Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:11, 30 April 2012

Archives

/Archive 1 (Approx. steps 1-3) /Archive 2 (Approx. steps 4-5) /Archive 3 (Approx. step 6)

The Aspie/Autie thing

I've been formulating a user essay on this (see WP:AUTIE); one of the challenges we should consider is ensuring that whatever we write is sufficiently clear and unambiguous that it's easy for all our editors to understand. The Recommended reading section of that essay goes into more detailed information as to why this is necessary, and bearing in mind that we're highly likely to have a bigger-than-global-average percentage of autism-spectrum people here (WP is a honey trap for us!) it's something to consider. Pesky (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Like That's really good! Thank you for developing that essay, and for pointing out the issue in this context. It would be very helpful if you could take a look at each of the drafts coming out of Groups 2, 3, and 4, to see if anything needs to be written better in this regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Like" :o) But ... eeeeeeeeek! Probably not today; I'm having trouble keeping my brain in gear already! I'm recovering from major surgery on my neck, and full of opiate-based pain killers. I will try to get around to that at some point, but I can't guarantee anything deadline-compliant. Pesky (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

All the more kudos to you, considering what you are going through. Please accept my very sincere best wishes for a quick return to feeling fine. You are in my thoughts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice essay. Consider fuzzy logic and precise logic. Seems like a well functioning person can apply each when appropriate. Perhaps the aspy/autie has difficulty with fuzzy but is quite good at precise, whereas the average person is OK with fuzzy but has difficulties with precise. In Misplaced Pages, precise logic would correspond to the strict application of policies, whereas fuzzy logic would correspond to the application of WP:IAR.

Here's an excerpt from the animated film Mary and Max. Max is an aspy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, yes, that covers quite a lot of stuff. Of course, there's as much variety between Aspies and auties as there is in the whole of the neurotypical population, as well, and it's not a toggle thing - it's a continuum.

What North did, up above, was one of the best bridge-building things I have ever seen. It's fantastic. Running through what do do with specific scenarios makes such a huge difference, and wording it soooooo clearly and beautifully. Aspies and auties are very good at "precise", and are the most likely people on Earth to see where there's a discrepancy, or things are mutually exclusive. If we sit there thinking "wtf?" when faced with something, it's because there's a serious discordance somewhere in it. @Tryptofish: thank you! The actual surgery site is doing pretty well, but I had partial paralysis in many of my left shoulder and upper-back muscles, because the nerve signals just weren't getting through, and now, of course, they are ... and those muscles which had atrophied are now being (literally!) forced to work, all the time, and I expect you know what muscles feel like when that happens! And it's mostly the semi-automated, interactive muscles of the rotator cuff, which stabilise the shoulder joint, and all work together, so you just can't "choose" to rest one of them – if you move your arm at all, all the muscles come into action, regardless. Still, that burning thing is temporary, it will probably sort itself out within a few weeks. Pesky (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. All along I've thought that dealing with the (underlying logical) mechanics of policies in action has been the missing Rosetta stone of sorting out a lot of things here. North8000 (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is totally different in that you have well meaning editors falling into POV situations and not realizing it.

Horace Miner's deeply sarcastic 1955 Body Ritual among the Nacirema article demonstrates just how the views you went into could drive even the very nature of the supposedly "raw" data you were collecting. Carl Sagan stated in Cosmos that "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves." James Burke went further in Day the Universe Changed episode "Worlds without End" and showed how the very structure you use can effect what you think is valid data to begin with.

The Christ myth theory article is one such example where for a long time certain sources meeting WP:V were used to argue that other sources were not discussing the topic at hand and involved buckets of WP:SYN and POVing out the wazoo to claim that there was ONE Christ myth theory rather than what turned out to be a mish mash of closely related matters that at one time or another had that or closely related terms applied to them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Truth about POV stuff is that it's human nature to be blind to our own ... Pesky (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But this goes back to the whole Verifiability not truth issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll at work group one

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Group 1#Straw poll - including draft 0. I would be grateful if everyone could leave a comment there. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are we re-writing the lede?

Somewhere along the way, this mediation has taken on the task of rewriting the WP:V lede.  Has anyone stopped to ask why we are doing this?  Unless we know why we are re-writing the entire lede, we may be "condemned to repeat the past" going forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The core of it is what to do about VNT. I was asserting that possibly the compromise on this is already in place, but that view was not pursued /utilized. Unless that were agreed on and utilized, we still have the big question open and this is a good process to resolve it. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can make changes to VNT without rewriting what is around it. Even small changes ripple out and affect the rest of the lede. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Has anyone actually identified a real problem that needs to be solved? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to right now with the possible compromise in place, or the older version e.g. circa fall 2011? North8000 (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The question, at least in my mind, is what specifically is the purpose of using the mediation to do more than changes/clarification to:

Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Misplaced Pages; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable.

