracy in Wikipedia is an immensely complex and important topic. (guidlines, policies, editors, editor conversations, article RFC's etc. IMHO if we could just stop wp:ver from doing harm in that area, those other processes would work pretty well and don't necessarily need defining. And since 99.99% of wp:ver already does no harm; only three words ("threshold" and "not truth") do harm. So if we can keep "threshold out" , and either remove or clarify "not truth" the other processes of Wikipedia would be free to and tend to tend to do a pretty good job regarding accuracy/truth. But trying to put something on it here is fine to, although I said that I think such will prove to be a Herculean task. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you have mentioned something and I've simply missed it, but can you point to a specific instance of the Verifiability policy "doing harm"? These sorts of unfounded whinging are completely unconvincing, and frankly they make me want to simply ignore everything that you have to say.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quest (and others)... I must ask that you not make bad faith assumptions about how other people are using words... I won't speak for others, but when I use the word "accuracy" - I don't mean "truth"... I draw a distinction between these two terms. The distinction is subtle, but I think it exists.
To give an example: The statement "water freezes at 0°" is true... but it is not necessarily accurate - because it is incomplete (Yes, water freezes at 0° if you are using the Celsius scale, but it freezes at 32° if one uses the Fahrenheit scale... to make the statement accurate, we need to re-write the statement to note which scale we are talking about.)
More to the point... in an article that exclusively uses the Fahrenheit scale, adding the statement "Water freezes at 0°" would, in fact, be inaccurate - even though that statement, as a fact on its own, it remains "true". Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually like the use of "accuracy", but there's still also an important set of cases where "truth" is the more... er, accurate, word (sorry for the unintended pun). For people that deal in Fringe territory coverage, avoiding "not truth" tends to imply that it's somehow OK for Wikipedia itself to say that "Obama is Nigerian", "the Apollo Moon landings were staged", or "the CIA assassinated Kennedy". Actually, even worse, removing "not truth" allows editors who don't like that these popular pseudo-scientific "theories" exist to go adding their own research to articles in order to specifically refute such things. There are, of course, less melodramatic examples, but I think that these convey the most relevant problem.
Anywho, I see that JClemmens and History2007, among others, have largely said what I would have said myself. The Verifiability policy doesn't stand alone, and we can't be making ourselves out to be actual editors, as Wikipedia editors. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very valid points... what is making this discussion so frustrating for everyone is that nothing anyone is pointing out in this discussion is "wrong"... both "sides" have valid points and concerns. The policy can be abused in two directions... it can be used to inappropriately keep information that should be excluded... and it can be used to improperly exclude information that should be kept. We need to find the balance point that resolves the valid concerns on both "sides". How do we prevent (or at least limit) the potential for abuse in either direction? That is where we should be headed. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. If one does a structural / logical analysis of the problems, and the interaction of the policy with the problems, one could see that
  • One problem can be 90% solved by removing 2-3 words
  • The other can be 70% solved by adding 2 sentences.
Collectively we are not able to see/understand or implement such things. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If reliable sources exist which show that another apparently-reliable source is demonstrably factually incorrect, the factually incorrect material should be removed. (See also WP:Inaccuracy).". Pesky (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These concerns are why I am now saying that this new proposed section must address Source Conflict along side "accuracy".

New section, to come after the existing section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, as follows:
== Source Conflict and Clear-cut inaccuracy ==

Verifiable sources in of themselves can present certain POVs and there are times when they will conflict with each other. Such conflicts do not automatically mean that one or more sources are "inaccurate" and are best handled via WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE.

However there are rare occasions via criteria very similar to WP:DUCK where an otherwise Verifiable source can be proven through other reliable sources to contain factually inaccurate information. This can range from things like the famous Dewey defeats Truman headline to typos that create historical impossibilities such B52s (first flight in 1952) existing during General MacArthur's occupation of Japan (1945-1951) as presented in the book American Shogun.

In such cases simple belief that verifiable information is inaccurate is not enough to justify its removal. Evidence in the form of reliable sources that proves beyond a reasonable doubt, through Clear and convincing evidence, or via Preponderance of the evidence that the information being sited is factually wrong must be presented. This is so discussion regarding source reliability and due weight, rather simply deciding on the personal views of Wikipedia editors can occur and a consensus reached.

This consensus can range from rewriting how the material is presented (preferable) to the removal of the demonstrably factually incorrect information.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia, Inaccurate information, When experts disagree, and Conflict between sources.

This IMHO (with some minor tweeks) should address the relevant concerns presented.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


New section, to come after the existing section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, as follows:
== Clear-cut inaccuracy ==

Sometimes WP editors who examine a range of sources about a topic can agree that a particular published source has made a clear-cut error about a point of fact. For instance, the famous headline Dewey defeats Truman is appropriately described as an "inaccurate". [1]

If you feel that verifiable information is inaccurate, do not remove it until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal has been established. Discussion needs to focus on source reliability and due weight, rather than on the personal views of Wikipedia editors. Keep in mind that rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely. If consensus is that reliable sources exist which show that another apparently-reliable source is demonstrably factually incorrect, the factually incorrect material should be removed.[2]
 === Footnotes ===

Here's the thing: I'm suspicious of just about any section that could possibly be offered (without expending it to become an essay on it's own) because what we're talking about here varies so much, depending on the context. "Accuracy" is good in some cases, but not as good as "truth" in some others. It all depends. That's actually why I like the original lead paragraph which included "verifiability, not truth". It was at least attention grabbing, and it works well to highlight those cases where someone with an agenda wants to cite the verifiability policy in an attempt to justify putting their own pet theory into some article. There are so many permutations where this policy is applicable though, so it seems to me that we're opening a larger can of worms than we'd be solving by getting into the weeds with some statement like this. If it were up to me the only thing on this policy page would be "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Period, end of story. All of this other stuff is nothing more than a distraction. Everything else in the policy is about the application of that principle, and would be better off living in a series of essays. I don't think that has a hope in hell of happening at this point, but it would be nice.
I think that the above proposal(s) have some inkling that all of what I said there being the main objection. The reaction seems to then become, "ok, what's the shortest paragraph I can tack on so that my concerns are addressed?" We all want to be heard after all, right? The problem is, finding some short and to the point couple of sentences is not at all satisfactory, for a number of reasons. If we must include interpretation of policy in the policy itself, then it really should be comprehensive. Tacking these stubs of essays into policy invariably creates more problems than it solves, if for no other reasons then the fact that everyone who comes to read it will read it though their own prism of experience and with the context where it will be applied in mind.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this as well on the grounds that it conflicts WP:BOLD, we don't want people to feel that material which is sourced is somehow immune from being removed without extensive discussion. Some material is verifiable and irrelevent, for example, and we shouldn't need to have discussions for every single edit to an article. The relevnent idea that prevents edit warring over this is WP:BRD: Person "A" removes something, person "B" puts it back, and then we have a discussion. If no one ever puts it back, it wasn't a controversial removal. --Jayron32 05:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My own personal feeling is that it should be able to be removed without prior discussion, too, but the consensus at MedCab was that prior discussion was a good idea. I suppose, in the end, it all comes down to cases. Unscintillating produced a beautifully clear table on which to base any required discussion over here; I think a lot of people have the internal paradigm that BRD only really applies to the insertion of material, rather than the bold removal of it. Maybe it should be made really clear, in that, that it applies to removals, as well? Pesky (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a change to BRD based on Pesky's excellent idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources only reliable in their area

