Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 4

message: It seems to me that this discussion is falling into something that was at the heart of the problems with WP:RS - an attempt to make a white line guideline that will on its own allow all of the sources we want to allow and forbid all of the ones we want to forbid. We all have a good sense that an article based soley on press releases is bad, but one based on Outpost Gallifrey probably isn't. We seem to recognize that tagging a sentence that's clearly true with a  tag is a bad idea. What we're stumbling over is wordings that can make a perfect general case out of all of these observations.
It is unlikely that any such wording exists. Instead of the current process, in which we try to craft compromise wordings to nudge this policy closer to the mythical white line, why don't we make a move along the lines of admitting that source evaluation is hard in the policy. I'm thinking one bit, towards the top of questionable sources, that notes that "In some areas there may be sources that meet every criteria listed for a reliable source, but still ought not be considered reliable. Such exceptions are rare, and you should be prepared to explain your reasoning when you assert the existence of one. Stringent application of this policy is no substitute for thought and editorial judgment." Then, towards the bottom of the same section, we add one last exception to the effect of "Some articles and topics may require the use of sources that do not meet all of the standards here. These exceptions are rare, and great care should be taken in cases where they exist. You should be prepared to explain in detail why the article would benefit from the use of a non-traditional source, and be aware that these exceptions are highly controversial." 
Such wordings do open the door for the clueless and the malicious, but experience has shown that we cannot legislate either of those categories out of existence anyway. Given that both will abuse this policy in any form we present it, we ought do what, in the end, we always do on this project: trust the overall base of editors to reach sensible decisions, and write policies that will support those decisions when referenced. Phil Sandifer 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, although I obviously think my exchange of three words for one is a far better solution.  :) But whatever gets the agreement on this issue has my support.  I certainly agree that sources are evaluated in context. Hiding Talk 13:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, do you agree that isn't needed if we stick to "unquestionably recognized expert"? WAS 4.250 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. I mean, that may address the concerns that we can come up with, but the real test of policy is its flexibility in the real world. There seem to be about a half-dozen of us actively discussing this policy. If, among us, we've read 1% of Wikipedia's articles, I'd be surprised. I mean, I'm happy to help with the fine-tuning of language as well, but I can't really think of a circumstance where some hedging against rules-lawyers on either side would become wholly unnecessary. Phil Sandifer 16:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point Phil, and honestly I would prefer the approach you outlined above.  However the discussion here has shown there is a sincere line of thought that holds to the idea policies should apply equally to articles regardless of the subject matter.  I do not think we can achieve consensus with your suggested approach.  I do wish that the people holding that line of thought would explictly state what they think of your proposal as well as the current compromise wording.  I dislike having to guess what they mean from their silence.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This policy would apply equally to all articles regardless of the subject matter. It just acknowledges that part of the nature of sourcing is that there are exceptions. Phil Sandifer 20:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do like your idea myself.  If no one has spoken against by tommorow you should work it in to the page.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A different sort of approach