Unscintillating (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a very good question. I think I will leave it up to the participants here just how much they would like this mediation to cover. The main issue, of course, is VnT, but I do not want to outlaw making other improvements to the lede. The extent to which other aspects of the lede are covered here should be arrived at through consensus and discussion. A lot will depend on the final format that the RfC takes, I think. Please bear in mind that the RfC will include both drafts and discussion about VnT in general, although we won't know exactly what form it will take until we get there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour , —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

So...did anyone figure out the problem yet? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the focus needs to be what (if anything) to do about vnt. But the answer could include other changes in the lead. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The "problem" is simple... a lot of people have concerns about the VNT sentence, and want to address those concerns... but we can not agree on how to address those concerns. Mixed in to this is the fact that different editors have different concerns (and what is a concern to one editor isn't a concern to another). Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be rather hilarious if the outcome of this discussion were to be a decision to drop the mediation and RfC processes, and return the lead to the old version. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The chance of that outcome from this discussion is miniscule. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean, what problem are we trying to solve? IOW, which articles are being hurt by VnT and how will the rewriting the lede fix these articles? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There's about 300,000 words (my guess only) on the problems in the 2011 wp:ver talk page archives. Of course, those are by the person who say that the problems exist. Other folks say that they don't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Those 300,000 words were so totally focused on the first sentence of WP:V that we have dedicated archives for such at WT:V/First sentence.  So those 300,000 words are all evidence that there is no need to be re-writing the lede here.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a lot of words, but whenever I try to ask what the actual problem is, I never get a real answer. I'm met with silence, vague answers, or with examples that don't stand up to scrutiny. However, BruceGrubb has taken a stab at providing some concrete examples. I've replied to him below. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I take it that we've clarified that it is not one of your issues whether we rewrite the lede or focus on the two sentences marked "under discussion".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is truth (the reason WHY for the rewrite)

Are we going about this backwards?

It seems that the key to sorting out the VNT issue is to first sort out the issue of accuracy. I agree that WP:V should address the accuracy/inaccuracy question ... but I think we may be going about it backwards. This mediation is focused on re-writing the lede (specifically, to resolve the debates over VNT). The lede is supposed to be a brief summary of points that are discussed in more detail in various sections of the main body of the policy. However, at the moment, the issue of accuracy isn't discussed in the main body of the policy... which means that we are trying to come up with a summary of something that isn't there. No wonder we can't agree on language.

I am beginning to think it would make more sense to shift gears... before we discuss how to summarize the accuracy question in the lede, we should have have something to summarize. This would mean we should first collaborate on a (new) section for the main body of the policy ... and then try to come up with a summary of that section for the lede. Once we know what we are summarizing, the language of that summary should (hopefully) be a lot less contentious. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the discussion has definitely been moving in this direction of late. I would not mind, say, having two RfCs - the first one on an accuracy section, and the second one on the lede - and basing the latter on the results of the former. I think doing things this way might work better than trying to cram everything into one big RfC. The question of whether to have more than one RfC is actually one that I was going to ask when we got to step seven. If we need to decide this before we finish the drafts, though, then maybe there is a need to change the mediation structure. What do you all think? — Mr. Stradivarius 13:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the topic of accuracy is IMMENSELY important and IMMENSELY complex, to the point where it could use a new pillar policy to address it. And startign it as a paragraph in wp:ver is probably the best realistic way to get rolling on it. BUT.....from a logic standpoint, the simplest / a basic answer is to simply have wp:ver start to DO NO HARM regarding this and leaving it to the other human, consensus, policy and guideline mechanisms to handle it. For example, in discussions and RFC's, editors would tend to naturally take out erroneous material (when it is not required by wp:npov) except miscreants can impair or block such efforts via their mis-representations of wp:ver. There's only one sentence in wp:ver that does harm with respect to this (VNT, actually just 2-3 words in VNT.) so by addressing the VNT problem we ARE implementing a "phase 1" solution regarding accuracy. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

See Group 3, Draft 21 (et al.) which is covering this with a proposed extra section :o) Pesky (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a nice section (or at least the beginning of one... I can think of a few things that should be added). That said, one thing I learned from the previous large RFC is that it is a really bad idea to combine too many changes into one proposal. Proposing a change to the lede and proposing an addition of a new section (at the same time) confuses the issue - Someone can support part of the proposal and not the other... but that distinction gets lost when "tallying up" the !votes, and the comment is counted as if it were an "oppose" for the entire thing.

I suppose what I am proposing is that we break the process up into two parts... Part I: Pause our efforts to perfect the lede and deal with VNT, and first work on a new section to deal with accuracy/inaccuracy... Part II: then come back to our drafts of the lede, and work on them with this new section in mind. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support Blueboar's ideas above: accuracy section first, then I think the lead could be deicide on more quickly and easily. Right now its rather torturous.(olive (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

• I have four points to make here. First, I'm not actually sure that it would be necessary to have a full RFC to introduce a new section. We could draft it, suggest it on the talk page, and see if it's controversial first. I suggest not having too many RFCs in quick succession, partly because RFCs are expensive in our most precious resource, which is editor time, and partly because editors can start to oppose change through sheer RFC-fatigue.

