Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 3

message: Perhaps the relevant criteria for the popular culture section is not popular culture, but rather "areas there is little controversy about." All the examples I've thought of that might require these exceptions are deeply placid subjects. Quilting. Model trains. Doctor Who. Fans and afficianados may be passionate, and there may be subjective debates within the area ("No, the sixth Doctor is best!") but there's no real factual disputes. ("Mariner's Compass was Hitler's favorite pattern") And certainly no real controversy with the outside world. ("Model Trains: Harmless Hobby, or Gateway to Hell?") The important thing, to me, is to let such topics about which there is not a bunch of raging controversies just waiting to happen play it a bit looser. Think of it as the opposite of BLP - "Nothing ever goes seriously and dangerously wrong with fly-fishing, so editors in that area should go ahead and use common sense." Phil Sandifer 14:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely convinced the "recognized expert" quite covers it. Though I admit I can't quite fully articulate my problem, so give me a bit to think about that. Phil Sandifer 14:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the policy does give leeway for a group of Dr Who experts or afficionados to accept a website as a source when they agree on its accuracy and quality. I see your concerns as being met by the clause which addresses such circumstances, by the undeprecation of reliable primary sources, by the scope the policy gives to commonsense, expertise, and judgement as final arbiters in assessing sources, and by, in a tight corner, the magic pebble of "ignore all rules". This policy really has become admirably tolerant, in my opinion, which I'm sure is the way to go. qp10qp 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man o man are we on the same page! WAS 4.250 22:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the proposed new pop culture clause allow this kind of article, which is based on Usenet posts? If it would, is that a good thing or a bad thing? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tough one, and one I'm not sure I feel qualified to judge. Within mathematics as a whole, I would not consider such self-published material OK, because there are a large number of cranks and lunatics. On the other hand, if we narrow to fractal mathematics, and particularly the Mandelbrot set, it may well be an area of hobbyists where such concerns don't apply. Also, I'm not sure the new PC clause is the most relevant one - is the creator of Buddhabrot a recognized expert? Phil Sandifer 14:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Replace "Model Trains" with "RPGs/D&D" and you have something controversial. ColourBurst 02:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you don't. The sources you can use for an anti-D&D article do not offer a substantial or important POV at this point. The 80s controversy should be reported, but it's a historical phenomenon. Phil Sandifer 14:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps the relevant criteria for the popular culture thing

message: SV, why the change to "Material challenged or likely to be challenged" as the primary criterion for using an inline citation?  Is that supposed to sum up "substantial, surprising, or controversial"; if so, I don't think it does.  "Challenged" implies that someone will think the information incorrect, and will be vocal enough to say something about it, implying that we need citations only when someone disagrees with what is written.  There are many other reasons to have citations than the possibility of somebody thinking something is incorrect (research, ease of verification, sourcing an essay, etc.), and this wording should reflect that. At the very least, I would expect something like "At a minimum, material that may be or has been challenged should be accompanied by an inline citation."  Better would be the previous wording (something like "At a minimum, any substantial, surprising, or controversial content should be accompanied by an inline citation.") --Spangineeres (háblame) 18:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For my part, I think that inline citation is not always appropriate, especially in shorter articles that have around three decent sources, all of which amount to a few pages, and all of which support one another.  Accordingly, I object to the word "substantial" in the old version.  I think that the current wording describes both actual and reasonble practice. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it currently reads "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by an inline citation" is better than adding "substantial". A page whose content can be found in every text book on the subject should not have inline links to each substantial claim. WAS 4.250 18:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also found the words "substantial, surprising, or controversial" were a bit misleading as to best practise. We often need to supply references for points that are none of the above, and often don't need to supply refs for substantial material, unless it's challenged or likely to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Would it be a good idea to state more about appropriate challenging methods?  See Hippie and Talk:Hippie for a recent RfC where this became an issue. Durova 03:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We don't need to discuss how to communicate with other editors in a policy on content. WAS 4.250 03:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Material challenged or likely to be challenged"? 

message: Angus, is it not standard to supply the English translation of foreign-language title?  SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, is that for titles of sources or titles of foreign books and films? I think we're very inconsistent in the latter (almost all Hong Kong film titles are translated into English while almost all French film is not)  and probably just as inconsistent with the former. ColourBurst 02:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit in question is talking about titles of sources exclusively. And in the academic and non-fiction-literature worlds, foreign-language sources are almost always cited without translating their titles. So I agree with Angus here. Andrew Levine 02:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was titles of sources that was being discussed. Okay, I'm fine with it if others are. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not uncommon or unreasonable to translate titles which are in non-Latin scripts, but leave languages like French alone.  But still, I wouldn't make any requirements here.  Perhaps a recommendation, particularly if an authoritative translation is available (as opposed to a multi-lingual Wikipedian coming up with one themselves).  --EngineerScotty 02:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except we don't.  Some French film titles are translated, some not; some Greek (as another example) film titles are translated, some not (only romanized).  Some of it has to do with whether or not they're exported to English film markets, so I tend to leave the issue alone; but still, we're not consistent on this, but we're also not terribly consistent with other foreign language conventions either, so this isn't really a big issue.  ColourBurst 03:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue at hand has nothing to do with film titles. The current proposal is about citing sources, and that's what Angus' edit was about. Andrew Levine 03:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  About reciting sources in a foreign language, what little I've come across suggests that the titles are cited in the original language, even if non-Latin.  ColourBurst 05:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sometimes translated book titles e.g. here Andries 11:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign language titles