message: I've been off wiki for much of the weekend, and haven't been following the debate as close as I would like--but I see the (for lack of a better word) "pop culture" section remains a sticking point.  Both to get myself back into the debate, and perhaps to assist others, let me attempt to summarize the issues.
* Many articles on Wikipedia are sourced in such a fashion that would violate WP:ATT without such an exception; further, in many cases these are articles on clearly notable subjects which are not disputed WRT their accuracy.
* Granting exceptions to policies to specific subject areas (i.e. pop culture, fiction), is seen as unwise.  Other subject areas (quilting, roadgeek pages) probably qualify for looser standards.  Furthermore, even within general "unserious" topics; there are subtopics which shouldn't qualify for the exception.  A bestiary of Harry Potter, for example, need not limit itself to serious or scholarly works from reliable (not-self-published) sources; OTOH, discussion of critical reaction to the series (books or film), or real-world controversies like whether or not HP is satanic (real-world in the sense that a non-trivial amount of people believe this--I don't intend to promote such lunacy here), should use reliable sources.  A review of the books written by a major literary critic is appropriate, a book review posted on someone's fansite is probably not.
* Certain categories of subjects shouldn't be exempted in any case.  Traditionally-academic subjects (science, liberal arts, business, etc); subjects involving significant active controversies (religion, politics); and other specific topics with a rich literature which meets WP:ATT without the exemption under debate; and/or a large number of established "professional"s who write on the topic.  
** OTOH, some debates within fandom, such as whether or not Deckard was a replicant, probably don't rise to the level of "significant active controversies".  --EngineerScotty 16:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  There are quite a few people who will argue that a bestiary of Harry Potter is "fancruft" and should not be allowed in without reliable sources.  ColourBurst 16:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point... which brings up a few questions concerning how this policy interacts with notability and NPOV.  A common assertion, which many agree with, is that a "notable" topic is one which is described by multiple reliable sources--(a band or other topic which is only described in self-published promotional literature, for instance, isn't eligible).  OTOH, given that Harry Potter is highly popular, the subject is "notable" in the sense that "lots of people can be shown to care about it".  Many objections to fancruft don't come about because of sourcing issues--certain fictional universes (Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings are fairly-well sourced; in this way HP is a bad example); many object to fancruft simply because they think that such material is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, regardless of how well-documented the fan material is.  Obviously, such arguments are beyond the scope of this policy; though as you point out, some may seek to craft this policy to exclude topics they dislike.  I'm probably guilty of the same thing--several suggestions I've made are rather transparent attempts to keep crackpots and pseudoscientists from suggesting that self-published material promoting their theories as equivalent to mainstream science.  :) --EngineerScotty 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is not true.  The current AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man weapons (and there are many articles under deletion and already deleted that fall under this category) is under attack for not having reliable sources (the sources in the article point to GameFAQs articles which wouldn't be reliable anyhow... okay, they're reliable as game guides to a lot of the population, but game guides fall under WP:NOT.).  Much of the source material in a universe is "official" source material which is primary (LotR is an exception because it's a historical text as well as a "geek" text) Consensus is wildly mixed on this, there's a lot of people in the "delete all articles except for the works" camp, a lot of people in the "keep them and clean them up" camp, and a lot of people who are in the middle (which tends to bias them to things they care about).  For subjects that are academic, I have no problem insisting on absolute peer review/fact finding, because those are subjects that need that kind of thing.  ColourBurst 19:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly off-topic, GameFAQs is unreliable because its content is user-submitted (some but not much editorial oversight), not because it's a game guide. For example, the Ultimania series of guides is invaluble to citing the Final Fantasy series. Nifboy 20:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not off-topic at all. Would I be right in thinking that the site is one where the username of the submitter is attached to content they submit?  If so, a user on the site who built up a reputation for accuracy might be allowable as "an indisputably recognized expert" under the text here. JulesH 21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, but I don't know how you would go about showing someone had a "rep" on GameFAQs. There does exist a separate user class for game developers, etc (who have to prove they work there) on the forums, but that's it. Nifboy 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Ultimania guides would be considered primary sources because they're directly published by Square Enix.  I think people would discourage having large amounts of information from primary sources in an article.  ColourBurst 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most pertinent info in Ultimania is development info, particularly developer interviews, which is basically the scarcest and most in-demand info at GA/FAC. I think the exact same interviews, if they had shown up in secondary sources, would be equally as valid, because the source-source in this case is the developer's own words. There is a difference between relying solely on primary sources and having really really good primary sources. Nifboy 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back from the weekend 

message: Is it ready to submit for comment to the general public? I think it is. WAS 4.250 16:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion on this page would suggest not. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it ready?

message: The following appeared at User talk:Jimbo Wales; apologies if it is redundant.
::I can not, at least now, agree that this is not an overhaul. In the first place, the term attribution is different from verifiability. We already get a lot cleaned out or deleted because it is not attributed (but is verifiable and sometimes attributable if one just does a google search), but today it's done mostly to questionable information. As a concept, attribution implies attribution to anyone, be it a recognized science publication, a cheap ufologist newspaper, or just a myspace celebrity. The concept of verifiability implies more mature and balanced approach of using sources as means to the end, with recoginzing both that information may be verified even if not immediately attributed, and that just attribution is not enough, with many sources having very low publication standarts.
::Actually moving from verifiability to attribution as the concept would turn Wikipedia towards plain collection of quotes and links. Renaming policy while keeping old concept would make the title misleading. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The objections that CP\M is stating are well covered in the formulation of this proposal. I would suggest that CP\M re-reads the text of the proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the text. Objections primarily refer to the title. Sorry for not posting it here first in a complete version. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume thenm, that you do not have major objections to the text in the proposal. If the objection is the title, do you have any suggestions for a better title? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A better name is Wikipedia:Verifiability. I can not comment on the text right now, as I have not yet thoroughly compared it to the existing policies. I'm not a conservatist, but sometimes evolutionary approach actually makes sense. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution vs verifiability 

