Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 9

message: * "Attribution" is obviously used in another sense in e.g. Category:Attribution templates, which is only about copyright-related attribution. Doesn't say anything about the reliability of the content referred to (that is: what we use to call: Verifiability)
* E.g. discussion currently at WP:VPP#Copying articles from external wikis: it makes clear that for a proper discussion of the issue a clear distinction between copyrights related issues and verifiability related issues is necessary, which would become very difficult if for both the same term "attribution" were used. --Francis Schonken 15:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with using the term "attribution" in the context of this policy 

message: Do you believe the  tag should be placed on the article? Keep comments short, please.
Support
* Intermittent editing, no full consensus; better for the people still watching to know the case is closed. The material will still be here. Marskell 11:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *PM, that's rather an odd comment now, given that it's been edited to be identical to the existing policies, for which there's strong consensus. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: **Which of the existing policies includes the unfortunate language that inline consensus is mandatory, and when? it has never been consensus - and should never be, since it mistakes the means of citation for the end. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The simplicity of using the exact RS and V wording for the exceptions has (hopefully) rendered this largely moot. When the page is live people will be conservative in expanding or contracting anything, so let's take it live with no innovations. Slim is there anything else on the page that you'd consider a policy change? Marskell 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Hiding. Absolutely this wasn't a vote on the proposal (hence I chose the rejected tag, rather than the policy tag—obviously no straw poll is going to settle a fundamental policy decision). Discussion is "what people've been doing for the past months". Yes, and it's getting pretty awful. This user would like to know whether it's worth putting time into this or if it's better to move on to other things. I know a number of users (including the person who started the page) think ATT is already dead. Let's see what comes up. Marskell 13:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put me in the "evil" support category - I think it's so dead that I don't keep up with it as regularly as I used to.  It got off to a commendable start, but became sidetracked and abandoned, and since so few editors follow the page now, it no longer reflects any sort of broad consensus.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought this proposal had died a long time ago. I wouldn't normally see any reason to mark something as rejected if it is still being worked on. However, the fact that after three months no consensus has been reached suggests to me that continuing to try and shape this into something acceptable to the community is likely to be a doomed effort, so I'll have to come down as weakly supporting adding the rejected tag (just out of a feeling that there could be more productive things to spend time on). On the actual proposal itself: the third exemption looks just as bad to me now as it did three months ago when the workshop fizzled out. Yomanganitalk 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people think that the third exception is necessary.  It allows us to have articles covering topics that we would otherwise struggle to find adequate sources for.  Whether these articles should be covered is not the subject of this proposal or of the policies it would replace; the guideline WP:NOTABILITY is the place for such concerns.  I've yet to hear a good reason why it shouldn't be included, but I'd be happy to listen to one. JulesH 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this and the policies this page may replace are the places.  Notability is a guideline page.  Mark me as supporting the removal of the third exemption if that really is the sticking point.  The second exemption should really be flexible enough to allow anything the third exemption is aiming to catch.  What else do we need to move on to take this forward? Hiding Talk 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:NOT is the relevant policy. JulesH 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"  One of the policies this is intended to replace?  WP:NOR.  You've proved my point. Hiding Talk 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not only V and NOR, but RS as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Evil) straw poll 

