Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 2

message: Aren't WP:NOR and WP:V foundation issues?  Perhaps they meaningly can be combined, but I was under the impression that these (along with WP:NPOV) weren't negotiable.  Perhaps that means that their effects must remain in place, but the names and arrangement of the policy documents which contain them can change. I'm all for reforming WP:RS, which I think is a bit of a mess... but we should tread carefully when replacing WP:V and WP:NOR.  Few editors have issues with those.EngineerScotty 05:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The need for any content rule is to choose between content choices. The rules/policies only exist to help us make those choices. In particular when two groups both know they are right (cretionism vs evolution; scientology vs sane people; democrats vs republicans; etc) WAS 4.250 05:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Engineer, the spirit of the policies is a foundation issue, but the spirit is adhered to in this. The wording is allowed to be changed so long as the baby isn't thrown out with the bathwater. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with SV on this. Further, we need to prune back the verbage, not add to it. This proposal does just that. WAS 4.250 05:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a page m:Foundation issues, which may or may not be correct and up-to-date. That page does not talk about no original research or verifiability. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's better because it's one policy instead of two, for a start (one instead of three if you count getting rid of RS) and there's no unnecessary fluff that I can see. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's written in a way that citing it to removed unsourced and poorly sourced information doesn't make it vague or muddled, I think it's fine.  Deleting a comment that is sourced by saying it violates "WP:Attribution" will create edit wars simply because the defintion of "Attributed" means sourced.  It will be confusing to newcomers if the "reliable source" aspect of "attribution" is buried here.  Imagine User:Smith citing a blog (correctly and completely) but being told that his comment was deleted because it violated "Attribution."  It's much easier to explain a blog isn't reliable that therefore violates "Reliable Sources" rule.  It will be harder to explain how an attributed comment violates the "Attribution" rule because of the "Reliable Source" sub-clause.--Tbeatty 06:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that you could say, for instance "Violates Wikipedia:Attribution#Questionable_sources".  It's unfortunate that you can't set up a redirect to a section, because that would be helpful. JulesH 09:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm quite keen on this, with the usual proviso that it needs to be discussed carefully.  In particular the clarification on current practice related to popular culture articles is welcome.  --Tony Sidaway 11:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doc and Tony, thanks for the feedback, and I'm glad you see the potential in it. I think it might iron out quite a few of the problems some good editors have been having with V, NOR, and RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Given agreement over previous ("could be attributed") I don't know why Jossi would revert latest. Let's not even suggest editors can deduce what is "trivial" synthesis. Really, let's not. Marskell 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the revert (sorry, for not explaining before) is that it substantially changed the wording, i.e. "It is legitimate to make extrapolations that are verifiable " vs. "It is legitimate to make trivial, obvious, uncontroversial extrapolations". My highlights. It needs a qualifier, and you emoved the qualifier. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your last edit is better, Marskell. Although I would want the distinction "uncontroversial" to be present as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no to this qualifier. My concern Jossi, is not that it is right, but how it will be used. I don't want a pseudoscientist telling me in a year "hey, this is a trivial deduction, what's yr problem?". Do you know what I mean? Let's give specific examples (2 + 2 = 4 is allowed) and nothing else in the affirmative. Marskell 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to remove trivial. But I think that adding uncontroversial would be good, as it clearly implies that controversial deductions are not allowed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm looking at it from different coloured glasses. It disallows controversial deductions (shouldn't that already be obvious?) but allows a deduction of what is and is not controversial. As with above re things that are so obvious they don't need a source, editors make commonsensical choices of that sort regularly. But let's not actually suggest it. It'll just be a bullet in the hand of bullshit artists. Marskell 01:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trivial" 