message: section heading retrospectively added as this bit is fairly self-contained Carcharoth 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first example seems to be street knowledge, or verbal knowledge, that tends not to be written down. An example of this is slang words, or new words. These circulate for a while before they are documented by dictionaries and, in your example, maps (though if it is restricted to a local area, residents presumably, when talking to non-residents, remember to use the proper name, or if they forget, have to explain what they mean). Also, unofficial terms don't tend to be documented, unlike official terms. This is an important point that needs to be mentioned in the policy document. As to whether to allow such information or not, I'm not sure. The trouble is that this is definitely original research. A dictionary pays people to document the use of new words. Map-makers pay people to find out the names of places. We can't do that, so regretfully, as we can't practically verify this sort of information, this is a good example of something where Wikipedia has to wait for the professional publications to catch up and document the phenomenon. Internet memes might be different though... :-) Carcharoth 12:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Your example of popular card games I can't comment on, as I don't know what you are referring to here. If you mean terminology, please see above. Carcharoth 12:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider Hearts (game), Spades, Euchre. Useful, interesting, and personally verified by many editors, but lacking citations and probably not fixable with the kinds of sources we like to see. Much could perhaps be cited through Geocities websites from J. Random Enthusiast, but that strikes me as less reliable than Wikipedia's content, not more. William Pietri 17:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Those sort of things remind me of "how to" guides. Most of the content seems to be: (1) How to play the game (beginner level); (2) How to play the game (advanced level); (3) Variants of the game; (4) Terminology. Nothing seems to link the games out to wider society. Some of the history sections are more encyclopedic and fulfil this function, but something on organised tournaments and professional stuff seems needed. Otherwise it is doomed forever to remain an enthusiast's article about something where no non-amateur activity has yet been documented. Compare chess, scrabble, bridge (card game) and poker. I think what I'm trying to get at here is that "how to play", and "tips and strategy" should go in wikibooks on the subject, while the history and cultural impact of the games should go in an encyclopedia article. Ditto for the computer game guides people mention elsewhere. Carcharoth 23:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The example of the bridge is an interesting one. Normally, for this kind of recent news, we attribute a newspaper report. If this is something that isn't recorded in any newspapers, I suggest taking a photograph might help here. This is one of the areas where original observations are allowed. If the photographer uploads the photo to Wikipedia/Commons, and gives a caption with the date, then this can be used to update the article. Unfortunately, you can't photograph someone saying  "The Avenues"! :-) Carcharoth 12:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess popular names of areas could be found in some king of local media, website, or other written source. There should be at least some website to cite. And if there really isn't, IAR consensus could be applied, just if a few editors can confirm that it's a widely used term. This isn't a normal situation, though, but rather an exception - Wikipedia, after all, is more about written knowledge. In practice mention of a local name for a specified area is most likely to remain uncontested. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. That allows anyone to claim anything about names in local areas. If it really is widely used, then something has to be provided in support of that claim. Otherwise you could get situations where old names that have long since fallen out of use remain on a page and are not contested. I would suggest a note on the talk page, with an appeal asking people to find some attributable source that will confirm the name. Carcharoth 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By practically being uncontestead I mean that correct info of this kind is unlikely to come under policy-compliance check so not much attention is required - not that it is right to insert claims or leave it uncontested. BTW, false ones would likely be contested and removed by the residents. And I'm pretty sure that at least some website could mention a widely used name. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well, Carcharoth, that's exactly why I brought this up. I have a shelf-full of books on San Francisco, and a large stack of maps. I couldn't find a source in any of the ones that I thought might have something. We can find web sites where people use the term, but I'd hate to cite something like that. But any San Francisco resident would know what you meant if you said you were looking for an apartment in "The Avenues". I think our San Francisco article is correct to mention it, even though it seems to violate this proposed policy, and more so than a policy that is rooted in verifiability. William Pietri 17:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Often, but probably not in this case, as "The Avenues" isn't a neighborhood, but more a region. The actual neighborhoods are the Richmond and the Sunset. And this particular example aside, there are enough others that I'm more interested in the principle than the specific examples chosen. William Pietri 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. But just sticking briefly with the example, I thought that estate agent descriptions of neighborhoods might be good, or property magazines. I also did a Google search to try and find some online usage of this phrase, and there seem to be some good results here. Sometimes a website is the best that can be found. Just try and find a website that looks reliable... :-) Carcharoth 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I particularly liked this one, even though it is 6 years old. Carcharoth 23:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some examples

