Hm. I think this is a good start to a discussion on the matter. Perhaps it would be an idea to say that Verification remains an absolute requirement but that Truth is a sought-after preference. This could be carried out by a policy in which "Verifiably Untrue" (WP:VU?) material can be struck. For example, were someone to post a Moon Hoax article with claims that Neil Armstrong never walked on the Moon, then even if these were technically "verified" through repetition by an otherwise Reliable Source, they could be struck by citing NASA as a competing RS. In effect, one is simply disproving a negative, which according to RS doctrine is what an editor should be attempting in the process of determining RS anyways.Calbeck (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks. Yeah, I could probably be more explicit that verification is still required as I continue to work out this essay, although I felt it was pretty clearly implied. Competing RSes are probably something that should be covered in here as well, since that affects what could be seen as truth from situation to situation. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