message: I continue to object to the jargon meaning that Wikipedia assigns to original research, but since my objections are falling on deaf ears, what is the opposite of original research? Is there a better phrase than unoriginal research?
Before anyone suggests it, I won't accept source-based research because in publications where the identities and expertise of the authors is known, authors may drawn non-trivial conclusions from published sources, while this is not allowed for Wikipedia editors. In my mind, source-based research means any research that relied only on published sources and did not rely on new surveys, interviews, experiments, field observations, or the like. --Gerry Ashton 03:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: summarisation of existing research perhaps? JulesH 10:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research works pretty well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gerry that "original research" is problematic—we are stretching the English language, really, by applying that to all forms of original thought—but the term is probably  too much of a Wikipedia shibboleth  by now for it to be thrown out with the bathwater at this stage.  Perhaps we have to keep this baby, for the time being, even if it's the wrong baby. qp10qp 14:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Picking up from Qp10qp, if we are going to use the jargon sense of "original research", it would be handy to have a phrase for all the research that does not fall into the Wikipedia original research pit, but I can't think of anything good. Summarization of existing research is better than unoriginal research, but does not quite cover reorganizing. --Gerry Ashton 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Reporting"? As in "Reporting ongoing discussions or debates on the subject"? -- llywrch 21:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Better phrase for ''unoriginal research''

message: Not sure why this section is called "How to format citations", but anyway, a few things:
*I'm not sure all the detail on prose attributions is necessary—I say define it, give an example, and move on.  Most of it is more related to NPOV anyway (evident from the fact that we link to it twice in a space of less than 100 words).
*More important than prose attributions, I feel, is citations and what exactly should be cited.  Perhaps the three words are sufficient (substantial, surprising, controversial), but I'd much rather see more detail here than in prose attributions.  Of course, there's probably more dispute over what should be cited, which might explain the silence.
*I've made some changes to prose and emphasis (the bold didn't make sense to me); please review. 
Oh, by the way, this whole combining and shortening policies thing is brilliant.  Let's not let inertia and status quo kill this.  --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to format citations 

message: :Should there be links directly to the relevant sections of the FAQ from the sections of this page? JulesH 10:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea, since people are likely to miss the link at the top (especially if they're directed here through links to particular sections). Kirill Lokshin 11:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to link the two pages