message: I think the policy should make a clearer distinction between different parts of a mainstream media source. At the moment the suggestion is that a source (e.g. a well-regarded broadsheet newspaper) in general can be viewed as reputable if it can be assumed good fact-checking processes are in place. But while high profile news stories can expect to receive good fact-checking, other parts won't e.g. whimisical opinion columns about new fads, human interest news stories, semi-humorous pieces etc. Bwithh 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe an issue for the FAQ.  Certainly, a letter to the editor, a sports column (many sports columnists are shoddy journalists), or a fluff piece in the "living" section should not be treated in the same fashion as a major news item.  Likewise for "articles" vs "letters" in many scientific journals.  --EngineerScotty 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact checking and media sources

message: Someone keeps changing "extremist" organizations to "extremely biased", describing groups that may not be used as sources. Many of the sources we use are "extremely biased." It's groups that are widely acknowledged as extremist that we want to avoid being used. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Define extremist. Really. Barry Goldwater was widely ackowledged as extremist. You imply "extremely biased" is not extremist. You are not making sense to me. WAS 4.250 03:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everyone with an extreme bias is an extremist. The White House has an extreme bias when it comes to the Iraq War. Should they no longer be used as sources? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, some extreme ultra-right politician may be quoted, as he isn't an extremist. Why then extremists may not? What's so special about them? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extremely biased

message: The "problematic sources" section has the following in it:
:* A questionable source is one with no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. This includes websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremely biased, and gossip columns and sources that are entirely promotional in nature. Questionable sources should not be used, except in articles about themselves.
I'm wondering if maybe we don't need this bullet point, because the first part of the paragraph is mostly redundant to the "self-published sources" bullet (although maybe it might be good to use a different term from "self-published"), and the rest might be better covered at WP:NPOV.  Thoughts?  JYolkowski // talk 01:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable sources 

message: Hiding, why both? Are you saying academics aren't professionals? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WAS, this would be a policy change with major implications. That's not what we're here to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Is any "self-published source" an "indisputably recognized expert"? I rather doubt it. They can simply be "experts", when it comes to popular culture articles, but they must be "professional experts" when it comes to the pretty much everything else. The point of this policy is to streamline WP:NOR and WP:V, and allow for reasonable attribution of articles which are hard to attribute from traditional sources, not to make major changes in the policies which open the floodgates to anyone with a website who has figured out a new wrinkle on super-string theory, or knows who is really behind 9-11. Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope no one here thinks "professional" is well-defined. It could be anyone who gets paid, anyone who is good at what they do, or a only a member of one of the traditional professions (if I recall correctly, the clergy, lawyers, and physicians). Then is the whole issue of retired professionals. --Gerry Ashton 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Professional" may not be perfectly defined, but it's far better defined than "indisputably recognized expert", which is a very rare beast. Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't even work out what "indisputably recognized expert" means. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerry, a professional expert is someone who is paid for his/her expertise. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The third edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (unabridged) includes a definition equivalent to SlimVirgin's, but also includes "3. A skilled practitioner; an expert." --Gerry Ashton 03:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Professional" connotes a learned practitioner, whose skill and study are comparable that that expected of a physician or lawyer.  "Academic" connotes someone who studies the field rather than practicing.  A legal academic is concerned more with the history of laws or the underlying philosophy of legal systems than with using the law to benefit specific clients, and the legal professional has the opposite perspective.  Of course, the lines blur.  Many academics maintain professional practices in their fields, and many practicing professionals perform some research, but when I write or see the two terms counterposed, this is the distinction that forms in my mind. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with professional since it includes expert. WAS 4.250 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional or academic

