Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 10

message: What do people think about starting a roll out now?  I think the recent points of contention might fall under attempts at polishing the finish rather than anything substantive?  Would that be correct, and if that is the case, is it now worthwhile considering a roll-out and how to do it? Hiding Talk 08:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I feel it's long overdue.  What's the next step?  An RFC of some kind? JulesH 09:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: RFC is not the process. Just change the status to policy and we wait and see. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we wait til after Saturday? Slim is real life busy until then. Marskell 13:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't making this policy also involve replacing other policies?  I'd make sure there's consensus and ridiculously wide awareness for this.  People are unlikely to be happy to have either redundant versions of V and OR active, or have those suddenly disappear (or get "demoted") without wide acceptance of the idea.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It can wait, sure, I was just testing the water and seeing what the thoughts were on a rollout schedule, if you get me. Hiding Talk 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My above changes were yes cosmetic, and I was in my own way addressing the issue of easing the roll-out. I have no serious objections to the current looks of the policy...The only thing I want to draw your attention to is that we might need to do something about #Problem with using the term "attribution" in the context of this policy. --Merzul 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief glance suggests a filing of a category rename to Copyright attribution templates might suffice. Hiding Talk 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That should work, Hiding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that seems like a good idea irrespective of this policy. The confusion example that he brings has nothing to do with this proposal. So if this is a problem at all, it is not a problem with this policy. --Merzul 05:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: About the redirects... I put in the possible destinations for WP:NOR, which is obvious. Does it make sense for WP:V go to the top of the page, as a synonym with WP:ATT and WP:RS go to WP:ATTFAQ#Sources. The other option would be to have WP:V link to the WP:ATT#How to cite and request a source. Of course, this was the sexiest solution, and maybe something like that can be achieved without re-ordering. --Merzul 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:RS should go to Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources.  WP:V going to the top is ideal, as most people when referring to it mean to indicate something along the lines of "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.", i.e. the nutshell at the top of the page.  WP:RS is currently a guideline, whereas WP:ATTFAQ isn't, and I don't believe the intent is that it will be (at least not yet). Upgrading references to it to references to a policy seems more useful than downgrading them. JulesH 10:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ATT:FAQ should be made a guideline or not linked to at all from this page once it's live. Marskell 11:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me the FAQ has to be a part of the deal.  Does the FAQ need work? Hiding Talk 12:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I've just fixed the most obvious problems with it, but it still needs some work.  For instance, it disagrees with this policy in regards to exactly when a self-published source may be used; I think it was written when the third exception was still included. JulesH 13:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also disagrees substantially on citation; and, in so doing, changes present policy. This sort of thing will keep happening if we try to have the FAQ as an independent standard; the original point of WP:ATT was to have one page covering these issues. The FAQ must be a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We encourage moving clumsy citations to footnotes, for clarity.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it makes no sense to anyone who hasn't read the discussion at /archive9#Inline citations. Maybe we should postpone this issue of how to cite sources. the relevant section from WP:V is simply "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." --Merzul 00:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I have no strong opinion on either of them; I was attempting to satisfy the people who have a preference for footnotes over prose attribution. As long as they cover the same ground, as in the example now archived, it should be editorial discretion which to use.Prose attribution is often bad prose, and it is often a good idea to avoid it. Properly, that advice should be in the MoS, but it is harmless here.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going large? 

message: No idea what this sentence is trying to say:  
:We encourage moving clumsy citations to footnotes, for clarity.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it makes no sense to anyone who hasn't read the discussion at /archive9#Inline citations. Maybe we should postpone this issue of how to cite sources. the relevant section from WP:V is simply "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." --Merzul 00:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I have no strong opinion on either of them; I was attempting to satisfy the people who have a preference for footnotes over prose attribution. As long as they cover the same ground, as in the example now archived, it should be editorial discretion which to use.Prose attribution is often bad prose, and it is often a good idea to avoid it. Properly, that advice should be in the MoS, but it is harmless here.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section break! (pretend I'm not here) 