Where in the page is guidance about using a source only for what it is reliable for. For example. I've been told that the issue of how to spell a foreign name Frédéric Vitoux (for example) should be decided by WP:SOURCES. But if I look for Frédéric Vitoux (writer) I will get an accurate source on how to spell his name, but if I look for Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) I will get an accurate source on how many matches he played, but the name is inaccurate. What in this WP guideline tells me to look at Frédéric Vitoux (writer) to know the spelling of Frédéric Vitoux (tennis)? Or 1001 other examples that aren't about names? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh do you have other reliable sources that show there is an error? The tennis article itself says his professional name is "Frederic Vitoux" and there are regional and temporal variations in names. For example, my late mother was part of the Waite (as in Morrison Waite) family but that name has several variants: Waitte, Wait, Waitt, and so on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce, sorry you clicked through and found that nonsense, please ignore that, that wasn't the point of the example. That "known professionally as [diacritics removed]" should have a [original research?] tag after it since the ref is "Frédéric Vitoux : Union nationale des joueurs professionnels de tennis (UNJPT)". The line has been edited out or tagged in 100x tennis BLPs, but keeps reappearing and the [original research?] tag disappearing. That wasn't my point. I'm simply comparing 2 French people with the same name, one a sportsman (poor sources) one a writer (good sources). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you are comparing like with like - Morrison Waite himself was a nineteenth century public figure and Frederic Vitoux a twenty-first century public figure. In the nineteenth century (and earlier), officials did not always ascertain the "correct" spelling of a persons name (whatever we mean by that) - illiterates did not know (or maybe even care) about the "correct" spelling. Even literates were not that concerned - I understand that even William Shakespeare was inconsistent in the way that he spelt his name. Martinvl (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The English language is notoriously inconsistent... this is especially true when it comes to spelling non-English names. English language sources often leave out accent marks that are included in non-English language sources... this isn't "wrong" or "incorrect", it's just a different spelling standard.
The important thing is that whichever variation we choose, we should create redirects using the other alternatives... and prominently note those alternatives (usually done in the very first sentence of the article), so readers who are expecting to find it spelled in using another variation know they have arrived at the correct article. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry please forget names my bad - I realise that English speakers are notoriously inconsistent; think of another subject: Where in the page is guidance about using a source only for what it is reliable for? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is perhaps the largest gaping hole in wp;ver. We need metrics that include knowledge and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. And the hole works both ways. Many sources that don't meet the "wp:rs" criteria are very reliable on the items which cited them. But wikilawyer POV warriors who want the material gone can attack the source anyway to knock the material out. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So there is no guidance about using a source only for what it is reliable for? That at least explains why I couldn't find it.... In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the content guideline WP:Identifying reliable sources.  Some key points related to inaccuracy are summarized in an appendix at the essay WP:InaccuracyUnscintillating (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm familiar with the first, in my view it doesn't clearly state that sources are only reliable in their area. An editor who believes (example above simply because it's on my mind at the moment and too lazy to think back to earlier) that Tiddlywinks Quarterly is an au ·thor·i·ta·tive. (ə-ˈthär-ə-ˌtā-tiv) guide to the surnames of Lithuanian tiddlywinks champions will look at WP:IRS and be none the wiser. Wikipedia:Inaccuracy I hadn't seen. Interesting. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The particular dispute is probably only going to be resolved when people start getting blocked for slow-motion and pointy edit warring, but the answer to the stated question is "in the second sentence of the introduction", which requires sources to be "appropriate". It is not appropriate, for example, to determine the spelling of Person A's name by looking at sources that do not mention Person A even once. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this if you want but,

How funny would it be to find a 'needs citation' tag here? Jaredjeya (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-publishing companies

After several discussions at the Reliable sources noticeboard involving self-published sources, we've created:

Editors are welcomed to help expand and improve both of these. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A less Herculean proposal

The proposal for a section about accuracy seems to have both serious support and serious opposition. I agree with Blueboar's comment that both sides in this discussion have valid points.

I also think there is actually quite a lot of common ground. E.g. I don't think anyone really wants to stop statements like "Dewey defeats Truman" from getting mentioned in WP, and I don't think anyone really wants a statement like that to be placed on a par with the proposition that Truman won the election against Dewey.

How to begin to address the concerns both of people who have supported an accuracy section and people who have opposed one?

A point made by a number of people, is that many if not all of the concerns of people who want an accuracy section can be addressed through WP:NPOV and its section on due weight. Well, there is already a section in the WP:V policy about how verifiability relates to NPOV. Perhaps that section can be expanded a little?

Here is my suggestion:

That the existing section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, be expanded to read as follows (changed bits in bold)...

 ===Neutrality===

All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

Even if information has cited, reliable sources, the information should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice if it is contradicted by sources of similar or greater weight. Instead use in-text attribution. E.g. In a case where two rival viewpoints are supported by sources of roughly equal weight, we could say: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by inline citations.

Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Format tweak, bold instead of itals for changes. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this seems to relate more to WP:NPOV, and not to verifiability. In fact, WP:RS/AC clearly addresses the issue of academic consensus, etc. And the explicit requirement for the use of the type of "weight meter" mentioned here will result in confusion, unless there are specifically calibrated devices for that purpose. It seems to me that the existing policies already cover these issues and adding any more will unnecessarily complicate matters. History2007 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest another better way to begin to address the concerns of both sides in the discussion about an accuracy section? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both verifiability and "no original research" are ultimately policies detailing the way to comply with the Neutrality pillar, so they aren't really different things. I largely agree with the text above as a way to clarify existing policy. I don't think it introduces anything new, except the emphasis in weighting sources; but then that's already included in WP:DUE since "the prominence of each viewpoint" must be evaluated according to existing sources. Expanding this weighing of sources could be done in a similar way to how Notability is evaluated. Diego (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like this better than any of the earlier proposals. I think it appropriately clarifies the interaction between relevant policies. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I can only agree with the part about this not having anything new. There are problems there:
  • The link to WP:WEIGHT does not apply in this context as a "weight meter" of sorts for evaluating one WP:RS book published by one publisher vs another.
  • The issue of WP:RS/AC seems to be ignored. That is a well written and key policy.
  • The issue of "error" discussed below has not been addressed. Attempts at defining error will in the end lead to a definition of the T-word as stated below.
I think there need not be an attempt at modifying policy for the sake of making it less Herculean . Maybe Hercules deserves a rest. History2007 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to points made by History2007
  • "Wikipedia's voice" is not a new term. The core policy WP:NPOV says that uncontested factual assertions should be stated "in Wikipedia's voice", while opinions should not be. The meaning is apparent from the examples given there.
  • I agree that weight is not about evaluating one RS against another. The proposal talks about "sources", plural. It also links to the existing policy where weight is explained.
  • I agree that WP:RS/AC is well worded. Although, it's actually a guideline rather than a policy. But do you see it as contradicting what WP:NPOV says about need to distinguish between majority views, significant minority views, and those held by a very small minority only?
  • This proposal doesn't contain the word "error". Why should it define a term it doesn't use? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So point by point:

* "Wikipedia's voice" is used in WP:NPOV but has no definition there, and needs a link and clear statement in any case. A first time reader can not be expected to know which page to look at find it.
  • I am still not happy with the use of the WP:WEIGHT as some type of measuring device. Again, looking at Saltwater and freshwater economics if 70% are salt water, does that give them more than "roughly equal weight"? Will saltwater become the definition of accepted economic policy? That type of "weight meter" seems to be a problem in many, many cases, economics being a good example where hard and sciences collide.
  • WP:RS/AC is a very useful guide for determining the status of modern scholarship. Indeed it deserves to be restated within a policy page, rather than overshadowed by it elsewhere. I have often found WP:RS/AC to be the approach to use for dealing with summary statements by scholars who have surveyed the field. And therein lies the difference: When professor X surveys the field and says "most economists believe A" that has the advantage of having been surveyed by an expert. Any (and I mean any) attempt at allowing Wikipedia editors to use their own surveying methods to determine if "most economists believe A" rather than the WP:RS/AC approach is an invitation to disaster. Wikipedia editors at large can not be expected to know the breadth of the field to survey it and determine what the WP:RS/AC approach determines. That is a really fundamental problem that should be avoided. It will be a serious pitfall to allow editors to perform literature surveys outside the WP:RS/AC approach.
  • I mentioned error, because in the section below, it was cited as a key issue in these proposals. This does avoid the term error, however, as you said.

The other issue is that some of this is just too obviously covered by others e.g.

  • "All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." not a restatement of existing policy? Is there something new about "NPOV must be followed"?
  • Is "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say." Is this really a part of NPOV rather than WP:V? What does it have to do with verifiability? It seems to be about neutrality.

So beside those two, the middle portion is what remains, and that has the problems I mentioned above about salt/freshwater issues and the fundamental WP:RS/AC issue. History2007 (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood how my proposal compares to the current WP:V policy page. The two paragraphs you've criticised as "just too obviously covered by others" are actually in this policy page already! I included them in the box above simply to give context. If you really think they are not appropriate to be on this policy page, please propose a change to take them out! I will think further about your other points and make another posting soon.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that all sounded familiar... That was why I said nothing new. So what is new here, just the middle part that uses weights? In any case, the WP:RS/AC issue still remains. History2007 (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically yes, it is just the middle part that is new, and not all of that. The new bits are in bold.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so my comment remains that the two other parts are not really new, and the middle part problems were discussed at length just above. History2007 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is intentional that there is not much new in this proposal. That is what I meant be describing it as "less Herculean".
I made the proposal because WP:V
  • already mentions in the intro that the 3 core policies, WP:V, NOR and NPOV work together to determine content.
  • already has a short section re neutrality and due weight,
I thought it would help clarity to say just a sentence or two here about how WP:V and WP:NPOV work together to determine content -- WP:WEIGHT being an integral part of WP:NPOV.
You've said that WP:WEIGHT should not be used like a measuring device. OK. How do you think WP:WEIGHT should be used? Or are you suggesting that it shouldn't be used at all?
Re: "Wikipedia's voice". An example would be if a WP article contained the statement (without quote marks): The Earth is in orbit around the Sun. This would still be an instance of "Wikipedia's voice" even if supported by a citation in a footnote. It is different from in-text attribution, an example of which would be: Smith argues that the star Proxima C. is in orbit around Alpha C., but Jones maintains the two stars are gravitationally independent. Perhaps examples like this should be included on the page, or in a footnote about footnotes.
Re: Saltwater/Freshwater. My reading of WP:WEIGHT is this... Given that there are two major schools of economic theory, both must be mentioned, and their key arguments fairly presented. Wikipedia can't endorse or reject either school, because that would violate neutrality. On the other hand, it should pay somewhat more attention to the majority view than to the minority one. Because the aim (as the policy states) is to present views "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject".
To do this, logically you need to have some idea which view actually is the majority view... Another question you've raised is whether WP editors do this by surveying the literature themselves, or do they do it by looking for an expert who says something like "the current majority view among economists is..." ?
You don't think Wikipedia editors should do their own literature surveys, and probably you're right... Better to rely on the experts... Yet even experts can occasionally overstate the extent to which their colleagues agree with them, so should we perhaps look at what a range of experts say about were the majority is? In which case we are again doing a sort of literature survey of our own...
Interesting as these questions are, the fact remains that right now, WP:WEIGHT is an integral part of WP:NPOV, which is a core policy. As such, it is applicable to all information in mainspace, whether the information is backed by a citation or not.
And yet I have seen cases where a WP editor puts in citation-backed information, and then gets surprised, frustrated and disconcerted when another editor raises issues about due weight. This is the sort of misunderstanding I'd like to avoid. That is where my proposal is coming from.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's important to address a comment that Kalidasa 777 made, when they said "I don't think anyone really wants to stop statements like "Dewey defeats Truman" from getting mentioned in WP" I think that not only was that statement in error, but that it would cause us to ignore what is probably the most common type of protracted problem. To carry that example further, there are both Dewey lovers and Truman haters would would like having that statement in there, wikilawyer to keep it in, and who would refuse to discuss whether it is true or false, say that editors are not allowed to discuss whether it is true or false, and would say that it is not the editors job or purview to judge what wp:reliable sources say. North8000 (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that certain people want to present "Dewey defeats Truman", not just as a quote from a headline, but as a plain statement? I wonder... Still, if you're right, North, doesn't drawing more attention to WP:WEIGHT offer a way of countering them? How does the weight of a single newspaper report compare to all the other sources, include later reports in the same newspaper, that say the opposite? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a new idea for a proposal with the same intent as this one, but without some of the wording issues, e.g. how to define "Wikipedia's voice". See the new section below, with the heading "Small expansion of existing section 'neutrality'". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second: how is "Wikipedia's voice" undefined? Writer's voice isn't any kind of Wikipedia specific terminology (incidentally, our Writer's voice article really sucks). This is the kind of wonkery that happens when these policy things are over thought (which is what's driving this entire discussion, by the way).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I thought, myself, that the meaning of "Wikipedia's voice" was clear enough, which was why I included those words in the draft at the top of this thread. However, History2007 saw a problem with using those words without defining them. If the meaning is not self-evident to History2007, probably there are lots of other people to whom it will not be self-evident either.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there though, is that this train of thought can (and too often is) be taken on just about anything in policy. There have been people adding specific definitions of words in policy for a couple of years now. Nobody used to worry about this kind of thing because... well, frankly, it doesn't matter, but there is definitely a subset of "policy wonks" who have recently decided to try making policy more like legislation (sorry, but someone's gotta speak frankly about this stuff at some point). In general, we should be going in the opposite direction (meaning, simplifying policies). So, my point is simply this: let's get away from defining things that can be linked.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we should be going in the direction of simplifying policies. That's why in the proposal below (under the heading "Small expansion of existing section 'neutrality'") I have neither defined "Wikipedia's voice" nor left it undefined. I just didn't use it. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Verifiability policy say anything regarding errors in reliable sources?

