This page collects cases in which the phrase "verifiability, not truth" (currently in the first sentence of Wikipedia's core policy WP:Verifiability) was used in order to
- keep information in an article even though there is a consensus that it is wrong, or
- at least try to do so, to the point of disruption, or
- shut down a necessary nuanced NPOV/accuracy discussion by bullying.
There is already such a collection at WT:Verifiability, not truth#10 links supporting "Verifiability, not truth". (The examples are those marked in red in my post. For links see the original post by VsevolodKrolikov.)
Selphyl edit
March/April 2011. Encyclopedias use language more precisely than newspaper articles do. A New York Times article gave the impression that use of the Selphyl method, one of several PRP enrichment methods (whatever that is) used in cosmetic face surgery is commonly referred to as a "vampire facelift". It did not say so directly however, but just used the words "vampire facelift" in this way. Consequently, the article Selphyl gave "vampire facelift" as a synonym. [1] This was a mild case of original research (an analysis which new editors are unlikely to come up with), and seems to have been slightly wrong. It appears that "Vampire Facelift" is a trademark for using any PRP enrichment method (to create what is commonly known as "vampire filler") for cosmetic surgery of the face. (The trademark says: "Skin treatment, namely, the injection of blood derived growth factors including platelet rich fibrin matrix into the face for the purpose of rejuvenation of the face.") It also appears that this trademark was a bit too obvious (the result of PRP enrichment being known as "vampire filler"), so that the press are now using the term indiscriminately and the trademark is in danger of dilution (blurring) to the point of genericisation.
SPA Runels (talk · contribs) tried to change the article so that it doesn't contribute to the trademark dilution. When challenged by admin Sandstein (talk · contribs), he explained: "Yes, it was close when some of the reporters referred to Selphyl as the Vampire Facelift--but not really correct. Selphyl was referred to as the vampire filler before I coined the name Vampire Facelift to designate the service of using PRP in a specific manner. The US patent trademark office recognized my first use of the name to mean a specific service but the news liked the name and confused the idea with fuzzy reporting. [...] Selphyl is simply a patented way to process blood to isolate and activate PRP. The Vampire Facelift is a specific way of using that PRP that I invented." [2]
Sandstein rejected this, insisting that his reading of the New York Times article takes precedence over the reliable primary source which shows that it is most likely wrong: "Our motto is 'verifiability, not truth', as defined in our core policy, WP:V. This means that we write what reliable secondary sources say, even if we believe them to be wrong as a matter of fact. And since the NYT, a reliable secondary source, uses 'vampire facelift' and 'selphyl' as synonyms, we follow them. Our policies require us to. If you think the NYT got it wrong, don't argue with Wikipedia - instead, argue with the NYT and get them to print a correction, and then we can reflect that." [3]
This attempt to close down the discussion by bullying resulted in an initially cooperative user becoming more and more irate. After 5 days, Runels had reached the step of making a legal threat. [4] Sandstein reported him to ANI, now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive222#Request advice concerning involvement. I pointed out Sandstein's contribution to the escalation, but Timotheus Canens blocked the Runels, and Floquenbeam advised Runels to contact OTRS about the legal matter. [5]
A new SPA, Reprodoc (talk · contribs) (probably not a sock [6] but a real-life acquaintance of Runels and a sock of a very experienced user), appeared on the talk page less than an hour after the block and commented:
- [...] I have often turned to Wikipedia believing it to be generally reliable and have had no quarrel with students who wish to use Wikipedia when researching papers. Thus it was extremely disappointing to see a Wikipedia editor flippantly misapply one of Wikipedia’s core policies to the topic of Selphyl with the highly misleading statement: "Sorry, Wikipedia is not concerned with any authoritative concepts of 'truth'… Our motto is 'verifiability, not truth…' This wrongly suggests that Wikipedia is fine with knowingly offering false information to its readers as long as the falsehood has been published by a 'reliable source.' To give a hypothetical example: Suppose a writer for the New York Times erroneously states that Elizabeth Taylor died in 2010 rather than 2011 and that information was published on Wikipedia; according to this editor, Wikipedia would not correct this misstatement unless the New York Times published a retraction. That, of course, is not the case.
- With all due respect to this editor who seems to believe that the goal of Wikipedia is to simply collect the views of "reliable sources," he or she is wrong. Using reliable sources is simply the best way to achieve the actual goal of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias: Accuracy. No source, no matter how "reliable," is always accurate. Inaccuracies may be due to typographical or other similar errors, fraud (e.g., Jayson Blair), or misinterpretations that result when a writer takes on a complex subject for which he or she has inadequate knowledge or experience (as I believe was the case for the Vampire Facelift piece from the New York Times).