message: Er, guys, we really do not vote on policy proposals (heck, the  tag even says so). If you don't like what the page says, discuss it; that's what people've been doing for the past months. This case is hardly "closed" given the activity here on the talk page. >Radiant< 13:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hiding. Absolutely this wasn't a vote on the proposal (hence I chose the rejected tag, rather than the policy tag—obviously no straw poll is going to settle a fundamental policy decision). Discussion is "what people've been doing for the past months". Yes, and it's getting pretty awful. This user would like to know whether it's worth putting time into this or if it's better to move on to other things. I know a number of users (including the person who started the page) think ATT is already dead. Let's see what comes up. Marskell 13:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put me in the "evil" support category - I think it's so dead that I don't keep up with it as regularly as I used to.  It got off to a commendable start, but became sidetracked and abandoned, and since so few editors follow the page now, it no longer reflects any sort of broad consensus.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought this proposal had died a long time ago. I wouldn't normally see any reason to mark something as rejected if it is still being worked on. However, the fact that after three months no consensus has been reached suggests to me that continuing to try and shape this into something acceptable to the community is likely to be a doomed effort, so I'll have to come down as weakly supporting adding the rejected tag (just out of a feeling that there could be more productive things to spend time on). On the actual proposal itself: the third exemption looks just as bad to me now as it did three months ago when the workshop fizzled out. Yomanganitalk 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people think that the third exception is necessary.  It allows us to have articles covering topics that we would otherwise struggle to find adequate sources for.  Whether these articles should be covered is not the subject of this proposal or of the policies it would replace; the guideline WP:NOTABILITY is the place for such concerns.  I've yet to hear a good reason why it shouldn't be included, but I'd be happy to listen to one. JulesH 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this and the policies this page may replace are the places.  Notability is a guideline page.  Mark me as supporting the removal of the third exemption if that really is the sticking point.  The second exemption should really be flexible enough to allow anything the third exemption is aiming to catch.  What else do we need to move on to take this forward? Hiding Talk 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:NOT is the relevant policy. JulesH 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"  One of the policies this is intended to replace?  WP:NOR.  You've proved my point. Hiding Talk 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not only V and NOR, but RS as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Can someone cite an example of a location where professional sources offer shallow coverage that would make self-published sources acceptable? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be obvious that I support the removal as well. One other thing to consider: take the verbatim wording from RS and V for exceptions one and two, respectively (that would be the second paragraph here and this section) and everyone agree not to touch it again until and unless ATT goes live. (I'm not saying this is or is not better wording—it just means we won't be arguing over policy innovation.) Thoughts? Marskell 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bloody good idea,  I've amended accordingly. Hiding Talk 17:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is starting to look better. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where professional sources offer shallow coverage  

message: (copied from SV's talk page) Currently, where in policy is it stated that anonymous sources aren't allowed? Hiding Talk 23:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiding, we can put in a sentence somewhere if you want, but it doesn't need its own section, because it's obvious. If the source has no name (and I mean written by an anon, published by an anon), then we don't know who the source is, and can't judge reliability. Therefore, it clearly fails the criteria. If, on the other hand, Bob Woodward publishes material he says he obtained from an anon source, that doesn't affect us, because our source is Bob Woodward in The Washington Post. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not obvious.  It may be to me and you, but I've been wiki-lawyered on this.  Now if we never link to anonymous sources then we've got to say that somewhere in policy.  All we have currently is guidance at WP:RS.  I like what we have at the FAQ, which is where I copied that from, but it can't be guidance.  There needs to be something.  If you guys can work a sentence in, great.  I tried and couldn't work out where it went. Hiding Talk 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of bogging us down again, if we write something about anon sources, we're going to have to say what we mean by  a source, because we'll have to explain something like the Bob Woodward example. Jossi and I disagree about this. For me, a reliable source can be either the writer or the publisher of that person's work. So sometimes the reliability attaches to the writer, and we don't care where he's published, because he's so credible. At other times, the reliability attaches to the publisher, and we don't care who the writer is, or the writer's source, or indeed the source's source. Jossi disagrees, and wants us to regard whatever document we decide is reliable, for whatever reason, as our source; for Jossi, people are never our sources. I can see the merit in both positions, but we're going to have to choose one before any sentence(s) on anon sources can be written. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a quick one, I think it makes a great difference if distancing language or prose attributions are used. When we use a prose attributions then the more important thing is that the person is reliable, but if we are stating a scientific fact and attributing it with a simple footnote, then this better be from a peer-reviewed publication, not a famous physicists personal homepage. So I think this is very difficult and I don't see how you can set it out in the policy. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong! --Merzul 01:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I think for that reason (and others), it's better to be flexible regarding what we call a source. Sometimes it's the person we're trusting. Sometimes it's the publication. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I agree with you Slim.  Is Jossi willing to accept a third opinion?  Otherwise, just move forwards.  I'll keep trying once it's stable.  But realistically then the FAQ needs to be implemented too. Hiding Talk 18:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Jossi will accept a third opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, if we find a way to explain this better. My concern is that editors will miss this fine distinction, and start asserting reliability of a person's opinion published in an otherwise unreliable source, without having a reliable source that reports on that opinion. If a tabloid or a yellow journalism publication says that notable/reliable person Y says X, would it be acceptable to cite that source? I do not think so. That is my concern. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Per yesterday's compromise that less innovation is more, let's leave Hiding's fuller description off, and bump the debate to the future. I like the idea from another editor to leave the FAQ as a guideline when this starts. We can have a go at it now and try to reduce bloat. Marskell 18:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the way it needs to be, fair enough.  I was hoping a quid pro quo might be available, but that's not my call. Hiding Talk 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that I'm up to a clever trick? :) Marskell 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  No, this time it's me who is attempting a clever trick. :)  Hiding Talk 18:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the only one who's allowed the clever tricks, so please step aside. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (stepping aside so that SlimVirgin can show us one of her clever tricks). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "his" Atom 04:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That really was a clever trick then!  Good job Jossi got out of the way, Slim might have had his eye out. :) Hiding Talk 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even her eye out. I won't press for details on what might have caused that. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon sources 