message: A question, we are having a fun discussion on Talk:Healthcare of Cuba regarding sourcing. I'm wondering how this policy would look to resolving the dispute. One user has brought forward a critical source (published on a website) which makes the claim that, "Cuba has a high rate of alcohol consumption. It is estimated that 80% of the adult population in Cuba consumed alcohol regularly on a daily basis or consumes alcohol in binges until the supply available runs out."  
Now, while much of the information in the article is footnoted, this part isn't. It makes quite an extraordinary claim and in a very partisan manner. In the old WP:RS, we would have had the "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" guideline, which under my interpretation would mean that a single source published on a website for a rather extreme claim is insufficient citation. Another more reliable source would need to be bought forward for this to get into the article.
Fortunately this dispute was resolved as several reliable sources (journal articles and WHO documentation) were bought forward which disputed this. But I am interested what should have been done according to this policy if these sources had not been found. - Francis Tyers · 08:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-hypothetical situation

message: How about this?
:"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. This means that all material (facts, opinions, ideas, and arguments) published by Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source. In other words, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether the material has been published by a reliable source, and hence can be attributed to that source, not whether the material is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought (such as your own opinions, experiences, or arguments)."
Is that acceptable? Carcharoth 11:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds good to me.  It fixes my main problem with the lead paragraph which was that we needed to stress that attribution had to be to a reliable source. JulesH 11:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one note. How about (for example) "creation science"? To me, this is nutball stuff, and I'd write off any company that publishes it. But a cursory reading of the newspaper tells me that millions of people have Faith in this, and I suppose they would say the publishers were fine, upstanding, and reliable. (No, I don't have any answers for this, and wonder if it is dealt with elsewhere.) -- Hoary 11:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should probably be in the FAQ (see Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ). The short answer is that, in conjunction with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, the editors of articles need to make a judgment of the reliability of the sources, and the relevance, presenting a balanced and neutral article that gives all side of the argument in the correct proportions, and not using their own arguments. Unfortunately, policies like this, while providing guidance, don't always help with the specific judgments needed on the ground. There will be an article on creation science. Hopefully it is not in too bad a state. But have a look at how things are handled there. Carcharoth 11:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's simple. Problems arise if the proponents of "creation science" want to insert their own "scientific" viewpoint into articles that aren't overtly about "creation science" itself but are on geology, evolution, and the like. The editors will be able to cite books, and the books will be published by what they and hundreds of thousands of people (if not you or me) sincerely consider to be reliable outfits. Of course this can easily shade off into a discussion of WP:POV, but hoping to avoid this, I wonder if "reliable" publishers can be defined in some way to exclude those with a PoV mission. But I can immediately think of problems with that too. (Sorry to have questions but not even tentative answers.) -- Hoary 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution here is to find a counter-cite that dismantles the argument of the "creation scientists" (see talk.origins for arguments), and also to use editorial judgement as to how much text to devote to these issues within any single article, and which article the information is best placed in. A lengthy documentation of the geological arguments of the "creation scientists" might be best at a geology section of creation science, instead of at geology. A mention and link to creation science is needed at geology and other places, but that mention must not be allowed to get out of control and take over the article. You should probably also find a cite that will back up the claim that geology is mainstream science, while creation science is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. In other words, just because material is citable and can be attributed, doesn't mean it should go in just any old article, or in any old way. The editorial balance and distribution of information between different articles is a vital part of the process. This is really a question of where information belongs, not one of attribution. ie. WP:NPOV, remembering that not all points of view should get equal amounts of space in any one article, but that all relevant points of view should at least be mentioned. Failure to mention something that is relevant is what NPOV is meant to avoid. Carcharoth 11:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I'll take a little time to think through its implications. -- Hoary 01:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New lead paragraph

message: At this time there is now an arbitration case up for Bowling for Columbine which bears upon this. The essence of the matter is that one editor is taking an extremely aggressive stance on sourcing in order to prevent the article from saying much about controversy over the film's content. My feeling is that we should not enable this kind of misrepresentation. Please visit the talk page for the article and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Bowling for Columbine. Mangoe 03:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a case of editors overstepping their duties. Wikipedia editors should not engage in describing/analyzing/commenting on primary sources, in particular when the subject is controversial. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. See also the OR  mess at Voyage_Au_Pays_Des_Nouveaux_Gourous. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have commented here Talk:Bowling_for_Columbine#Concern_over_original_research ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A case which bears upon this 