- In my view, no Wikipedia editor should feel their job is done simple because they confirm that a “reliable source” has indeed written what is claimed in a proposed article for Wikipedia. Using a usually "reliable source" is the minimal threshold for a Wikipedia publication, it does not mean that the article is publication-worthy and it does not mean that the article conforms to Wikipedia's over-riding goal for its entries: Accuracy. Sometimes there is overwhelming evidence from other sources that a statement made by a usually reliable source is inaccurate; sometimes the application of simple logic or common sense mean that a statement cannot be accurate. Another hypothetical: A New York Times writer misreads a press release from the Academy of Motion Pictures that expresses condolences for the death of Elizabeth Taylor and writes that she is to appear at next year’s Academy Awards. Should that be published in a Wikipedia article simply because it comes from the New York Times?
- The fact is that the Selphyl is just one of several [...] methods to obtain PRP for a variety of subsequent cosmetic and non-cosmetic medical and dental procedures. The fact is that the Selphyl is just one of these several methods used to obtain PRP for cosmetic purposes and it is just one of the several available methods for obtaining the PRP required to do a "Vampire Facelift." There is no basis for equating Selphyl and the Vampire Facelift any more than there is a basis for calling the scalpel a plastic surgeon uses a "Facelift." [7]
Reprodoc also made an extensive edit to the Selphyl article which fixed the problem and has so far not been challenged. [8] (Note: This deserves attention for other reasons. To me it looks like a potential case of extremely effective, extremely professional paid editing.)
It appears that Sandstein acted in good faith, as he claimed even on ANI: "But we may not remove verifiable and relevant information just because we believe it is false. That's the core meaning of WP:V." [9] But what he actually did was goading an initially cooperative SPA into getting blocked for legal threats.
Ghosts as pseudoscience edit
Encyclopedias use language more precisely than most other sources, at least when speaking about the subject of an article. Pseudoscience is a good example for this. As the name indicates, this refers to certain types of non-science that masquerade as science. It does not refer to traditional folk beliefs that are not in any way connected to science. That's not just according to me, that's according to the experts who have written about pseudoscience. (Philosophers of science and published sceptics.) An editor caused huge disruption spanning over many talk pages and including several RfCs by insisting on putting claims of the type "belief in ghosts is belief in pseudoscience" into many articles. This was based on an incorrect inference from a reliable source. When challenged, he changed it to an excessively long literal quotation with attribution, which he defended at WP:RS/N with the words (among others):
- [...] even as part of DR, [Hans Adler is] misusing the board to discuss the truthfulness of a statement (in violation of "verifiability, not truth"), not to determine whether the National Science Foundation website is a RS, a question already settled in the two RfCs.
Note that this misrepresents the two RfCs and that the comment also shows why the interpretation of some editors that "verifiability, not truth" is not a problem because a source is simply not a reliable source for a claim if that claim is verifiably false is problematic. For details see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 62#Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 which lays out the problem well and has relevant links, and [another link that I will add once I have located it].
Sam Blacketer controversy edit
The following copied from WT:Verifiability/Archive 38#Demonstration that editors misunderstand "verifiability, not truth" (April 2010).
- Demonstration that editors misunderstand "verifiability, not truth"
The following examples are from WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy. The colours highlighting some problematic parts are mine.