message: We've just had a change back to excluding self-published sources except in articles narrowly about the author of the source.  This does, of course, exclude plenty of current uses of self-published sources that are totally legitimate.  I don't want to have to use WP:IAR to justify the existence of almost every source on Timecube or most of the sources on scientology.  Let's fix this problem now: articles that relate to the author (as Timecube relates to Gene Ray and scientology does to L. Ron Hubbard) are a perfectly acceptable place to use a self-published source.  Right?  JulesH 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published sources again 

message: Ok, so let's see what is different?
* The WP:V#Burden_of_evidence is slightly different in our policy (partially stated in the lead and then at WP:ATT#How to cite and request a source:
** We are slightly more tolerant of keeping uncited information. In particular we have eliminated the  "Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long..."
** We don't have the "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  (This has been discussed starting from here...)
** The official policy defers citing sources to the guideline, while we are trying to specify it. This was recently discussed here.
* The section WP:NOR#What is excluded? has been renamed WP:ATT#What is original research? and adds the distinction between "unattributed" and "unattributable" material.
* There is a new WP:ATT#What is not original research.
* The section WP:NOR#Original images is missing.
* The section WP:ATT#Primary and secondary sources is simplified compared to WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. (I think without any significant loss)
* The stuff at WP:V#Sources is contained in WP:ATT#Questionable or self-published sources. (I think the meaning is preserved and is more clear.)
Are there any more differences that I haven't noticed? --Merzul 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this Merzul. We can try to audit the page for these things. Marskell 08:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences from current policy 

message: This is a new section and I understand why this is needed, but I have been dragged into conflicts with editors on obvious issues and such discussions aren't very helpful. I prefer not to have discussions on what is "obviously right" at all... Could we perhaps add something to stress again that the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to include an obvious deduction to find a source for it. That is, if another editor, who doesn't have a disruptive history, is challenging an "obvious" deduction, then a source is really needed, not just further arguments on the talk page. Of course one should read such explanation, but one should have the right to just say "Look, I read you arguments, and I still disagree, please provide a source for you interpretations." I hope you know what I mean...  --Merzul 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note that I wrote this after auditing the differences and I personally no longer think this is an issue at all. The section "What is not original research?" is very rigid and conservative. Anyway, I think the current version is clear enough about the burden of proof... as the concerns about diligent dissidents shows. --Merzul 16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is not original research? 

message: I did a little restructure with the intention of easing the transition to this new policy, meaning I want to make it clear this isnt' anything very new, but one section of NOR and one section of V, and attribution is simply the uniting concept. It also makes sense for WP:NOR shortcuts to redirect to the NOR section in the future, and similarly for WP:V except the title might be confusing. What is contained in our section "Reliable sources" is precisely WP:V, and the shortcut WP:RS should probably lead to the FAQ :) At some point the old shortcuts could be deprecated, but it makes sense to have them during the transition. --Merzul 20:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to SlimVirgin's revert edit comment: I partially agree, and I was myself concerned with that. I will leave it be for now, except I'm sort of guilty of a similar re-ordering already, and let's at least amend that previous one and move the BLP back up. --Merzul 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except, I can't think of where to put it without disrupting the flow... I'll leave it up to you guys. I short argument about me moving relevant stuff down, note that WP:V is structured like that: it first states you need to cite sources, then tells you what to you should cite from. It's not that illogical when you think about it :)  --Merzul 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intentions of restructure...