message: See User talk:DTDelaney for an example of attribution issues. It seems quite common for children of recently deceased people to offer information on that person to Wikipedia. Usually, it is nicely packaged in the form of an obituary (which I tracked down and added as a link in the article), but just as an example, what would this proposed policy say in cases that are not so clear-cut? Carcharoth 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I mean notable people whose children might be able to provide or confirm extra information not found in published sources. The question is, do we want that extra information? Carcharoth 11:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It would send it for clean-up, not for deletion. Rigorous enforcement of this policy would justify other editors asking for sources, as per the "sources needed" tag at the top of the page. It is up to the editor wanting to keep the material to explain any problems with obtaining sources. Carcharoth 11:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this is article is hiking "beta", which is spread mainly by word-of-mouth by those who have "been there, done that".  While there are printed descriptions of this place (reviews of trips there, maybe a few paragraphs (if that) in a technical canyoneering guidebook, etc), you probably won't find as much detail as given here, and certainly the people who created this article have either moved on or have no idea where to find it, beyond their own eye witness testimony.  As Ancheta Wis says, strict enforcement will gut this article to the point of deletion, and if not this article, more that are like it.  mdf 12:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if people have moved on, then you are stuck with choosing between assuming good faith (which shouldn't be applied to article content, but rather applies to editor behaviour), and allowing potentially inaccurate information to remain. In any case, this is another example of something that strictly speaking, because of the way it was added, is not encyclopedic. It belongs more in a wikibook or wikitravel guide. I would say that anything that can't be verified is not encyclopedic. The stuff that can't be verified is mostly "I went here and saw this" stuff, which is clearly original research and contributing "your own experience". This is not what Wikipedia is about. It is undoubtedly interesting, probably accurate, and useful to some people, but it is not really encyclopedic. If people add stuff and move on without telling people where the stuff came from, they really should expect to return in 10 years time and find that the material has not survived (unless someone buttressed the material with supporting references). If you want your contributions to be stable and remain in the encyclopedia, then tell us (editors and readers) where you got your information from. It is as simple as that really. Even if it is "eyewitness testimony", then put that, rather than nothing. Carcharoth 13:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Near as I can tell, the current proposal would deep-six any and all material based on previously unpublished eye witness testimony.  Under such circumstances, I would have to delete basically every single image I've uploaded here over the last year.  Note that current policy specifically exempts such from the rigors of WP:NOR;  this proposal is utterly silent on this matter.  Like the beta issue above, I think this would be a ludicrous result, and likely an unintended consequence of these efforts.  But if strict observance of policy is to be expected -- and from your last response, I conclude it will be -- what other choice do I have?  I eagerly await your detailed analysis of this proposal, to the effect that people like me would be permitted to contribute to this project under its regime.  mdf 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? The bit about being less stringent on pictures got dropped? That's just silly. I agree that if this policy is really going to merge and replace WP:V and WP:NOR, then it mustn't miss out stuff like that. As for strict observance of the policy, I much prefer to repair and improve articles, rather than delete or gut them. What I want is for people to stop adding obscure things without sources. It just makes it harder in the long run to check things and add sources later. Carcharoth 21:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand this, this is a big problem for images in the public domain (I asked a similar question earlier in the Village Pump.)  By definition most public domain images were created by the users, which is probably not professional (otherwise they'd be copyrighted 99% of the time), and if you don't allow them, you're basically excluding all user-created images, which means we'd have to rely on copyrighted images, which is also bad for the project.  And as for people adding things without sources, that already happens 90% of the time because 90% of the Wikipedia population don't interact with policy, and no amount of policy will prevent this, due to the very nature of Wikipedia.  ColourBurst 01:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? 90% of Wikipedia editors intuitively follow WP:IAR? Why did no-one tell me? :-) Carcharoth 08:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Current NOR policy includes an exception for images.  I proposed a paragraph (WT:ATT#What is not original research) covering images and diagrams.  The touchstone is that if the image can be readily compared to copyrighted images (or the thing itself) then it is not OR.  I got reverted and the discussion died. Robert A.West (Talk) 09:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest trying again. There is discussion happening on this issue now, and some support for adding such a clause. Carcharoth 12:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Relevant to articles written based on hiking beta, if we are discussing the hiking blog of a well-known expert climber, then I would say that the material is already covered by the self-published-expert exception (whatever we are calling it this hour).  If the material has been collated, the accounts of different hikers cross-checked for accuracy and published by someone with a reputation to protect, then we have a reliable source.  If neither, we have someone's unverified first-person account, and, no Wikipedia should not include that material.  If that means 86ing a batch of articles people care about, I am sorry, but those articles belong in a different project.  Perhaps we need a Wikia project devoted to things like hiking beta, internet memes and other things, where the intent is similar to Wikipedia, but the nature of the material requires editors to take responsibility for fact-checking.  Robert A.West (Talk) 09:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example 