- Comment: "Reliable" sources whose accounts are wrong on almost every point. I know ... verifiability, not truth ... That is all very well as long as the article is about someone else ;) Is it really compatible with WP:BLP to have an article full of stuff which we know and can prove to be wrong, just by referring to our own archives? I have checked every edit Sam made to David Cameron going back to December 2007, when he became an arbitrator. Here is the edit apparently mentioned in the Daily Mail, where the Mail says he "tried to remove a reference to the Tories having a 'consistent' lead in the polls.". This is the only time I found Sam actually added content, rather than reverting vandals, since December 2007. Now, if you look at this edit, you will find that what he took out was running commentary on 2008 opinion poll results, cited to a 2007 (!) Reuters article http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL1310900320071013?sp=true – material which he replaced with cited material which noted that Cameron had appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, and was said by the Daily Mail to have been presented to the world as Britain's "Prime Minister in waiting". And Sam inserted the information that the Tories were "consistently" ahead. Some Labour activist! Sam actually put in the information these "reliable sources" accuse him of having taken out, just like he took out the unflattering attack picture these sources accuse him of having put in! Perhaps they don't know that if you look at a diff, it's the right side that has the new text, or that red text is text added, rather than deleted. What do I know. Our article here, citing the Daily Mail, says that Sam was "trying to adjust the description of the Conservative Party's lead in opinion polls over the Labour Party." This stupid innuendo and twisting of facts is unworthy of an encyclopedia, and it is unworthy of our project. JN466 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or failing that, merge the salient points to an appropriate article. Given the extended international coverage, even by such publications as the Corriere della Sera ([10]), our notability standards are certainly met. Yes, the coverage may be wrong, but WP:V's instruction to aim for "verifiability, not truth" does not contain an exception for issues about which we assume to know the (sadly unverifiable) truth, such as Wikipedia-related issues. Sandstein 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- What is astonishing to me is how many people are willing to simply ignore both WP:V and WP:OR, simply because the original research comes from Wikipedia itself. Unitanode 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is not original research. It is primary sourcing. There is a difference. And Wikipedia -is- a reliable source on actions at Wikipedia, hence ArbCom can use diffs and the rest to determine appropriateness of rulings. So, information found on Wikipedia about actions on Wikipedia are enough to determine that the sources, if they contradict it, are unreliable. The same is a source saying that a bluebird is naturally red when all pictures of the bluebird shows that it is, indeed, blue. The Reliable Sources noticeboard look at credibility of reporting, especially when there is direct evidence that there is a mistake. Plus, newspapers can take up to a month to make corrections, if they even bother. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can anyone else make any sense out of what Ottava Rima just typed? "It is not original research. It is primary sourcing." According to what I understand, the definition of original research is using primary sources instead of secondary ones. What you wrote makes no sense at all, and is not a justification for deleting this article in any way. Unitanode 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I detect shortcutitis (citing shortcuts without actually reading the relevant policy). Try the relevant subsection of WP:OR, which is WP:PSTS. Primary sources are sometimes permissible. Disembrangler (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hardly know as many "shortcuts" as you do. I stumbled into this imbroglio, and am regretting every participating. Even still, a quote from your linked shortcut (does WP:IRONY, exist): "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The relevance of this quote should be self-evident. Unitanode 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- The bit I was hoping you'd take away from PSTS was "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." WP logs can therefore certainly be used in this way to back up the simple factual claims people have made about what actually happened vs what newspapers reported. Disembrangler (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Original Research is not primary sourcing, and primary sourcing is not original research. Original research is to determine what is not readily available from a source of information. If an author writes a book, then you can discuss what the book says without saying what someone else claims the book says. Please look up the definition of "original". A "primary" source would not be original. This is readily apparent from actually reading WP:OR. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- To quote: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." That sounds like "don't use primary sources" to me. Reliable, third-party sources have been found here. We don't like their interpretation of the facts, so we want to delete the article? That makes no sense. Unitanode 00:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously, people applied the quote to why this should be deleted. The primary sources contradict the third party sources, thus making them unreliable. It has nothing to do with "not using primary sources". Primary sources are a source, but not a justification for notability. Don't dare confuse notability with verification. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
[...]
- But we aren't about truth, we are about verification. Those are the standards we apply to other articles, those must be the standards we apply here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- As per WP:BLP, it has to be both - "We must get the article right." That is one of our most important policies. A source on a BLP is not "reliable" unless it is extremely credible and not proven wrong. None of these sources meet the BLP requirements, as they hold factual inaccuracies that are blatant. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I haven't been here that long, but even I know the "verifiability not truth" language. Do you really not know this? Unitanode 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The deletion reasons are unconvincing. The deletion of the parent article does not affect this article the slightest.Many articles are unintelligible for people outside specific areas of interest but that in itself does not make it a good reason for deletion. Essjay controversy proves that it is in fact possible to write an article about a Wikipedia-related event based on external sources that is intelligible for people outside this community. Problems that the article might have in that regard can be solved via simple editing and while I understand the buzz the article creates here, we should apply our policies to all articles no matter the content. The article is sourced to multiple reliable sources (whether they got their facts right is not our concern, remember WP:V: Verifiability, not truth) establishing notability. Per WP:BLP1E this is not an article about the person but about the event. No other policy-backed reasons have been mentioned (NOTNEWS gets thrown around but this has continued for multiple weeks now). Regards SoWhy 10:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that even an experienced editor who was arguing for deletion because of the inaccuracies (Jayen466) and a high-profile admin (Sandstein) understood the principle "Verfiability, not truth" as demanding that we publish what we know to be false, merely because it's in the "reliable" sources.
