 | This is an
essay on the
Verifiability and
Editing policies. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: "Verifiability, not truth" is not an excuse to intentionally lie. |
Yes, truth
Wikipedia is not a place to Right Great Wrongs. Sometimes reliable sources get things wrong, and the encyclopedia has to follow suit. The Wikpedia process is not about what's true, only what is verifiable. That being said, present the truth when you can.
The first pillar of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize knowledge. The measure of how well Wikipedia fulfills its purpose is the accuracy of its knowledge. Truth matters. The foundational Editing Policy encourages editors to:
The best information can sometimes be in technically unreliable sources. Often though, there's nothing standing in your way. If policy allows you to tell a truth or a lie, there is no good reason to choose the lie.
Editorial judgement
Editors should not be fatalistic about automatically repeating whatever is in a source. There is room for editors to exercise choice. Editorial judgement is part of the reliable sourcing process. It would be impossible for Wikipedia to function otherwise, especially in the common circumstance where sources disagree. Editors should not just repeat claims, but explain topics in an organized, informative way.
| “ | Wikipedians are not mere copyists, bound to repeat simple statements absent context or without thought. The intent of WP:Neutral point of view is presenting the dialogue that is apparent in the body of reliable references, not to mechanically include every possible opinion about the subject. We have a responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article. | ” |
| — Wikipedia:These are not original research#Removing incorrect claims and pointing out errors | ||
On Talk pages
There is room for truth-seeking on Talk pages. Talk pages can be used to discuss inconsistencies in the sources. Original research and synthesis policies do not apply to Talk pages. However, since Wikipedia is not a forum, the discussion must eventually tend towards some concrete improvement to the article.
Giving due weight
Regardless of what the truth may be, Wikipedia must present all prominent viewpoints with an impartial tone. If there is a particular point of view you believe is true, take care not to cherry-pick only your view, since that could give undue weight. Instead, consider all of the best sources and extract all the significant claims. Throughout that process, give each point of view its strongest argument in favor. Do this properly and the result cannot be undue; you will have built the standard against which due and undue are judged.
See also
| This is an
essay on the
Verifiability and
Editing policies. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: "Verifiability, not truth" is not an excuse to intentionally lie. |
Yes, truth
Wikipedia is not a place to Right Great Wrongs. Sometimes reliable sources get things wrong, and the encyclopedia has to follow suit. The Wikpedia process is not about what's true, only what is verifiable. That being said, present the truth when you can.
The first pillar of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize knowledge. The measure of how well Wikipedia fulfills its purpose is the accuracy of its knowledge. Truth matters. The foundational Editing Policy encourages editors to:
The best information can sometimes be in technically unreliable sources. Often though, there's nothing standing in your way. If policy allows you to tell a truth or a lie, there is no good reason to choose the lie.
Editorial judgement
Editors should not be fatalistic about automatically repeating whatever is in a source. There is room for editors to exercise choice. Editorial judgement is part of the reliable sourcing process. It would be impossible for Wikipedia to function otherwise, especially in the common circumstance where sources disagree. Editors should not just repeat claims, but explain topics in an organized, informative way.
| “ | Wikipedians are not mere copyists, bound to repeat simple statements absent context or without thought. The intent of WP:Neutral point of view is presenting the dialogue that is apparent in the body of reliable references, not to mechanically include every possible opinion about the subject. We have a responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article. | ” |
| — Wikipedia:These are not original research#Removing incorrect claims and pointing out errors | ||
On Talk pages
There is room for truth-seeking on Talk pages. Talk pages can be used to discuss inconsistencies in the sources. Original research and synthesis policies do not apply to Talk pages. However, since Wikipedia is not a forum, the discussion must eventually tend towards some concrete improvement to the article.
Giving due weight
Regardless of what the truth may be, Wikipedia must present all prominent viewpoints with an impartial tone. If there is a particular point of view you believe is true, take care not to cherry-pick only your view, since that could give undue weight. Instead, consider all of the best sources and extract all the significant claims. Throughout that process, give each point of view its strongest argument in favor. Do this properly and the result cannot be undue; you will have built the standard against which due and undue are judged.