message: Newspaper articles are not automatically secondary sources. For example, a newspaper article of December 7, 1941, describing the attack on Perl Harbor is a primary source, while a newspaper article comparing of that attack with the attack on 9/11 is a secondary source. Many editors confuse this and attribute the status of secondary source to any newspaper article. That is incorrect. That is why in the wording about sources, we need to show that a witness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, is a primary source, while the analysis of such traffic accident in a newspaper article is a secondary source. Subtle, but very significant distinction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent edit to the Attribution proposed policy, adding "published in a newspaper" to "eyewitness account of a traffic accident", is an improvement for a reason other than pointing out that some newspaper stories are primary sources. It also emphasizes that Wikipedia can only use published sources. A person talking to a Wikipedia editor about a traffic accident is a primary source, but the account should not be included in Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper articles 

message: To begin the endgame. Are there any differences from current policy, or more importantly, are there any differences from current policy that disturbs you? The old diff is here, and none of it disturbs me :) --Merzul 22:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. was a good sentence; if I were putting it back, I would make it probably should not have or some such to allow for the possibility of exceptions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that whether or not something has an article is a matter of organization. We definitely mention things with only "first-party" sources in articles, and sometimes that gets split off (see summary style). NASA logo is a good example of this. --NE2 01:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA logo is a bad example, citing as it does four third party sources. Hiding Talk 22:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *We should rephrase to make clear that the line here is whether reliable third-party sources exist, rather than whether we've gotten off our WikiDuff and cited them. There would never be any question that the NASA logo is attributable to third-party sources (starting, I should think, with the Britannica); the sentence is meant to exclude the sort of article that gets speedied as non-notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... that wasn't a good example. Actually, I agree with the statement that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." as long as we don't specify that those sources must be "non-trivial" as WP:N does. --NE2 03:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  diff 

message: If this is covered somewhere and I missed it, I apologize in advance, but if WP:ATT is replacing WP:RS, where is the equivalent to the exceptional sources for exceptional claims requirement? It is very necessary for controversial scientific/medical articles and IMO is one of the key provisions of WP:RS. Thanks, Crum375 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the "exceptional claims", would anyone object if we just lift it from WP:RS? Crum375 01:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that this is very important, I've seen very respected editors rely on it to fix up a very controversial article a living person. I think you were there too, so yes it is highly needed. Put it in! --Merzul 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except of course, WP:BLP already has the same demands. I still think it should be in though... and while I like arguing with myself, hopefully someone wiser will respond! --Merzul 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think "exceptional sources for exceptional claims" is a key content policy, frequently cited by ArbCom and others. I copied the exact verbiage from WP:RS for now, although it can certainly be tweaked. For example, I'd like to see more emphasis on scientific/medical topics, and a link to Jimbo's related statements. Crum375 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptional claims 

message: Very nice idea to merge the two policies. Just one question so far: Some of the wording implies that blogs are usually or always self-published: "Self-published sources, such as blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." There are a growing number of corporations and reputable media outlets whose websites include blogs. For example, the New York Times now has a few: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/topnews/blog-index.html . Microsoft and Adobe are examples of companies which use official, employee-written blogs, as outreach techniques. The level of editorial oversight might vary, but probably in at least some of these cases it's as high as it is for anything else published by the organization. Would it be fair to say, ""Self-published sources, such as blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer."? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kla'quot 08:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Kla'quot. It's clarified a little in the FAQ, but it should be tweaked here too. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Blogs are not a medium. Reliability as a published source for the purposes of Wikipedia is based on factors involving fact-checking and lack of conflict of interest and past history of accuracy and objective editorial mechanisms. Blogs generally do not qualify as reliable under these standards. WAS 4.250 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking Points Memo is a blog. It is frequently cited by major newscasts, sometimes without attribution (aside from the inadvertent logo found on the picture they use). Josh Marshall is a respected journalist and it is his own privately funded publication. Just pointing out that not all blogs are created equal. -Sparaig 19:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs published by reliable-source outlets 