message: Following on from the above, is it not simpler to present the policy this way:
When assessing the suitability of material for an article, answer the following:
*(1) Does the material in question supply relevant information?
**If not, can it be moved somewhere more relevant? Another article? Another wiki project?
*(2) What is the best way to ensure future readers and editors will not question or remove the material?
**One way to stabilise information is to link it to other articles. Another way is to attribute a source for the information.
*(3) Has the original editor or anyone else said where the information came from?
**If yes, investigate to verify the information and assess the reliability of the source.
*(4) Can you give a source for the information?
*(5) Do you think someone else might be able to give a source for the information?
If the information is not relevant, not stabilised, and the last three questions are answered with a "no", then the material should be removed, or tagged for removal. Does this way of presenting the policy look helpful? Carcharoth 14:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be a nice addition to WP:ATT/FAQ ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple way to assess material for inclusion, removal or moving 

message: This page appears to be much longer than Wikipedia:Verifiability and to add nothing of much use that is not already in that page. (Or am I missing something?) WP:NOR follows automatically from WP:V anyway, and can safely be ditched. The worst thing of all is that the policy, as opposed to discussion, section of WP:V is just 57 words long. Is brevity really a curse to be thrown away so easily? jguk 18:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOR doesn't follow automatically from V to the point where it can be ditched. The point of this is to merge the two. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We have to explain what we mean by OR though, because it's not always obvious to editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Material can be apparently well sourced and still be OR because of the way it's been put together. NOR and V are very closely connected, I grant you, and could be described on the same policy page, but they're nevertheless distinct ideas. We can't just abandon one of them. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this page add? 

message: The idea is to replace WP:V and WP:NOR with this policy, is that right?  But when it comes to specific reliable sources, won't  we need a guideline page to work with, and its discussion page to confront and handle new questions of reliability as they come up?  I think a link to WP:RS (you know, "resolve your RS question here") or its equivalent should appear early in this proposed policy.  The internet is evolving, we simply can not make black, white, and stable rules in policy for every source of information.  We can, however, 1) make a stable statement of intent, 2) insist that intent be followed and 3) provide a guideline page which evolves to meet an evolving internet. Terryeo 18:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now it looks like Wikipedia:Attribution will be presented as a choice to replace WP:V and WP:NOR with WP:RS dealt with as a seperate issue. See Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ as the WP:RS replacement waiting in the wings. WAS 4.250 19:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the two are not exclusive: a FAQ could exist (with the status of "essay") in combination with a guideline that details how to evaluate the reliability of sources. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the more reason to deal with these as two separate issues to present to the Wikipedia community. WAS 4.250 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We fail to disagree. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both have to be in order to be presented. Otherwise we'll have RS referring to slightly different wording from WP:ATT, and it would get messy. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there needs to be a top-down rewrite of WP:RS, or else we fail to advance past the problems this proposal was meant to solve. Phil Sandifer 22:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that WP:ATT and WP:ATTFAQ both need to be in order to replace V, NOR, and RS. I was still thinking in terms of ditching RS. Then we also need to decide on a final name for the proposed policy. Are people fine with Wikipedia:Attribution? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK. I still think it's probably a good idea for ATT to be policy, while ATTFAQ be essay, not guideline. At essay, it provides helpful insight, but avoids instruction creep. Phil Sandifer 23:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, that was the plan all along, ATT as a replacement for V, RS and NOR, and the FAQ as a complimentary element as guideline or essay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there going to continue to be [[WP:RS]]