Seems like this is the question that needs to be decided before any work is done on this, or proposals considered.

Should the Verifiability policy say anything regarding errors in reliable sources?

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

That would be part of this discussion. How would you define it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The definition would ultimately lead to an attempted definition of the T-word... These issues have been discussed in formal logic for years, truth, provability, satisfaction, etc. Not a trivial issue, and probably not one to be replayed. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and if we rely on "tiny minority" in UNDUE to gauge inclusion or not, we don't need to bother trying to come to a consensus on what is accurate or true--we simply describe what everything else treats as correct. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the conclusion from that, i.e. current policy seems to handle it. History2007 (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a very useful subset of that would be that if, in the discussions, a case is made that it is inaccurate, and NO editor asserts that it is accurate, it should not get used. While this may seem obvious, it would help a great deal. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are times when otherwise reliable sources make statements which are later found to be unsupportable, or errors. Also, some sensationalist sources make statements which have little if any support as well, though they might otherwise qualify as RS's. Something regarding the matter in general would be quite useful. John Carter (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does "should not get used" mean "should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice", or does it mean "should not be mentioned at all"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the package "unsupportable, or errors" in John's statement is not uniform. Unsupportable may mean via reasoning/inference/evaluation, while "error" implies a deviation from some concept of "truth" - the term to avoid, of course. History2007 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer the question, WP:V is silent on the issue of truth, "or errors in reliable sources".  Perhaps it needs to be explicit that it is silent.  Somehow two opposing forces rally in support of keeping WP:V ambiguous about the silence.  These two groups are (1) those that consider reliable sources to be a "good-enough" or a sufficient source of truth, and (2) people concluding that because WP:V is deliberately silent on truth, editors throughout Wikipedia should be deliberately silent, or silenced, on the issue of truth.  Both groups appeal to expediency, sometimes with hyperbole, regarding the costs in a world in which Wikipedia editors freely discuss the accuracy of sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my concern has not been the silence of WP:V on truth, but the observation that WP:V has worked so very well so far. Wikipedia is far from the Ministry of Truth, and it has worked so well so far. It is in fact impressive how well WP:V has worked. History2007 (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating is arguing a tautology however: How does one decide if a source is reliable or not? Sources which have a reputation to be trusted to report the world as it is, accurately are considered reliable. If saying truth bothers you, fine, don't use that word. But the concept of using reliable sources (and of not using unreliable sources) is problematic when we need to know by what standard a source is considered reliable. I know that, to a first approximation, we don't actually make that judgement ourselves; we consider reliable sources which have a reputation for reliability, but upon what does that reputation rest? It rests on the source being trusted to be accurate, by the "world-at-large", and thus also by Wikipedia. We cannot ignore the difference between accuracy and inaccuracy (i.e. on information being correct or wrong) in one breath, and then demand that reliable sources are distinct from unreliable ones on the basis of the source's ability to make that same judgement. If we can't say that actual facts exist, and that errors exist, how can we say which sources are to be trusted enough to use as the basis for information at Wikipedia? Logical positivism aside, this is a matter of pragmatic concern: Unscintillating seems to be saying that we should not be placing values on what reliable sources say, but we place that same value when we accept them as reliable in the first place. If a source says something which is demonstratably wrong, it isn't reliable for reporting that idea, and thus that information from that source should be discounted. It is as simple as that. --Jayron32 05:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several things here

@History2007: as demonstrated by my self and several other editors there seems to be a new bread of editor coming to Wikipedia. For this new breed of editor Verifiability is truth and they will claim if you have a source that conflicts with their it is somehow unreliable and throw out OR, SYN, DUE or anything other policy they can latch on to basically ignore there is a conflict usually to the detriment of WP:NPOV. The really sad part is sometimes their supposed reliable source isn't. (see Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Sources_for_the_article and my Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Careful_with_some_of_these_soucres as well as IMHO somewhat POV pushing borderline delusional twaddle that tried to refute the points I brought up for a piece of THAT nonsense--the repeated claim that clearly SPS source wasn't was particularly aggravating).

The amount of effort and time spent in dealing some of the nonsense I and several other editors had to endure regarding articles such as Rorschach test, Multi-level marketing, and Weston Price shows that WP:V is in serious need of improvement.

@Jayron32 "demonstratably wrong" is a rarity and many claims are POV based. That was the whole point Horace Miner's famous 1955 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" article--if you let your preassumptions drive your information gathering and interpretations you will find exactly what you were looking for.