message: Please don't add positive or negative.  It's not in the main BLP article for a reason.  It is not all inclusive and will only be used to limit BLP actions, not enhance it.  BLP used to be only "negative" and it was changed to "controversial" because people will claim that "true" is neither positive or negative.  By adding these extra qualifiers, it logically limits the definition of "controversial" to only "positive" or "negative".  Rather than debate people on the point of "positive" or "negative", leave it as broad here as it is in the main article of BLP and we can simply delete the unsourced controversial material regardless of whether someone views it as positive or negative.   --Tbeatty 07:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fair point. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BLP Controversial (positive or negative) 

message: Currently Attribution is worded to say: (the website of Stormfront would be an example of an extremist site) This is probably counter-productive from what is intended, as it inadvertently limits what counts as an extremist site. By listing a well known hate group/site, you inadvertently raise the standard against which all other extremist groups/sites are to be judged. This works to the advantage of most extremist groups, as it gives them a foil. Editors who support including material that originated from extremist groups simply say “the policy is designed to keep out the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis, neither of which describe group XYZ” even when group XYZ is clearly white nationalist in nature. For example: The main journal of White Nationalist thought in the US is the American Renaissance (magazine) or Amren.  Even thought Jared Taylor the founder/publisher of Amren is a close personal friend of Don Black, the founder/ publisher of Stormfront, and much of the material in Amren can be found on Stomfront, Amren’s supporters will always claim the high road and scream loudly if you call Amren an extremist site. (I have already had this discussion more or less on the White nationalism page, apparently it is a Paleoconservative publication, according to some) 
In short it would be better to remove the example of Stormfront and leave things more open. By using Stormfront as an example, you have set the benchmark so high that most extremist groups can not reach it. 
An alternative would be use one or more professionally maintained lists of extremist groups as a general point of reference. Such lists are not foolproof, nor all inclusive, and not every group listed would necessarily meet everyone’s definition of extremist, however, the only “harm” caused by being list inadvertently is that your group/website can not be cited directly. It simply forces editors to find an acceptable alternative source when citing facts. In my opinion, the “good” (having a vented source of extremist who where off-limits, thus reducing edit wars) of using such a list would outweigh the “harm” (legitimate statements would have to be cited using alternative sources). 
Probably the most widely cited list at the moment, IMO only, is the SPLC’s list of hate groups. It covers perhaps a couple hundred groups divided into seven categories, making it a good starting point.  If a statement can be traced back to a group listed here, it’s a pretty safe bet that the source should never be cited in Wikipedia. (I have no connection what so ever to the SPLC) Thanks Brimba 09:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brimba, the recommendation of the SPLC list could perhaps be placed on the FAQ page; the problem with it is that we don't control its contents; not everyone agrees with it; and it covers the U.S. only. What we need on this page is a clear example of a group "widely acknowledged as extremist," and Stormfront is a good example of that. Whatever Amren says about itself is irrelevant; what matters is what other reasonable people think of it. Also, we're not talking only about hate groups, but about extremist groups or people of any kind. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the context, I read it as saying that some sites can not be trusted to be used a source for anything other than themselves such as gossip columns, promotional sites and extremely biased sites. Which makes sense. Every site has biases that need to be taken into account but only extremely biased sites need to be basicly ruled out. "Extremeism  for accuracy is no vice" (to paraphrase Goldwater)? WAS 4.250 14:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would welcome placing the SPLC list on the FAQ page. For our purposes it is far from a conclusive list, but I never assumed that it would be conclusive. I think using a list of extremists is better than making an example of any one website. I spent a lot of time yesterday thinking of ways to solve a particular problem that I have seen more then once (call it a shortage of reasonable people when you need them), and this was the best solution I could come up with. Thanks again for you time, Brimba 14:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Let's leave the wording "extremist" without a specific example. These can go in the FAQ, together with the SPLC and other lists. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using Stormfront as an example