message: I haven't read too much into the history of this effort, but a quick search of the word "Foundation" in the talk archives hasn't really shown me what the Foundation's reaction to this has been. If I recall correctly from my quick glances, some people said it wasn't technically a Foundation issue. Even if it is not technically a Foundation issue it's still a big change (well, not really "change", but update), and I'd really like to know what their thoughts are on this. I know a lot of this kind of stuff is up to us to figure out, and we don't have to "ask mommy and daddy" every time we want to change something, but I am surprised at the lack of talk about the Foundation's involvement in the past discussion. (Maybe I'm just missing it or searching for the wrong keywords?) Would anyone like to fill me in on this? -- Ned Scott 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that combining/merging the two existing policies, WP:NOR and WP:V, is a fundamental or substantive change that requires the Foundation's blessing. It is more a formatting change, which makes the content policy easier to work on consistenly and coherently. As of now, it is essentially a reflection of the two policies and hence a non-issue from their perspective, IMO. Crum375 23:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a merger wouldn't require the Foundation to be involved; even so, I e-mailed them about it when this proposal was initiated. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who? You mean the wikipedia-en discussion? —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I know, and I'm saying I agree that we don't need to ask them first, but knowing their input wouldn't hurt. -- Ned Scott 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation 

message: To be very clear, this page is intended to supercede WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS, correct?  Presumably those pages would then redirect here?  
If that's the intent, I think you need to restart the clock at the top of this page.  My initial reactions are supportive but this hasn't been widely enough advertised yet.  Rossami (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm... there are different opinions here, but it is widely advertised now, and the proposal has been developing for over four months during which it has been mentioned many times on the WT:V and WT:NOR discussions. So most "policy discussion" people have been long aware of it. Anyway, if your initial reactions were positive, and only object to it's suddenness, then I don't really think it's a big issue, because this isn't really a big policy change, and there is still time to discuss any discrepancies between this and previous policy. --Merzul 07:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to clarify Purpose 

message: I like this. Only one query. Some of the articles I write are based on one source, there being only one secondary source available. The subjects are non-contentious, and I just place the reference at the bottom (see for example here). I would hate for a picky editor to go through and place  templates throughout. It would seem pointless to place the same citation throughout the article. Maybe a mention on how this type of article might be handled? --Michael Johnson 00:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue of whether inline citations are needed is not changed by this policy, so the balance shouldn't have shifted on way or the other. It is still up to the quality assurance projects like GA or FA to decide how detailed or fine-grained attribution they require. In my opinion, the phrase "challenged or likely to be challenged" should ensure that you don't need to cite every statement.  --Merzul 06:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non contentious material 

message: I'm liking the page, but is "attribution" the best name? When I first saw a link here, I thought it was going to be about GFDL-necessitated edit attribution. Picaroon 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is acknowledged, and the solution was to rename those "attribution" templates to "copyright  attribution" templates. I don't remember, but this issue will be dealt with. --Merzul 06:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I think we should just keep using Wikipedia:Verifiability as the main title, as the.. dominate (for a lack of a better word) policy. -- Ned Scott 09:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I think the following statement (2nd para., last sent.) should be emphasized in italics: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the disputed material." It's an important way to extinguish arguments and, unhighlighted, easy to miss when skimming the material. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I also think this is very important, and I strongly support this suggestion. The only reason I don't immediately apply it, is that being conservative during the transition week is a good idea. Otherwise, there are good arguments for this because compared with WP:V it has lost a bit of prominence, so I think we can make a case for italicizing it. Let's just wait a bit. --Merzul 06:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think this is the best time to do it, when a great many people will be looking here to see what may have changed. It does not in itself make a substantive change, but highlights it commensurate to its importance. However, I'm reluctant to be bold at this point in time without further consensus. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burden of evidence 

message: at the top of the page will need to be updated to initially include WP:ATT then remove WP:NOR and WP:V Gnangarra 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template needs more changes, see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#three_core_content_policies.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Template 

message: Doc, your point about the difference between something being attributed and being attributable is well taken and lies at the heart of this policy. But in the sections you changed, the word "supported" doesn't mean it must actually be attributed in the text, simply that the source, whatever it is, must actually support the edit that is being made. That is, the edit mustn't go beyond the source material. Whether the source is added is a separate matter. But a source that supports the edit must exist, otherwise it's OR. To add "capable of supporting it" says the same thing, but it seems to weaken it somehow, and as the extra words aren't necessary, I'm hoping we can leave them out. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should tag WP:V, WP:NOR, and perhaps WP:RS with  and add a note about it there. All forks and mergers could be called "de facto policy", that does not mean that the old pages are also kept as policy with an endless multiplication of them. —Centrx→talk • 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please forget about RS because it has nothing to do with this page. NOR and V will be turned into redirects. What would your objection to that be? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Cute, but no. FeloniousMonk 19:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capable of being supported