message: It's an excellent idea to condense policy to essentials and avoid duplication and possible conflicts. But this amounts to rebuilding a large portion of the foundation of this project. Hey, that's fine by me -- but as usual, I see things a bit differently. If we're going to do over, let's do right. 
This proposal -- and the policies on which it is based -- and the new concerns it attempts to address -- and the lengthy discussion above -- send up dozens of red flags to my eye. They always have. In a nutshell, they are mostly attempts to define a bright-line rule in an area where good, mature judgement is required. Or, as older people used to shout at me when I was young and extremely foolish: 
It's not all black and white; it's mostly shades of gray.
Written policy to the contrary, there really are places where a little OR is acceptable. Any experienced editor can drag out a dozen examples. Ideally, every single statement would be sourced but this is not an ideal world. Most statements in most articles are poorly sourced. This should improve. Much content is warred over and the quality of the textual support for various positions is questioned. To a point this is essential; to another, destructive. 
The difficulty in trying to draw a neat line around all the permitted things which excludes all the forbidden things is that the world does not break neatly into these two components. At any moment, the borderline is going to run right through somebody's farm. So, this kind of policy -- in any organization, on any project -- becomes the occasion for bitter, pitched battles over the exact position of a tiny segment of the line. And we have seen very clearly how true this is in Wikipedia. 
Here we fight it out over what sources are reliable and which not, which topics are susceptible to real sourcing and which always seem to end up sourced to primaries, which passages can be removed on sight, which commented out, which tagged or flagged, which debated on talk. This leads to the misconception that we can draw that bright line. We can't. All we can do is strive for better sourcing. 
What makes this all the more difficult is that no one of us has a true grasp of the range of topics in this project. Each of us is an individual human and this project is a reflection of the sum of all human knowledge. It is absurdly arrogant for anyone to say he has a handle on the whole thing. But every time I push a piece of the line to reflect my concerns in this general topic area, you worry that it will affect that area. We're both right. 
Written policy has always poorly reflected actual practice. I speak of these core content policies. These have always been written very specifically, yet they have always been applied very loosely. I feel that this is a failure of our community, as a whole, to practice self-honesty. It's a little like a fellow who says, "I only ever drink one beer a day," yet if you go through his grocery bills, you see he manages to go through 2 cases every month. I don't think we need to struggle bitterly over the number of beers drunk but we do ourselves a service (a) by being truly honest about how many beers we really do drink and (b) trying to cut back a little, when that's feasible. 
What's wanted is a source grading system. Far better to assign letter grades to sources -- A, B, and C, no need for anything more complex and we have no interest in anything of lesser quality. These standards can be applied across the board, regardless of topic. Hard science, fancruft, religion, history, current events: anything. We can draw up a list of A sources and establish fairly rigid criteria for inclusion; we can even set explicit standards for B and C grade sources. These criteria do not change from field to field. 
My first, rough stab: 
* A: Major newspapers, magazines, and peer-reviewed journals with searchable online archives. Books by reputable authors, reviewed in other A sources, highly regarded by experts in the field....
* B: Books by reputable publishers, regardless of other merit. Websites whose content passes over some bar or review (not blogs). Local newspapers and magazines. Official government or corporate publications....
* C: Primary sources. Other books and websites, if there is some evidence that more than one person had some control or input....
Okay, that's just a half-assed stab at what needs to be defined in greater detail. Here, hard distinctions can and should be made. Now, on to application: 
Each article contains a references section. Here is the place to display the letter grade for each source. I strongly favor a color-coded system; it makes it easy to see at a glance what you have got. There's no need for cute icons, though; simple CSS backgrounds will do nicely. All that's wanted are 3 templates: , , and . These also cat the article into A-sourced, B-sourced, and C-sourced articles. (I also have another CSS trick up my sleeve, which I promise to reveal a little later.) 
Now, the furious pressure to defend fair sources is off. Now, we look over the sprawling corpus of this project and see that in some fields, A sources dominate. In Mathematics or Physics articles, even a B source is questionable; a C source is beneath notice. There are a few exceptions and we can wonder why. In some social fields, say, the history of silent movies made by directors of small stature, B sources predominate. Pokemon articles, not surprisingly, get by on a few B sources and a lot of C's. 
We now have a true reflection of our inevitable compromise between irresistible principles on one hand and immovable reality on the other. Most articles in most fields rely on the best available sources. When they do not, it's time to ask questions: 
* Can we find better sources? 
* Should we delete poorly-sourced material? 
* Shall we permit status quo? 
I'll bet this reads like a novel, radical proposal. I say it's not. This is what we've been doing all along in our heads. This is the reason for all the windy debates, all the attempts to make exceptions for this class of article or that, all the furious battles to hold the line against the hordes of bloggers and viral marketing agents. We all know that in a perfect world, all articles would be A-sourced. We also realize this is unrealistic. Source grading just makes our process transparent. 
Our shortcoming, to date, has been that we struggle to do everything all at once, to draw the bright line and hold every article to that standard instanter. This fails us twice: by causing us to delete useful material that really is as well-sourced as possible and by allowing poorly-sourced articles to languish when the need for improvement could be made evident. 
We do our readers a service by honestly indicating the strength of our material. I think letter-graded sources go a very long way toward answering our critics who claim that all sorts of whiffle oozes through the cracks around here. It does. Let's be honest about that second beer. John Reid 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like this proposal over the current mess of categorizing sources as "problematic" or whatnot. It reflects reality, particularly at the FA level (such as the aforementioned Pokemon). At multiple points in time I've suggested to prospective FAs that "We have a NYT article, use it". I am a little concerned over displaying the source quality in the article, and how that will affect GA (where snap-judgement reviewers say "No A-class sources, fail") and to a lesser extent FAC. Nifboy 15:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John Reid's main point, but I do think that it's covered by "Ignore all rules"; in other words, Wikipedia is saying, here are our guidelines, but "ignore all rules" can trump any of them, if necessary. The letter grades are likely to break down in as many quibbles as any other categories (John already has "not blogs" in brackets; some people say "but some blogs are OK" etc., and so then we disintegrate into B3(ii) etc. and we're off up one of the tubes in Terry Gilliam's Brazil with our backsides on fire. qp10qp 16:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a problem with GA and FAC process not a problem with the proposal.  I like the basic proposal at first glance.  But I do not see it an alternative to a good attribution policy.   I actually think that the suggested method of grading is tooo rigid and narrow.  I think it would be a good idea to work at grading sources through Wikiprojects and keep the grades subjective to that particular Wikiproject.  Obviously if the grades are not absolute they would need to relegated to the talk page, which I think John will dislike.  But his main premise about how we need to do less talioring in the policies is an excellent point.--Birgitte§£] ? Talk 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that "as well-sourced as possible" is not good enough. It could be taken as an invitation for people writing in obscure fields to use unvetted, essentially self-published sources where it's hard to judge the actual expertise of the sources' authors. Simply because the field has been little-examined does not mean we should allow this to take place. Andrew Levine 16:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A B C 