message: The phrasing, "Examples would be" is clumsy, so I tried rephrasing.  I believe this version expresses the same intent, but more smoothly.  
I note that Jossi reverted my note about being careful when doing calculations.  I think some sort of caution is needed, because it is really easy to introduce new assumptions without realizing it.  
A question: should we specially note the exception for original photographs and graphics?  As I understand, NOR is interpreted loosely in such cases because of the difficulty of finding appropriate public-domain or GDFL-licensable illustrations?  I have seen editors create a graph because of the complexity of fair use with respect to using the copyrighted version, and then worry about NOR.  While I commend their concern, I think there is no objection to a graphic that is really just a good illustration of what the source is saying, and I think it improves Wikipedia to have it. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a wide variety of opinion on Wikipedia regarding NOR as regards images. For example, a picture of a thing on a page used to represent that thing (blue jay, centipede, RAM chip). What is acceptable  in determining if the picture represents that thing or not? We have people going to botanical gardens and photographing plants and bird watchers photoing birds in the wild and tech buffs photoing computer parts, OR? I don't think the needed conversations have even begun in earnest on the subject much less reached a consensus. I suggest we don't mention images at all in this policy, rather than prematurely make policy on something without any real concensus by wikipedians as a whole. WAS 4.250 14:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused.  Is not WP:NOR#Original images policy now?  My proposal says essentially the same thing, albeit in fewer words.  Robert A.West (Talk) 15:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR#Original images is more essay than policy. It is exactly what we want to leave behind when we replace the ramblings we have now with something both nondogmatic and more to the point. WAS 4.250 17:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that part of the policy page is not policy?  It has been there for a while, and looks like policy to me.  I have cited it when someone produced an original graph to stand in for the actual graph that could be copyvio if included.  I have cited it when considering whether to delete images from a private collection were being used in place of similar copyrighted images.  Given that the current policy page addresses it, and given that GA and FA both encourage images, I don't think we can or should duck it.  Fear of instruction creep aside, is there any objection?  Robert A.West (Talk) 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An "original" graph created to stand-in for a copyrighted graph is probaly a copyright violation regardless.  As it is a derivative of the coyrighted graph.  In such a case the source graph is either not a creative effort and therefore uncopyrightable, or if does pass the threshold for being copyrighted any derivative work would be a copyright violation. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright for an image is in the form of presentation, not the facts presented.  The creative effort exists in the choice of form.  To be original, the form of the new graph would need to be materially different from the graph in the journal, but a different graph produced from the same underlying published tabular data need not be a derivative work.  At least, that is the advice my counsel gave me in a similar instance.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the question is if a graph produced from the same underlying published tabular data as a published graph is original research.  I would think not.  As long as it encompasses the complete data that was published it could be sourced to the published version.  It would be inappropriate to make a graph with a selection of the data from the published graph however. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I can think of some exceptions, but they would be rare, and done for clarity of presentation, not to prove a point.  IAR may cover those cases.  The question is, should we include a paragraph on this point in the proposal? Robert A.West (Talk) 01:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Orignal images of well known objects is "original research"?  Enact such a policy, and not only will your source of images dry up, but you'll need to delete most of the current collection.  Images are but highly detailed descriptions of things, indistinguishable from a bunch of text (information content wise).  "A picture is worth a thousand words", etc.  Looking over this current proposal though, I get the impression that like the current policy, the "image exemption" will flow naturally out of it.  It it can be shown not to be the case, then there is a bug that needs to be fixed, or this policy needs to die in committee.  mdf 20:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is not original research  

message: We currently have:
:*Original research refers to material for which no reliable published source can be found
I previously changed this to:
:*Original research refers to material for which no reliable published source may be found
but it was changed back.  There's a problem with the phrasing "can": it suggests that if an editor searches for a source and can't find one, that constitutes original research, when a source may well exist that they couldn't find. JulesH 09:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you say how you're using the word "may" here? "Can" is being used to indicate that no reliable source can be found by anyone who looks, not just by one editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "may" isn't a good choice of word.  I wasn't happy with it at the time and I'm still not.  Basically I'm trying to get the idea across that what we mean is that it isn't possible to find sources, not that a search didn't turn any sources up, both of which are valid interpretations of what we have at the moment. JulesH 17:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought that if you synthesized material from primary sources only, it's still original research.  Has that changed or should we say no reliable secondary published source?  ColourBurst 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you synthesize material from any reliable sources to form a new idea, it will not be possible to find the new idea in any reliable source and it will be original research. I hope Colourburst isn't suggesting that primary sources be prohibited altogether. --Gerry Ashton 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, using primary sources for an article is perfectly fine, though solely using primary sources or if the majority of the information in an article uses a primary source, that's a problem (because it violates the idea that Wikipedia is a tertiary source).  ColourBurst 22:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia IS a tertiary source.  It therefore follows that primary and secondary and tertiary sources fill its basket, so to speak. Terryeo 17:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes. "Tertiary source" doesn't mean that the source is necessarily the third to report. It merely means it is neither a primary source, which is able to verify facts directly, nor a secondary source, which is necessarily in contact with the primary ones, but rather one only reporting others and not necessarily having a fact-checking ability, relying on other sources instead. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research def