For example, one of the problems with the Focal infection theory article is that the definition for FIT was ridiculously broad (a local infection affecting a small area of the body can lead to subsequent infections or symptoms in other parts of the body due either to the spread of the infectious agent itself or toxins produced from it). Under that definition uberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps[19] as well as conditions idiopathic scrotal gangrene[. angioneurotic edema, and untreated tooth abscess would qualify as examples of FIT. This would make 2002 Ingle's Endodontics 5th edition claim of "(i)n the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection" demonstrably wrong--until you realize that it is presenting the version Meinig had rather than the one that Price was actually using so you have a GIGO situation with this source. It wasn't "demonstratably wrong" per say in that the material it used as the basis was presenting a flawed picture.

GIGO is the problem with the Weston Price article as modern sources are using how others like Meinig have presented Price's work rather than going back to what Price himself wrote. As a result older works rather than newer ones are more accurate regarding Price.

New section, to come after the existing section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, as follows:
== Source Conflict and Clear-cut inaccuracy ==

Verifiable sources in of themselves can present certain POVs and there are times when they will conflict with each other. Such conflicts do not automatically mean that one or more sources are "inaccurate" and are best handled via WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE.

However there are rare occasions via criteria very similar to WP:DUCK where an otherwise Verifiable source can be proven through other reliable sources to contain factually inaccurate information. This can range from things like the famous Dewey defeats Truman headline to typos that create historical impossibilities such B52s (first flight in 1952) existing during General MacArthur's occupation of Japan (1945-1951) as presented in the book American Shogun.

In such cases simple belief that verifiable information is inaccurate is not enough to justify its removal. Evidence in the form of reliable sources that proves beyond a reasonable doubt, through Clear and convincing evidence, or via Preponderance of the evidence that the information being sited is factually wrong must be presented. This is so discussion regarding source reliability and due weight, rather simply deciding on the personal views of Wikipedia editors can occur and a consensus reached.

This consensus can range from rewriting how the material is presented (preferable) to the removal of the demonstrably factually incorrect information.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia, Inaccurate information, When experts disagree, and Conflict between sources.

is a better way to handle things IMHO.

1) It points out that Verifiable sources can conflict but that conflicts are more likely POV then any of the source being "wrong"

2) It direct readers to the relevant polices and their notice board on how the handle these conflicts

3) Finally it set forth that you must provide reliable sources to argue that a source is factually inaccurate in the talk page (per discussion. You don't discuss things on the article page.)

If anybody has a better Idea let's hear it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "thank you" and a "more power to you" to you and everyone trying to tackle this Hurclean task. Now, to nitpick, what if the error is a statement that is so implausible that no other source has addressed it? North8000 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement Bruce made "for this new breed of editor Verifiability is truth" and the text that follow it is tantamount to discarding the core of WP:V. Hence this suggestion is not just a new paragraph, but in effect a path to the abandonment of the core of WP:V - an issue that was the subject of a pretty substantial RFC and went the other way, based on the views of a large number of editors. If someone is unhappy with the result of the previous RFC, this is not the way to remedy it. History2007 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"it set forth that you must provide reliable sources to argue that a source is factually inaccurate." - that is only if you want to argue inside the article that a source is wrong. In other words, if an artile says "Smith is wrong" then the article has to have a source for that. But no specific source is needed to remove something from an article, and editors on talk pages are most effective when they use both sources and their own understanding of the material of the article. WP:V does not apply to talk page discussions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a specific example, there are many crank papers that are clearly wrong, but nobody will bother to say that in print. So we cannot say in our article "this is a crank paper" or "this is wrong" but we can just remove the crank paper from the article entirely without needing any sources that say it's a crank paper. There is no way that this sort of editorial judgment can be eliminated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carl's point about the "set forth that" item. However, regarding total removal, WP:PRESERVE does come into play, as mentioned further above. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@History2007 I don't understand your "tantamount to discarding the core of WP:V" claim. Wikipedia:IRS which lays out how you determine what sources meet Verifiability has NOT been touched. Heck, given the planned position of this "Source Conflict and Clear-cut inaccuracy" section you have to go through WP:BURDEN, WP:SOURCES, WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:NOTRS, WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:CIRCULAR, and WP:REDFLAG long BEFORE you would even get to it.
@Carl: Let's be real here. Just how many crank papers are going to meet WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCES or not fall under WP:NOTRS or WP:SPS? Darn few.
And for the few that do (such as K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843) they are crushed under WP:Weight ("Clinical Trials (2003-2007)) if not refuted by later studies (such as Linde, K, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6; Ernst E, et al. Meta -analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet. 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):366 and "The end of homoeopathy" The Lancet, Vol. 366 No. 9487 p 690. The Vol. 366 No. 9503 issue (Dec 27, 2005)
IMHO all you gave were a pathetic scare tactic strawmen who I have effectively made to watch a 24-hour Barney marathon before I finally put them out of its and our misery by setting them ablaze.
Give rational arguments again this change not scare tactic stuff that looks like the rantings of Joseph McCarthy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations rather than prescriptive

One way to make this Herculean task less Herculean might be to lay out and acknowledge a few considerations rather than trying to be prescriptive. Such might be:

  1. Sometimes sources which meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria provide information which is in error or is badly biased. Depending on circumstances, such material should often be left out, attributed or balanced.
  2. Various mechanisms exist to judge the situation and implement the solution. These include policies such as wp:nopv, editor discussions including input from editor's knowledge (note that this knowledge is being used to leave out material, NOT to override wp:ver to include material), editor discretion, RFC's etc.
  3. There are a few special situations where policy mandates inclusion of questionable material. For example, wp:npov does so where there are significant opposing views. Otherwise, the processes described under #2 are allowed to decide to leave out material.

North8000 (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but the current policy is brief and general. The process of adding "special provisions" to community norms in any community (online or otherwise) in the end generates documents as complex as the tax code. That is not the way Wikipedia editors can handle or interpret policy. History2007 (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is acknowledging and legitimizing the normal processes, not setting up new ones. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I do not see it that way, as I mentioned above. History2007 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see how any of this helps us get rid of "threshold" or the toxic triad, North8000. We're getting diverted and bogged down in details, again.—S Marshall T/C 11:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my mind, this whole thing is a "side trip" that is not working on the main topic. Probably a good side trip. But I think that your point is that with this we've stopped working on the main topic. Good point. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(RE: I don't really see how any of this helps us get rid of "threshold" or the toxic triad)... The goal (for the majority of us) is not to "get rid of" specific language... the goal is to clarify the policy re verifiable sources that are inaccurate. We know some people think that the best way to do this is to "get rid of" certain language... but (and this is important) we also know that others strongly disagree with this idea.
It should be clear by now that any proposals to "get rid of" language that so many people like will be rejected. So... the only route to consensus is to clarify the policy while retaining the language people want. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean "some people want". Actually the only route to consensus is to stop people stalling and filibustering.—S Marshall T/C 19:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds way too much like: "The only route to consensus is for everyone to stop disagreeing with me". And while I suppose that is one route to consensus, it is far from the only one... nor is it a very realistic one. A far more realistic route to consensus is for us to find the middle ground... to find a way to clarify the policy while retaining the language that a LOT of people want. Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should develop the 4-5 proposals (including the old fall 2011 version), and then, in a sound way (that avoids splitting the "vote" problems), see what people think is best. This accuracy topic is great but a different topic that should not stop progress. North8000 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blueboar, I do think that the RFC led to a clear majority and I think that users should accept the will of the majority without further delay. There isn't going to be a consensus on this because users don't change their minds on the subject, so a majority vote is the way to break the deadlock. However, Wikipedia's bizarre consensus rules permit infinite stalling and filibustering to prevent that from happening.—S Marshall T/C 08:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in sources — Summary 1

