Iamsmallpeeps

'Wikipedia is not about the search for truth. It's a tertiary source, reporting what reliable and verifable sources have said. Doug Weller (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)'

This quote is from a wikipedia User who is very active in editing. I think there is a real sadness in the central concept expressed, because I am sure somebody somewhere (other than me) had hoped Wikipedia would be a voice for truth and not just the same old media-shield protecting those in ivory towers. But its hard to be heroic, and always easier to be lukewarm.

Verifiability, not truth

I should have provided the actual text I was paraphrasing, here it is from one of Wikipedia's core policies (as opposed to guidelines) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This is from WP:VERIFIABILITY. The policy goes on to say "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptionally high-quality reliable sources." This is core policy and at the heart of Wikipedia.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"already been published by a reliable source" ..."published sources with a reputation for fact-checking" ..."exceptional claims require exceptionally high-quality reliable sources."

Encyclopedias are really useless entities, actually. The so-called facts are propped up by persons who perpetuate a divide between the knowledgeable and the ignorant.

If the masters which the bondsmen rely upon to be reliable, and to give us our facts, are lying, then Wikipedia becomes just another worthless webpage. Or worse, the ultimate tool of ignorance-perpetuation. "Exceptional claims" means anything which goes against the power structure I guess? Else who could fund the "exceptional proofs"? Surely the search for truth is more important than any encyclopedia.

The talk pages are the only place where Wikipedia becomes truly useful, and that because the rules you quoted above, do not apply. Iamsmallpeeps (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But note:

"Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."

"Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)."

In other words, they are not an alternative article. Doug Weller (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article"

...I couldn't agree more with these words and that is my goal here. I am curious; How would you define "reliability" in regards to primary sources versus secondary sources? In what way is a secondary source less than the primary? Iamsmallpeeps (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)