  Second, I think North8000's idea of a new policy is premature; if this does need to be a separate policy, then it needs to go through the essay and guideline stages first in order to refine it and ensure that there's genuine consensus support. We can't just grow a new policy by budding it off an existing one. But I think this falls short of a new policy. It's a consequence of WP:V, WP:NOR, and common sense.

  Third, we have strong precedent for dealing with falsehoods by simply deleting them even when there are sources: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Argusto Emfazie, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Baldock Beer Disaster on an entry which actually made it into DYK (diff) , "glucojasinogen" (first introduced as a hoax into our article on diabetic neuropathy here, persisted for over four years and went on to appear in academic sources here and here, now deleted for being false even though sourced), and so on. In fairness there are also counterexamples that went the other way, such as Edward Owens (hoax), but I would like to distinguish those from the other cases because with Edward Owens there are sources to discuss it as a hoax. This is all meant to emphasize that if we stick to documenting the custom and practice that Misplaced Pages clearly already observes, then a paragraph on accuracy does not necessarily need a separate RFC.

  Fourth and finally, there is a different way in which we really are going about this backwards. I'm increasingly convinced that we're overthinking and overcomplexifying the RFC. What we're in the process of devising is a massively structured Request For Votes, and that's absolutely the wrong approach. RFCs are supposed to invite editors to contribute their ideas and a steer on the general direction in which we should take the policy. Once we've received that steer, then we as a group are more than capable of making minor editorial decisions about the exact phrasing to use. We're looking for instructions like, "Add a paragraph on accuracy and keep VNT", or else, "Find a way to rephrase VNT and put the accuracy business into a separate guideline". Surely we're not looking for a 300-editor consensus on where to put each comma and full stop.—S Marshall T/C 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of creating a WP:Accuracy pillar (and it is not like we would be starting from scratch as we have WP:inaccuracy as the basis) though I must agree with S Marshall in that we are this. What should have been a relatively simple possess has become an insanely complicated, gone on WAY too long, way too many RfCs mess.

These and many other example that sprung out of that whole thing show that some editors either lack understanding of what OR actually is or wouldn't know common sense if it walked up to them and shook their freaking hand.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe we could decide what we're going to do before we get into another long discussion? :O) I wouldn't mind going ahead with a draft on accuracy for the body of the policy first rather than another RfC just in case that works.(olive (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

As I said we already have the guts for such a draft in WP:inaccuracy:

begin (Verifiable material may or may not be accurate)

Editors sometimes think that verifiable material should be accurate, but verifiable material may or may not be accurate. A famous example of verifiable material that is 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. But many published errors have not resulted in retractions.

As Carl Sagan pointed out in his The Demon-Haunted world experts can be wrong or not even experts in the field in question.(Sagan, Carl (1995) The Demon-Haunted world ISBN 0-394-53512-X pg 212-216) This means using the fact that a source is verifiable to say it is accurate is the argument from authority fallacy.

end (Verifiable material may or may not be accurate) And we even have a Verifiability reference in the thing!--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to put mediation on hold

Blueboar's idea seems to have good initial support, so let me propose a specific way of implementing it. How about this: we put the mediation on hold, and work on an accuracy section at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability. We draft and discuss the accuracy section until we reach a natural conclusion, whether that is rejecting such a section at the discussion phase, or whether we get a specific result at an RfC. When the discussion about the accuracy section has finished, we then reopen the mediation and discuss how to proceed with redrafting the lede. Please let me know if you support this, or whether you would like to do things a different way. — Mr. Stradivarius 00:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar that the accuracy/inaccuracy question is key. It reminds me of the old saying about grasping nettles -- the idea being that they are more likely to sting you if you are overly cautious with them. There are strongly held concerns involved: people keen to remove inaccurate material, and others determined to defend sourced and relevant material against tendentious deleting. I am worried that an unmediated discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability may generate more heat than light. Rather than putting the mediation on hold, I think it might be better to revise the agenda of the mediation, to include a section dedicated to this question. In short, Mr Stradivarius, I think we still need you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

When and if the accuracy section is added to WP:V is unknown. This mediation process shouldn't be held up for it. The two tasks can be done in parallel. I suggest editors here work on a lead for the policy that presently exists in WP:V, not for changes to the policy that may or may not be accepted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that Blueboar's idea is an excellent but Herculean task. But even if we go full speed ahead on THIS mediation, THIS mediation will take a month or two. Putting it on hold while we tackle Blueboar's idea would probably push that out to 6 months. Do we really want that? Plus, I don't think that most folks will understand this, but from a structural / logic standpoint, even just explaining VNT ( as the proposal from Group 2 does) will help the "accuracy" topic greatly. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I like Strad's idea of a brief discussion on WT:V about putting in the extra section on clear-cut inaccuracy. Ther's a good chance it may get little (or no) opposition. What's not to like about it? What harm could it do? What's wrong with a section like that? If we focus trashing addressing any opposition with questions like that (and no, "instruction creep" is not a valid reason for opposition, in my view, when dealing with something like this, which clearly has caused / does cause angst), then it should slide smoothly into the current policy. We don;t need an RfC for every darned little change ... I discussed various changes and additions on the talk page of WP:CIV, and was able to run a load of stuff straight in without much hassle. Pesky (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The new section in Group 3 Draft 21 should explain why we aren't going to want an accuracy guideline in WP:V.  WP:Inaccuracy was never purposed to be a policy.  I think that we should move forward somehow with Group 3 Draft 20, it solves the WP:V VnT problem without complication and without stifling development of guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