So far, one message (John Carter 23:58, 24 April 2012) has directly addressed the question at the beginning of the section. Other responses are unclear regarding answering the question. Feel free to add here your version of a summary of the discussion so far. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps I did not manage to make myself clear there, but as stated just below, error is the other side of the "coin of truth", truth being something that may be free of errors whatever they may be, and vice versa. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in sources — continued 1

Should the Verifiability policy say anything regarding errors in reliable sources? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, an attempt to define "error" will in the end lead to an attempt to make a definition of "truth". Hence that issue should be handled upfront as a question of "verifiability vs truth" rather couched in terms of the derivative concept error, as a deviation from some concept of truth. History2007 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand your point. Suggest using a dictionary's definition of error. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Wiktionary: "An accidental wrong action or a false statement not made deliberately" as the first item, then others. And as you see it includes the term "false" which then immediately leads to the T-word. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help if I gave my answer to the question.

  • Yes — There should be guidance for cases: (1) where there is questionable material in a reliable source and (2) where an editor makes a questionable conclusion that material in a reliable source is incorrect and should not be added to Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circular definition loop: I am sorry but we are in the circular definition loop now. The term questionable is now appearing as a surrogate for "perceived error", etc. So until you define questionable, then we have the Indy500 loop around the issue. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Let's see what others have to say about it, or preferably how others answer the main question. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you have not explained why questionable, perceived error, perceived truth etc. are not inherently linked. History2007 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, starting with the simplest case; of these three from an essay:

To discuss this we must dispose of a common red herring which confuses matters of opinion with matters of fact and from that argues "there is no such thing as accuracy/truth" To do that we must understand what the three cases are:
  1. The metrics of a correct answer are agreed upon, but the answer is not agreed upon or known: E.g., "Where did Amelia Earhart's final flight end?" Another way to say this is that if full information were available, all reasonable parties would certainly agree.
  2. The metrics of a correct answer are agreed on, and the answer is overwhelmingly considered to be known. (like at least 99% of people with good access to information agree) Regarding metrics, for "Did the US land a man on the moon?" 99% would agree what "land a man on the moon" means, and for "Who won the 2010 Super Bowl?" 99% would agree what "win the Super Bowl" means.
  3. The metrics of a correct answer are not agreed upon (how do you define "good" and "bad") nor is the answer. Example: "Is Obama a good or bad president?"

#2 is the simplest case and a good one to deal with first, i.e. something where #2 is the case, and is determined to be factually wrong per the standard set in #2. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes - The policy should briefly outline the following: 1) Accuracy is a goal - we want the statements we write in our articles to be accurate. 2) We do this by basing what we write on reliable sources (an aspect of verifiability). 3) If we suspect that a source contains a factual error... we achieve accuracy by presenting the the information as a attributed opinion, and not as an accepted fact (after all, it is accurate that the source said it... even if what the source said is in error). 5) However, once we have done this, we must also assess how much WEIGHT to give that opinion (and that assessment may result in giving it no weight at all, thus omitting the opinion). Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again we need to make sure to explain there there is a world of difference between an actual factual error and different in POV.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Query, @ History2007. I've been reading and reading and re-reading through this, and I can;t seem to find any actual suggestions from you as to how to address what definitely is, in some cases, a problem. I may have totally missed it, as I'm definitely not at my best, but (forgive me if I'm wrong), all I can find is no, no, no, no ... etc. Without any fresh argument, just "no", repeatedly. Was I wrong? Did you have a constructive, forward-moving suggestion which I have missed? Pesky (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree with your assessment of History2007's posts. So far all I have seen are implausible (not to mention impossible) Camel's_nose strawmans arguments that if anything IMHO more resemble the ravings of McCarthyism then any real or valid arguments.
  • Comment Unfortunately, we do have, in the general population of Wikipedia editors, a small proportion who seem to be inherently incapable of applying what is generally known as "common sense". For those editors, we need to have some kind of a guideline as to what to do with clear-cut inaccuracy in an otherwise-reliable source. I'm talking about the kind of inaccuracy where it is readily apparent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that, in terms of absolute fact (as opposed to philosophical wossnames), that a published source is, plain and simple, wrong about something. Pesky (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given I and several editors have provided evidence of such behavior WHY in the saniy do we even have to point this out AGAIN?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of thing sounds reasonable, doesn't it? However, this is exactly the kind of thing that should be removed from the policy. I know that what I'm saying is a bit counter-intuitive, but bear with me for a second here. The problem is that when this kind of guidance it given the people who are "problems" (you know, the targets of such guidance) read the examples in such a way that the examples become all encompassing. In other words, by providing specifics the policy implies that anything not specifically mentioned is OK. I see it all the time any more, where people claim "but this isn't what the policy is talking about!", which all comes from the endless examples that people have been adding to policies and guidelines over the years.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Non sequitur (logic) as all the other core parts of WP:V are still untouched. If another major point of silliness can be eliminated when why shouldn't WP:V be improved? Fuzzy wuzzy fear mongering Camel nosed claim of "of if we do this BAD things will happen" are not valid counter arguments. We have a clear problem--so we try and FIX it not going "everything's fine" like that politician in Make mine Freedom.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it's not eliminating anything, and actually adding to the problem. I realize that we don't agree, and I don't really expect convince you, but I hope that you're at least willing to listen to the concerns of others.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re your comment "In other words, by providing specifics the policy implies that anything not specifically mentioned is OK." — Could you give more explanation about how that applies here? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition to the section Burden of evidence

Proposal to add the following paragraph to the end of the section Burden of evidence of WP:V.

To remove material that has an inline citation to a reliable source, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wants to remove it. If the removal is disputed, consensus is required for the removal.