Ultimately the article was deleted, but it took many days to get there. During this time, the following happened:
- The known incorrect claims were repeatedly forced into the article as 'verifiable'.
- Attempts to balance them with links to primary sources that prove they are false were reverted based on the argument that this amounted to original research.
As a result, for several days lazy journalists who simply googled for what they thought was Wikipedia's position on the matter as an easier substitute for asking a representative of Wikimedia/Wikipedia, would have been misled into thinking that what we knew was fabrication by a source was what we knew and believed to be true. The next step could well have been "According to Wikipedia" followed by the same lies, which could then also have been added to the article.
It is very fortunate that Sam Blacketer, a former Arbcom member whose real-life reputation was severely tarnished in this, had no interest in suing the Wikimedia Foundation for libel.
Santa Claus edit
The beginning of the following was copied from WT:Verifiability/Archive 45#Are challenged statements really supposed to be verified?.
The following quotation is from an editor who opposed the removal of an in-universe coatrack section with NORAD Tracks Santa spam from Santa Claus:
[...], forgive me, but you are operating from an incorrect assumption. The "Santa tracking" stuff is actually a thing. It does happen, and has happened in the past. Is it tongue in cheek? Of course it is, but that's besides the point. We have citations in regards to the Santa-tracking, and the sources are reliable, verifiable and pertinent; [...]
That said, your personal viewpoints as to the validity/pretense/etc. of tracking Santa is utterly besides the point. [...] No one is arguing that Santa is real or not, and no one should. We stay neutral on the topic. We avoid committing to either side of the argument, avoiding absolutist terms like "mythological" and whatnot where legendary serves the same purpose; St. Nicholas actually did exist, and the legends that have extended from the actual person's life are - to coin a term - 'the stuff of legend'. The add-ons over time are an interesting phenomena, not a target for debunking. I refuse to believe that we are not so unskilled that we cannot write an article without staying out of the debate.
This seems to be clear enough. Apparently, Wikipedia's policies make it impossible for us to imply that Santa Claus does not, after all squeeze himself through thousands of chimneys in a single night in order to distribute presents that were packed at the North Pole. He obviously doesn't, but reliable sources say that he does, so we must stay out of the debate. And since the media report about NATO fighter planes following Santa Claus every year in an in-universe style, we must do the same. After all, if it were true, it would be significant information about Santa Claus. [11]
A few days later the editor invoked "verifiability, not truth" explicitly in an unrelated discussion on the same talk page:
- I must humbly (but firmly) disagree that most people outside the Catholic faith distinguish between St Nicholas and Santa Claus, or Sinterklaas or whatever. There is ample, obvious and popular connections betwen the two. Whether they are actually, factually connected is besides the point - the litmus for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth." [12]
1986 Hvalur sinkings edit
In the 1986 Hvalur sinkings, two members of Sea Shepherd scuttled two whaling boats in Reykjavik harbour. Later on the same day, they also destroyed a whale meat factory. The Icelandic government and a number of newspapers referred to this act of sabotage as 'terrorism', either explicitly or by insinuation. It is, however, clear from the context that this was not meant literally. The perpetrators (whose names are known as they publicly admitted what they had done) escaped and were never wanted for terrorism.
It is a much more recent phenomenon that many activities that definitely don't fall under terrorism are commonly referred to as "eco-terrorism", a neologism that is defined much more broadly than the word suggests. The Hvalur sinkings clearly fall under eco-terrorism in this broad sense, which is why they are so categorised. When someone created a category Category:Terrorism in Iceland only for this one article, I made sure that it was removed as misleading, and also as potentially dangerous for two named living people. This led to a counter-reaction in which a large amount of undue material was pushed into the article, all designed to drop the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" as often as possible and use sources which have the word in their title. It is important to note that these sources are not representative (the best available sources just accurately call it sabotage), and that the discussion of whether this could be called terrorism or not was just a short rhetorical exchange rather than anything truly noteworthy.
See WT:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 26#Something that might be worth mentioning... for a discussion where I brought this up in a "verifiability, not truth" context and a "not truth" fundamentalist defended it.
The undue material is still in the article, making up its last paragraph.