North, what is so Herculean about saying something about accuracy/inaccuracy in the body text of WP:V? We in Group 3 have already drafted a short section, based on a suggestion by Blueboar. Blueboar said on this talk page that he thinks more could be added to that draft, and this is probably true... I really think it is a more difficult to task to compose an intro which includes a sentence or two mentioning accuracy/inaccuracy when the body does not. If you do that, you inevitably raise questions which you don't have space to answer in an intro, even though the answers may be simple enough. This is the problem I see with the current Group 2 draft, which does mention accuracy/inaccuracy in the 1st paragraph and in footnote 4.

Pesky, obviously you and I agree that a new section about inaccuracy is a good idea. Still, I think it is going to be challenging to some people -- I mean people who have read VNT as meaning that having a verifiable RS is always enough. I hope that our wording will help people see that mentioning the inaccuracy question is not just a pretext for tendentious deleting. Still, I think people are more likely to accept it if it does go to an RfC first. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If editors here want an accuracy section added to WP:V, why not simply go there now and work on it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just that the questions of the lede and the body are related. A lot of drafts ledes in this mediation already mention accuracy/inaccuracy. But as Blueboar pointed out, the lede should summarize the body, which in the current locked version does not mention accuracy/inaccuracy at all. So... Should accuracy/inaccuracy be mentioned in the lede, the body, both or neither? If mentioned at all, should it be mentioned only to say it is outside the scope of this policy, or should something more substantial be said? Are these questions to be resolved via RfC or some other way? Can we go forward in this mediation without discussing questions like these? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't yet see why it's necessary to put the mediation on hold while we work on this. I do think the mediation has foundered and is now wading hip-deep in drafts and questions of detail at a micro-level; it needs to get back to its basic purpose of formulating a RFC. I suggest that the mediation proceeds to consider the broad parameters of the RFC (e.g. how many words are we allowing for questions to be put to the community? 100? 150? I urge you all not to exceed 200!) In the meantime we can also work at WT:V on the accuracy question, which I see as an entirely separate matter the questions I think we should discuss at mediation.—S Marshall T/C 07:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that considering broad parameters for an RFC, like how many words for questions, is a good idea. I don't see being "hip-deep in drafts" as necessarily a bad thing. Each draft is an experiment to find a better wording for the policy. Regarding how to deal with the accuracy/inaccuracy question, let's first look at what we have right now in some of the most recent drafts:

• Group 2 Draft 9 mentions inaccurate material in the 2nd sentence, and also has a two-sentence footnote (footnote 4) about how to respond to it.
• Group 3 Draft 20 proposes a minimalist body section that redirects people to a number of other pages about inaccuracy.
• Group 3 Draft 21 contains two shortish paragraphs under the heading "Clear-cut inaccuracy".
• We also have a draft wording for a section on inaccuracy by Bruce Grubb right here on this talk page.

If we are now going to shift discussion about accuracy/inaccuracy to the WP:V talk page, are we supposed to discuss all four of the above ideas there? And say nothing more about them here? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important from the Aspie/Autie point of view to have something on the WP:V page covering clear-cut inaccuracies, as the lack of clear pointers within the policy is something which A-spectrum people are likely to "hiccup" on. Pesky (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've noticed a few people saying that there might be able to put an accuracy section into WP:V without having an RfC. It's true that we don't need an RfC for every little change, but I don't think adding a section counts as a little change. As Kalidasa said above, such a section might be a hard sell for some editors, though it might seem like common sense to others. We really would need to advertise such a discussion to the community to find out if it had a good, solid consensus, so I think we need to take that into account when working out what to do here. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not over plan this. Work up an initial proposal for the proposed new section, post it at the WT:Verifiability talk page... and discuss it. What happens after that will depend on how that discussion goes. It may be that a clear consensus emerges from the discussion... it may be that we will need an RFC to give us even wider input. Don't assume acceptance or rejection before it occurs. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly one way or the other about this. To some extent, I think that putting the original mediation process on hold could put efforts to revise the lead at risk, if for no reason other than the loss of time noted by other editors above. On the other hand, I'd like to see what might come out of this writing of a new section, because it could be very good. But I think we should decide whether the drafting of the section should be part of this mediation process, in which case we should probably create a mediation subpage for the purpose of drafting it, or whether it should be separate from the mediation process, in which case it should be drafted at WT:V and not here. In either case, we shouldn't be drafting it on this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Something just occurred to me, though. I can easily imagine those editors who opposed the change that was proposed in the last RfC looking at a proposal for the new section, and saying "this is just the first step in getting VnT out of the lead – oppose!". That might actually cause the proposal for the new section to stall, and then stall the efforts here for a new lead. We need to give careful thought (ie, not just wishful thinking) to how to prevent that scenario from happening, and that might point towards not suspending the work on the lead after all. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well... one sure way to ease the fears of the "this is just the first step" knee-jerkers would be if SMarshal and North agreed to express initial opposition to it (saying that they think the addition will make it harder for VNT to be removed). After all... if they hate it it must be worth considering... right? OK... perhaps not...