The section would then look like the following.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[1] Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[2]
To remove material that has an inline citation to a reliable source, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wants to remove it. If the removal is disputed, consensus is required for the removal.
Notes
  1. ^ It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}.
  2. ^ Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. My error. I withdraw the proposal as is and will think about it some more, and try to find a fix. Or maybe someone else will have a suggestion of how to fix it. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a burden on the remover, I would say it is to state why they are removing it (in either an edit summary or on the talk page). It's not a "burden of evidence"... but a "burden of explanation" (and if contested, persuasion). However, this is not necessarily a Verifiability issue. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. The situation I was trying to address was where an editor removes sourced material because, according to the editor's reasoning, the information in the reliable source is incorrect. In that situation, it seems like the editor should have the burden of evidence for removal and should require consensus if the removal is disputed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN is talking about challenges where someone thinks unsourced material is unverifiable... not challenges where someone thinks material is inaccurate. (yes, it is less likely that someone will challenge unverifiable material that they think is accurate... but it can and does happen occasionally). When someone challenges whether material is verifiable, the only way to counter that challenge is to "prove" that the material is in fact verifiable (by providing a source). Hence the Burden on those who wish to add or retain the information.
The question of accuracy is a different and distinct issue from the question of verifiability. There is no one-sided burden on anyone to "prove" that a source is accurate or inaccurate. Such debates can only be resolved through discussion and consensus (ie persuasion). In most cases, such debates can be resolved by rewording the material (phrasing it as attributed "opinion" and not as accepted "fact".) In other words, by presenting the challenged information... accurately. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is where we disagree. I think that a reliable source has more weight than an editor's opinion or analysis. So if an editor wants to remove sourced material because the editor thinks the reliable source is wrong, then I think the editor should bear the burden of evidence for the removal. If the removal is disputed then there would need to be a consensus for the removal before the material could be removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small expansion of existing section "Neutrality"

That the existing section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, be expanded to read as follows (changed wording in bold)...

 ===Neutrality===

Even when information is verifiable and backed by a citation, it must also be presented in a way which complies with the Wikipedia neutrality policy (WP:NPOV), including what that policy says about due weight. The NPOV policy requires all articles to represent fairly all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.

Notes:

  • This proposals is intended to clarify how the two policies, WP:V and NPOV, work together.
  • I've tried to avoid any problematic language, or any new terms that might require definition.
  • This proposal is not meant to end discussion about whether or not WP:V should mention accuracy, inaccuracy, error.
  • What it says is (I think) obvious to anyone who has read through both WP:V and NPOV and thought seriously about the principles they contain.
  • Even so, it can do not harm to spell this out... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like this... good suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 26 April 2012

Well that's three of us who've expressed support for this smallish clarification, with nil objections! See also the thread above "A less Herculean proposal", where Diego and Jclemens expressed support for a similar-in-principle suggestion, while History2007 raised concerns which have been taken on board in the wording of this one. Would someone with admin rights like to make the edit now? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make that somewhat shorter please? As you said, given that it does not say anything new, there is no big deal and there were no objections. But as policies get longer, the number of readers drop. I will not try to reword it, but I suggest you do that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That the existing section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, be expanded to read as follows (changed wording in bold)...

 ===Neutrality===

Even when information is verifiable to a reliable source, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality policy and due weight. Neutrality requires all articles to represent fairly all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.

Is one source enough to say a fact is verifiable?

Obviously, there is no "correct" answer to this question, as the answer depends on the quality of the source ... but... I think this is a question that relates to our discussions on accuracy, and worth discussing. Ideally, we should encourage editors to triple check information before they add it to an article, by reading what multiple sources say. They would then know whether to present the information as "fact" or as "opinion". If more editors did this, it would at least lower the likelihood of inaccurate material being introduced because they read it somewhere. Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think in some cases, it may be "enough" if the source is really high authority, e.g. a Nobel laureate writing on their own topic. In other cases, I have always tried to add more than one source and I think users should be certainly be encouraged to add more than one source. But in reality we are lucky these days if we even have a single reliable source. As posted above, a List of self-publishing companies came about the other day and it is amazing how widely they are used. So we could talk about sources, verifiability etc. but in the trenches self-published sources (and even worse blog websites) are spreading all over the place. So we should encourage this but the situation on the ground is far from ideal. History2007 (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As long as it is God making the statement. But then you might need to prove to us that its actually God. (and not a space-dwelling imposter) But in all seriousness, if only one source is discussing the item, you need not worry about verifiability, because its probably not WP:NOTABLE yet. -- Avanu (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note that debate continues and many people are still trying to figure out what God actually said, and who his original publisher was... kidding, of course. But in the case of solid author, I do not think a single WP:RS reference should be disallowed. History2007 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Avanu, I read the question as asking if a single fact can properly be verified by a single source; one or both of us is misunderstanding the original question. If I understand the question correctly, I'd say that the proper answer is "almost always". I counted exactly five situations in which multiple citations were presented for the same piece of information in today's featured article; I might have overlooked some of them, but the large majority of information relies on citations to just one source at a time. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I need to revise my answer a bit as well. You can 'say' a fact is verifiable without even having one source. WP:V explicitly says you can put material into an article without any attribution whatsoever. The problem comes when another editor (or reader perhaps) asks you to verify the item. So, if you say, well, here is ONE source. Ha! I have verified that... case closed! And they say...no, sorry I still don't think that's good enough, then rinse and repeat until a CONSENSUS of editors say it is verified to their satisfaction. So the right answer is, if nobody complains, awesome. Otherwise, get consensus. Also, don't call things 'facts'. It confuses the philosophers. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is best handled on a case by case basis though you could argue that WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE would keep such flash in the pan references out of most articles. Odds are if only one source is talking about this information then you are likely looking at something that is WP:FRINGE--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify ... I am not talking about the number of sources editors should cite ... I am talking about how much research editors should do before they can determine that some bit of information is a fact (as opposed to an opinion, or an unintended error).
This isn't something we will be able to mandate in the Policy... we obviously can not say "You must find X number of sources that all agree that Y is a fact before you present Y as a fact in an article." But I think it would help if we encouraged editors to double check and read multiple sources, and not to rely on just one single source. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again I must ask how do WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE not currently fit this bill?--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they do... but, WP:V could do a better job of explaining how. Remember that WP:V is often the very first policy that new editors are pointed to... thus it needs (I think) to spend some extra time pointing new editors to relevant policies and explaining how those polices and guidelines affect the concept of verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need how WP:V and WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, Etc should work together but is WP:V itself really the place we want to do such things? Personally WP:V should have a little blub basically saying 'you can run into this situation but the details on how to address are provided in x, y, and z)' Let's not go Rube Goldberg on WP:V, ok?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One source is enough.  In Taquan Air, I could only find one Examiner source that stated that Sen. Ted Stevens (R Alaska) was float-plane qualified.  Examiner is blacklisted, but in many cases established authors write for Examiner, and upon petition, administrators at Wikipedia will remove the specific page from the Wikipedia blacklist.  They did so.  There is no reason to doubt that Sen. Stevens was float-plane qualified, he was a decorated WWII pilot, and float planes represented a valuable constituency as well as a useful mode of transportation.  One source is enough.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG is not a content guideline  The concept of wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article.  See also: [WP:N#Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article] and [:Category:Wikipedia content policies]Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPS section