message: How are the advocates of this as policy intending on dealing with precedent established in the extant policies?  DEspite the protestations it's clear that the content is different, with some material taken out and some having a different emphasis, which changes the implications of any previous decisions made.
Has there been any thought put in to handling that?  I can see a risk in some, mainly contentious, areas an increase in effort to exploit the new loopholes that have been created vice the old loopholes.
ALR 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a risk with any change in policy, no matter how small.  And this is quite a large undertaking.  But problems like this can be dealt with as they appear, by minor tweaks to the phrasing. JulesH 19:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with precedent 

message: Big edits going on... some changes are easy to resolve, but here is  an edit discussed above (end of section). It's a good edit I think, but I'm not sure. There are some small fixes now as well, such as html code for '--' I'm not sure what is preferred. --Merzul 18:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "big edits going on"? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean they include too many fixes at the same time. --Merzul 18:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the editor, I don't see this. These were two defects in the same sentence brought up in the same discussion. One is an unwarranted loophole, the other mere redundancy; but if anybody wants to support one change and reverse the other, they need merely edit, rather than simply undoing. This is a good thing; they may come up with an improvement on both texts.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PMA, I haven't looked at your edits, but this can't be used as an opportunity to make changes to the policies, because the consensus was gained with the assurance that ATT is a summary without changes; therefore, if you make changes, this will not become policy. NOR and V are widely supported. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: PMA, I think the second phrase removed, "read and", was not just a redundancy; since the sentence is stating what should not be done, it should not mention desireable behavior such as reading sources. --Gerry Ashton 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "as a rule" 

message: That is not in the slightest just a merger of verifiability and original research. And RS is not only just a guideline, but a highly disputed one. It should not be a core policy. -Amarkov moo! 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amarkov, this doesn't include RS. Everything from RS that looks similar to this is from V and NOR in the first place. Do you have any specific examples of what you mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this include [[WP:RS]]? 

message: Reliable sources section does not link to WP:RS (like other sections reffering to subpolicies do), and it has a shortcut WP:V (which redirects to Wikipedia:Verifiability which is being merged here...). Also some shortcuts are ilinked (and point to themselves - i.e. this page), others are not. This is confusing.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The plan was that WP:RS would be replaced by a combination of the text here and at WP:ATTFAQ.  I'm not sure if this has changed, and if so what to...? JulesH 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources?

message: Many newcomers may think this policy describes how Wikipedia editors receive attribution for their work. At the very least we should address this with a relevant link in see also. Or we should consider changing the name of this policy to avoid confusion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that is what I innitially thought when I found this proposal.  While the "nutshell" explains everything, people won't see the nutshell when it is being linked to from another page.  I think it needs a clearer title.  Perhaps something like "Attributability"?--Konstable 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not stick to the old name most people are familiar with (i.e. verifiability)?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main argument was that when an editor checks a source they are not "verifying" info as such, but simply checking that the info has been attributed to a reliable source. I'm not in a position to verify the content of a Nature article; I can only demand that "the Sun is hot" be attributed to one. Attributability? Bit of a clunker, but maybe better. Marskell 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the name, people will figure it out. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the name is good, and any confusion will be cleared away in a short time, as people get used to it. Verifiability is somewhat of a misnomer, as has been pointed out. "Attributability, not truth" sounds a lot less confusing to me. Crum375 21:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think the old policies were easier to explain, especially WP:NOR.  But I suppose we don't actually have to stop talking about it.   semper fictilis 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How often have editors argued that people would "get used" to our private definition of "Verifiability"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking more of WP:NOR: I think I've seen lots of times when someone is advancing some private theory.  Telling them that wikipedia is not the place for such "original research" is the most direct way of dealing with that problem.  Yes, we can tell them that they need to attribute it.  But when that argument ultimately is challenged ("I don't need to attribute it because I know it to be true" or "it is obvious"), we ultimately have to invoke the principle of "no original research".  semper fictilis 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution may be confusing