That was said in jest... However, there is a serious point under that jest... sad to say, there are some of us who will inspire a bad faith knee-jerk reaction if we propose this (I would include myself as one of them.) So... the proposal does need to be presented by someone who has not been heavily involved in the previous VNT debates (or someone who has been involved, but is identified with the KEEP viewpoint). And the "usual suspects" (like me) need to hold back on commenting, so we don't poison the well by our very presence. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Two observations in reply to that. First, I see some new drafts below that are titled and focused on "accuracy" instead of VnT. I actually think that that approach is very helpful in dispelling the misperception that the proposal would be a Trojan Horse about VnT. The other observation is about getting a non-"usual suspect" to present the proposal. That will only work if they agree to be actively involved in the drafting of the proposal from the start, which suggests that reach-out needs to happen asap. No one would want to be a "front" for other people's proposals, and no one else would, as it were, fall for it, if it happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed text for Accuracy section

Proposal at WP:V talk page

In the last few days, a number of people here, including Strad and Blueboar and Bob, have suggested moving this discussion to the WP:V talk page. Blueboar asked for a volunteer. OK. I've just run up the flag there. Now let's see if anyone salutes... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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)

• I've collapsed the drafts subsection above, as the actual drafting of an accuracy section probably shouldn't be done on this page, wherever we choose to do it in the end. I personally wouldn't mind whether it is part of the mediation or is done separately on WT:V. Now that we have started a discussion on this on WT:V and started to get some feedback, though, I think it would make sense to continue discussing it over there. If anyone feels strongly that it should be a mediated discussion, though, we can consider making a new work group for it. From the comments on this talk page so far, it also looks like people would like to continue with this mediation while the discussions on the accuracy section are underway. While we can't foresee the outcome of those discussions, we should still be able to make useful progress here without knowing their outcome. For example, work group three could consider different versions of the lede, based on the presence or absence of an accuracy section. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

True belief in WP:V

I mentioned a concept above but didn't sufficiently identify it.

True belief in WP:V is in general the belief that truth comes only from reliable sources.  More specifically, as per WP:V, truth is not a consideration for inclusion or exclusion of material.  Here is a theoretical basis, as stated at WT:V/First on 4 October 2011:

• Definition 3b for threshold at www.merriam-webster.com is, "a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not."

So introduction of the word "threshold" comes with an above and a below state, or an inclusion and an exclusion state. Using proposition structure, this adds two more propositions, propositions for exclusion:

• the threshold for inclusion is where verifiability is true
• the threshold for inclusion is not where the state of truth is true

• the threshold for exclusion is where verifiability is not true
• the threshold for exclusion is not where the state of truth is not true

This last says that editors cannot exclude material just for being not true, just like they cannot include material just for being true. Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why I vastly prefer "A fundamental requirement for inclusion" over "The threshold for inclusion". Pesky (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Rationale" of the October 2011 RfC, Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53, states,

Conclusions: The goal of this proposal is not to change the meaning of the policy, but to clarify it and reduce the potential for real or feigned misunderstanding. The concepts behind the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" should remain part of the policy. But they are complex concepts that need to be better explained.

Regentspark reasonably notes in the closing, "Additionally, it appears that many editors, on both sides of the aisle, believe that the changes are a policy change rather than a mere clarification."  For the true belief in WP:V, this was a policy change, and in retrospect it seems to have weakened the proposal to present it as less than a policy change.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Believed truth vs Verifiability "truth"

BruceGrubb - I have already collapsed a couple of the threads in which you debated the "conspiracy theory" case and the "Jesus myth" case. This was to try and keep the discussion focused on the question of how we can improve the lede of WP:V. I can see from this latest exchange, though, that these topics keep coming up, and that these discussions have been generally disconnected from the process of the mediation. I am also concerned about the fact that your comments often use bold face and all-capital letters for emphasis, which is discouraged per WP:SHOUT. To address this, I am going to make a new rule for the mediation: whenever I see a post that mentions the "conspiracy theory" case or the "Jesus myth" case, or uses inappropriate emphasis, I will collapse, archive, or remove it on sight. Feel free to express your concerns in a general way, using calm language and rational argument. As well as being good wikiquette, it is more likely to persuade other editors anyway. Please understand that I am not intending to single you out here - this is the same standard of behaviour that I expect from everyone in the mediation. I suggest that you join in the discussion about the accuracy section on WT:V, as this is exactly the sort of thing you appear to want in the policy. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 07:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok then let's stop all the tap dancing and grab the bull by the horns.