In my experience, we've typically accepted self-published sources as useful beyond just themselves — we've accepted them as sources for information about their authors. For example, if we have reliable sources talking about someone known as a professional taste-tester, I expect that we'd accept that person's blog as a source for saying that the taste-tester enjoyed one taste more than anything else. Therefore, aside from the bad grammar that I noticed only after making the edit, what do you think of this change? I can't imagine that the point of this section is to say that the taste-tester's blog must not be used to write about the taste-tester and may be used only to write about the blog. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should apply to both the website/company and the author. Some authors form their own personal publishing company that just publishes their own 3 or 4 books - and at times it is not even obvious that they own the publisher, by the way. History2007 (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No disagreement there; I'm simply attempting to clarify that we're also permitting the SPS to cover the publisher and author, not just the publication itself. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with that. On that note, there are new lists for that, and it was suggested that they should be linked, as below. History2007 (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key bit is aligned interests. For example, a press kit about a company officer, published by that company is not a "third party" (impermissible) source within the meaning of SPS. While the company officer isn't necessarily the publisher in fact, there's a presumption of alignment of interests--the company will tell the corporate officer's story truthfully, because it is in everyone's best interests to do so. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I'm not clear how that's relevant to an attempt to say that an SPS may be used to write about its author and affiliates, rather than making it sound as if the SPS may only be used to write about the source document itself. Simply trying to reconcile the wording and our typical application thereof. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our definition of the term "source" at WP:IRS... the author is included in that definition. So, when we talk about a "self-published source" being acceptable for statements about "themselves", we include the author in the term "themselves". There is no need to change the policy to specify that authors are included. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I think the policy already does what you want it to do, and your proposed change seems to do the opposite of what you want. You changed "themselves" to "author(s)". To me, the new wording implies that it only applies to the author. For example, what if an organization publishes an article credited to a person. The new wording implies that the article can only be used for information about the person, not the organization. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two lists: List of self-publishing companies and WP:List of self-publishing companies that help users identify self-published books. On the village pump it was suggested that links be added to those lists from the relevant policy/guideline pages. I am therefore proposing a link to those lists from the self-publishing section here. If there is no opposition, could someone else add that link please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against it... we would run the risk of someone arguing that WP:SPS only applies to sources published by the companies on those lists. By the way... why do we need two lists? Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the WP:RSN talk page here you will see how it came about. The internal list includes the items not notable enough to be in the main page. Regarding the "only" concern, I added it to the lists that these are only "some" self-publishers and the list is far from exclusive, so that should no longer be a problem.
My main goal for adding a link here is to make people aware of the fact that the list exists at all, so they can reverse search for these publishers, avoid them, etc. Else the list will remain hidden and we will get 10,000 more references from these books. If you reverse search from these lists you will be surprised how widely they are used - and many people who find them on Google books do not even know they are self-published. Vantage Press sounds like an impressive name after all. History2007 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to guess, most of the time that a self-published book is misused, it's the result of one of two situations:
  • A newbie editor who simply doesn't know better.
  • A dedicated POV pusher.
In the first case, the newbie probably won't even be aware of WP:V or notice WP:List of self-publishing companies. So, I don't think that's much of a concern. In the second case, the issue can be resolved at WP:RSN and the company added to the list.

WP:List of self-publishing companies is pretty extensive. There's already 166 companies listed and I hope to add another 30 by the end of the week. If there are other companies not on the list, they can easily be added.

The hope is that by keeping such a list, editors will more easily be able to spot a self-published book.

The reason why we have two lists is that the one in article space is for notable companies and the one in Wikipedia space is for any self-publishing company regardless of notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had used a couple of them when I was not a newbie. I just found them on Google books and used them. I think I have changed hem all by now, but can not even be sure. And I know a very good editor who used one from Google books and changed it to another after I pointed it out. So all kinds of users can use them. Users just need to be informed.
By the way, as I just looked back as the Vantage Press page I had quickly built the other day, I saw that someone had added a Primary tag, I did another search and guess what: Vantage paid $3.5 million in damages to authors it had defrauded... So these people are worse than might seem at first if you look at their website... History2007 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History2007, your example goes into the fact that many people don't know how to fully use Google. Say I wanted to heighten my chance what I got was reliable. I would use add inpublisher:"University Press" the end of whatever I was looking for. Sure its not fool proof but it will limit the search results to those publishers with "University Press" in their name. Another less successful limiter is inpublisher:journal. Too many times people just throw stuff at google book and put where ever they find into articles.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchy of policies idea

The view I have always had regarding Verifiability is that it at the top of a Hierarchy--if you cannot meet it via WP:IRS then logically none of the other policies really come into play. By taking this approach we hopefully can shut down all the nonsensical arguments that we are somehow "weakening" WP:V because we separate the core (which we are NOT touching) of WP:V means that a reference meets WP:IRS from subordinate policies.

Even Wikipedia:Notability and WP:Fringe state you need a Reliable source to meet their criteria. So all this is and attempt as clarify that core not changing it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partially true (or rather, we're in partial agreement at least). I've always thought of verifiability as being on equal footing with the "no original research" policy and the "neutral point of view" policy. But the reliable sources guideline (I still don't like SlimVirgin's "Interpreting Reliable Sources" title, even a couple of years later :-/) is definitely in a supportive relationship to this document. Likewise, Notability and fringe are supportive as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oh yea, the main reason that I wanted to reply here is because this reminded me of an idea that I brought up elsewhere, about a month ago: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 87#Policy and guideline classification.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does one spell gridlock? To be approved, this approach would need to be accepted by multiple groups on multiple policy pages. I wonder if North and South Korea will have united before an agreement is reached there. History2007 (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technically if you look at the wording of the policies and guidelines this is the de facto case. Choose any policy or guideline and see how far you get before you hit Verifiability, OR, or Reliable Source. Go ahead do it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]