Should WP:V itself address source conflict and-or accuracy or are those best handled with blubs redirecting the reader to the relevant policy and-or essay that provides the details?

Given some of the comments I think the second option is more likely as it addresses this whole "complex" issue that keeps coming up. We have WP:V acknowledge that source conflict and accuracy are issues but that they are better handled elsewhere. Then we can hammer out the details in those articles rather then drag this out any more.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer a bit of both... It has become clear to me that WP:V does need to address the issue of accuracy and source conflict... however, since the details are spelled out in other policies, WP:V should do this by briefly summarizing what is said about accuracy and source conflict in other policies and linking to these other policies for the details.

At the moment, the policy clearly states that WP:V works in conjunction with other policies, but I think we also need to explain how it does so. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar, but for different reasons. Top of the list is that wp:ver is widely mis-used (and, with VNT is such that it is easily misused) to do harm to the processes that would otherwise work on the topic of accuracy. So a little on accuracy here would reduce the harm. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree with the "summarizing" part but the "how does WP:V work in conjunction with policy X" could get really messy fast if we are not careful. I mean we should trust that the average editor here has something between their ears besides a sign saying "space for rent" but then I see articles like WP:IAI and am left wondering "With WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN why does this even need to exist?"--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The emperor's clothes moment. I've always considered "works in conjunction with" to be pablum and a cop out; a way that claim to know a secret place where non-existent policies exist, or a cop-out for policies that are not worded well enough to do their job. Of course the policies reference/link each other, and inevitably interact with each other, and in practice, may overlap on actual situations. But that about it, they cover different areas, as they should, and are not particularly well coordinated with each other much less work in conjunction with each other. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And yet, why can we not agree that WP:V is not the place to explain how to handle inaccuracy?  It is only through the mis-interpretations that WP:V has been seen as saying that truth is not a consideration in Misplaced Pages.  Truth does have a place in Misplaced Pages, but not in WP:V.  The problem of policies not coordinated to work well with each other is not improved by adding yet another policy into the mix of policies that need coordination.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. My thought was mostly to keep easily-misinterpreted wp:ver from doing harm in that area. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, believed truth has no place in WP:V but factual truth can have everything to do with WP:V--if a source can be demonstrated not to keep its facts straight then it could be argued that that source is not reliable and therefore fails WP:V. As I pointed out before that was one of the arguments against using Stephen Barrett to describe Weston Price (Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_1#Weston_Price_and_Stephen_Barrett_in_their_own_words)--BruceGrubb (talk, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F) 00:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

I'm not tracking you here.  Verifiability is the evidence that someone other than Misplaced Pages said it first, which says nothing about whether or not the material is factual truth, perceived truth, believed truth, personal experience, or a hoax.  Reliability in the context is covered in WP:IRS, which is a content guideline and not a policy, and specifically identifies material that fails WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:IRS explains this under Questionable sources: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." If you can show the fact checking of the debated source is effectively nonexistent then logically you have shown possible evidence that the source is questionable and per WP:IRS "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities."

Per WP:BURDEN "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."(sic) If a source is questionable in its fact checking then odds are it is not reliable QED.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources exist which show that another apparently-reliable source is demonstrably factually incorrect, the factually incorrect material should be removed.

How's that? In whichever policy it fits best? Like in WP:NOTOR and WP:RS etc. Pesky (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Done

The problem is that two reliable sources can state competing facts... and we don't know which is accurate. Prof. X may say that an earthquake occurred in the morning... while Prof. Y says that it occurred in the afternoon. Which of the two sources shows that the other source is demonstrably factually incorrect? Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's where the pointers to the other pages come in handy - those other pages go into more depth about how to treat cases. WP:DUE, and all that, and where other sources prove, themselves, that a different source is wrong about something. Because of dates, times, places, anything else which helps to sort it out. And Prof. X may be just one source for the morning, with maybe four or five equally-qualified sources saying afternoon (or maybe Prof. X had a mental glitch and was thinking in his own time-zone ...). Re-wording is often better than removing, but not in every case. For example, Prof. X saying it was in the morning, but international news video footage proves it was afternoon, etc. Pesky (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is a collaborative, non-battle situation, the editors will work it out. They'll see what the sources say, and yes, the editors may even decide from their own knowledge that one is implausible and decide not to use it. (don't forget, this is about leaving material out, not about putting material in)

If it is a contentious situaiotn, then the rules will get used or misused/misinterpreted as much as possible to keep it in. If the wrong source created an error that is totally off the wall, it's unlikely that any other source addressed it. Editor can use "not truth" to squelch the falsity conversation. Or require a RS to refute it; if the falsehood is really off the wall, no other rs will have addressed it. Whimsical useful example: If a source made an error and said that it rained elephants in Phoenix yesterday, can you find a sources that says "It did not rain elephants in Pheonix yesterday" in order to justify leaving out that statement? I saw a real world one where an otherwise reliable source made statement which implied that Ron Paul (the guy who advocates starting trade with Cuba) is an isolationist (probably meant or should have said non-interventionist). Anti-Ron Paul people liked it in but did NOT claim that it was correct. They wikilawyered using the above two approaches to wear down the folks trying to fix it who then gave up and went away. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

North8000's example above is why we need to make it clear that a Conflict between sources is not automatic evidence of Inaccuracy. This is why I have started suggesting over at WT:V that the new section should be "Accuracy and Source Conflict" not just Accuracy and that both situations be mentioned together.

Take a cited source that states that the Attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on December 8, 1941. Instead of claiming a typo or that the source is "inaccurate" you go to the source to find out what is up and discover that it is was written from Japanese point of view and is actually accurate from that POV.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been wanting to get back to this comment, I really like this example as an example of multiple viewpoints that are not in conflict.  I ran into a corollary at Howland and Baker islands, both Howland and Wake islands were attacked by the Japanese on December 8 local time, but because Wake is West of the International Date Line, Wake was attacked the same day as was Pearl Harbor, while Howland was attacked the following day.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

@Pesky, about your boxed sentence, I would say that we don't remove verifiable inaccurate material because it is inaccurate, we remove it because it is insignificant.  By itself, this would create a 2x2 matrix:

                accurate    inaccurate
prominent       include     include
insignificant   exclude     exclude

In general, I think that the effect of inaccuracy is to reduce the WP:DUE significance of the material.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the kind of thing which needs to go into what North is working on! Beautifully clear and precise, 'specially from the Aspie/Autie ways of understanding. :D North, the elephants in Phoenix could easily be disproven by going to a meterological site and proving what the weather actually was in Phoenix, I'd think. Pesky (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The latter could easily be attacked as OR/Synthesis.  :-) North8000 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I would make it a 2X3 matrix:

                accurate    debated    inaccurate
prominent       include     attribute  attribute
insignificant   exclude     exclude    exclude

This would make it clearer to the reader that prominent but potentially inaccurate information should be included... but how we include it is important... it needs to be phrased as an opinion and not as an accepted fact. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea. It is also what the other processes of Misplaced Pages would naturally tend to make happen if the mis-interpretability of three words in wp:ver did not do harm. But also spelling it out as a general outline would be good. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

re: three words doing harm... the problem is that a lot of editors (including me) feel that removing those three words would do much greater harm. Some are willing to accept the harm that keeping those words might do in order to prevent the greater harm that removing them definitely would do. Others (like me) would like to prevent harm in both directions.... but that is not easy. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Re the elephants ant the met. office: I don't see how that could be attacked by any sane person as OR or SYNTH. The met. office records are a pretty darned reliable source for what the weather was like, and given the requirements of due weight, it would have to take priority. That, of course, only works for sensible people ;P Blueboar, I would like to prevent all harm in every direction, but I broke my wand by trying to open a tin of paint with it, and the stuff I used to clean the crystal ball with made the surface go all manky ... I like the 2 x 3 matrix; that's another very clear thing. Pesky (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI I don't keep repeating the "three words" to lobby for their removal (just explaining "not truth" would be enough to satisfy me). I'm saying it more in the context of having a STRUCTURAL discussion. There's an immensely complex system in place for dealing with inaccuracy. An interplay of other policies and guidelines, discussion processes, the natural tendencies of editors, discussions, consensuses. And it works most of the time. And the most common reason that it doesn't work is caused by a misreading of "threshold" and "not truth", and folklore, chants etc. that is founded by that misreading. An analogy is like a raacecar that won 80% of its races. And half of the losses were because a tire went flat. At wp:ver we're the "tire builder". But, to try to help the cause, instead of saying "let's furnish better tires" we're saying "let's write a section on how to win races". The other half of the structural statement is that the "how to deal with inaccurate material" is a complex topic. More power and kudos to you for trying to put a bit on it in here. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Update on adding a section on "Accuracy"

Well... the proposal to add a section on "accuracy" is being discussed at WT:V... and it looks like there is more resistance than we hoped there would be. Not sure how that resistance impacts how we should proceed here. Should we give the discussion at WT:V more time?... or should we plow ahead with our drafts here? Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should treat them as separate issues. So, keep rolling on the VNT-related drafts. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It could affect how we decide to structure the RfC in step 7, but it shouldn't affect the drafts that we are making. On a slightly related note, I think we are close to being able to move to step 7 now. Whether we can move ahead depends on Unscintillating's responses to my latest comments at group one and group three. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to keep going here, and not wait. I've been watching what has been happening there, and although it's a bit disappointing, I think there are lessons to be learned from it, here. One is that tl;dr is death for any proposal for change. Another is that, just because there might be agreement about something here in the mediation, it's a big mistake to underestimate the resistance to change that will emerge when a larger slice of the community shows up. (Note that this has merely been the people who watchlist V. It'll be an even bigger population when we have a community-wide RfC.) A third is that people tend to say "no" when asked about whether we need to change something in general, as opposed to being asked to decide specifically about a concrete proposal. Some people are opposing the new section on principle, while others are objecting to specific wording, but those different objections get added together as opposition. Better to give people something already polished to respond to. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, it looks to me that Group four is ready to go ahead with step 7. Is it OK to proceed at Group four? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was certainly surprised to see a member of arbcom come out in favor of quantity over quality, i.e., discouraging editors from discussing the accuracy of sources.  And yet at the same time, he did not refute the arguments, such as that one of the ways that editors identify reliable sources is by discussing their accuracy.  Does being on Arbcom create a bias towards a simpler operational definition of what defines an encyclopedia article?  There is a problem in that the editors that are attracted to discuss issues at WT:V do not necessarily represent either the force of reason or the cross-spectrum of editors.  Does anyone doubt that the consensus at Misplaced Pages is that we want to have a reliable encyclopedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have to say I thought he was fundamentally in the wrong, there. Possibly hadn't read as much as we have? And, in answer to that last question ... sometimes I wonder! Pesky (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dicta

Dicta is a legal term that refers "to any statement by a court that extends beyond the issue before the court."  In the context, the related idea is material in a policy proposal presented to the community that does more than is needed to solve the problem of the "Under discussion" tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Final drafts proposal

We seem to now be mostly in agreement on the drafts to use for each of the four work groups. I think it is about time that we make a decision on what drafts to include, and move on to the stage of actually drafting the RfC. There is still not 100% agreement on the drafts to include, though, so I am making a proposal here so that we can come to a final decision on what to do. Anything which we still can't agree on after this discussion, we can simply ask in the RfC and put the question directly to the community.

The following are the drafts that I think have the most support at each of the work groups. I propose that we include them in the RfC.

Group 1 draft 0

Group 2 draft 9

Group 3 draft 22

Group 4 draft 10

Also, from the discussions at group three, I think we should include a question about a "scope" section, which would be similar to group 2 draft 10:

The exact format and text of the "scope" section will be determined in step 7.

In step 7 we will also discuss other questions or sections which we can include in the RfC, such as on the general principles of the verifiability policy, or an "accuracy" section, etc. It won't just be the drafts that I am presenting here. I am starting this discussion with the aim of coming to a final agreement on the drafts that we will use in the RfC, not on how they will be used. This discussion is still part of step 6 - we are not in step 7 yet.

Please let me know what you think of this, by including support, oppose, or neutral below, along with your rationale. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 04:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Final drafts proposal: discussion

• Oppose: We are not here to write ledes and Group 1 is still on its initial draft.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  I had a feeling that you might oppose! To clarify, I think that in step 7 we should have a wide-ranging discussion of exactly how we use the ledes from step 6. For example, we could present the ledes proposed, but strip them of all the parts unrelated to VnT. Or we could present the full ledes only as an example, and ask questions purely about the VnT parts. Or we could have separate questions for preferred lede sections and preferred VnT text. Or we could just present the entire ledes as they appear above. My idea was that we should decide these things in step 7, not now. For now, we just need to know whether the drafts are good enough for us to move on. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I think we're ready for this part now. Pesky (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• I support terminating this extremely long drafting process and moving on towards the RFC. I still oppose including drafts of any kind in the RFC as an unnecessary distraction and I particularly oppose any form of RFC which will ask participants to choose between these drafts--this should be a request for comment that gives us a steer on the principles, and I'm concerned we're instead in the process of drafting a request for votes. We need to ask "how can we improve WP:V?", not "please will you support my preferred change to WP:V".—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  Good, it looks like we're on the same page then. I knew from your comments in step 3 that this would probably be your response. We may be able to figure out a good compromise between the "pro-draft" and "anti-draft" editors, but the time to do that will be in step 7, now now. As I said to Unscintillating above, as long as the drafts are all "good enough" to put in the RfC, then our work in step 6 is done. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Temporary oppose Any new proposals (e.g. "Scope") are going to need thorough work just as the drafts did. The "scope" draft which has an immense flaw and came from a place that only a minority was watching shows this. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  Would you support moving to step 7 if my proposal didn't include the "scope" section? That's not to say that we couldn't discuss including a "scope" section in the RfC, just that we wouldn't give the "scope" section any special status. We would discuss it the same way we would any other additional questions, such as the "accuracy" section, or a question on what "VnT" actually means, etc. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'd also support the scope statement if you removed the footnote, because the problem is in the footnote. Or if we modified the footnote. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support using the above Group 4 draft 10 in the RFC. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)