message: We are saying that people are sources, but that is incorrect. Only the published opinions or research of people are sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleared up a couple of places where this confusion exists in the 'problematic sources' section.  There may be others. JulesH 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, Wikipedia only uses published sources, but people are still sources. --Gerry Ashton 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, but the terminology gets confusing if you use it like that. JulesH 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we ought to leave in that people are sources. That their material has to be published before we can use it is clear, but we regard some people as reliable sources no matter where they are published, even if it's on their own blog. It's the reliability of the person as a source that counts in these cases, not the medium that published their work. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I think that the current wording avoids quite elengantly this issue. If not, please add some text that explains this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't quite agree that certain people are reliable sources no matter where they are quoted for two reasons: (1) We must be sure the publication can be relied on not to fabricate or alter quotes, or quote out of context. (2) A person known for accuracy when presenting material in some sources (e.g. academic journals) many not be as accurate when joking, hashing out a problem on an online forum, or answering questions in a place where reference materials are not at hand (i.e. sitting at the front table in a panel discussion). --Gerry Ashton 20:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need better wording for what is a source 

message: Can we square this with Jimbo's well-known nugget:
"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
? Marskell 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy needs to remain brief.  That quote is referenced at the bottom of the polilicy.  I don't believe "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information " qualifies as "material for which reliable sources could reasonably be found".  I do not believe further details are really needed, but if you have a way of emphasing this point briefly please add it.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is "intensitive"; what should we choose to emphasize? One person's "pseudo information" is another person's "material for which reliable sources could reasonably be found". Marskell 18:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should be overly emphasize anything.  We should aim for good judgement, aim square in the middle of good judgement.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid "prematurely removing material for which reliable sources could reasonably be found" 

message: I already know that some people here disagree about basic priniciples.  If we cannot come to consensus on such things we will have a major problem here.  Please add more principle to this section.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the poll detracts from anything.  We've reached a point where a number of editors are polarised on a particular issue, and I don't see us getting anywhere near resolving it just by continuing editing.  Discussions like this have helped this kind of situation in the past. JulesH 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think of this as a poll but rather a way to reformulate the discussion on the fundemental issues of disagreement.  The idea is everyone explains there views on the principles and hopefully someone can use that disscusion to formulate new principles until we can find one that demonstrates consensus.  Of course it may not work, but I think it will be more productive than arguing over popular culture/fancruft.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Principles 

message: *I strongly support this principle.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good policies support existing practice rather than shape it.

message: *I disagree with this and believe it is contrary to WP:IAR.  As it is not my position I encourage the supporters to edit it to better reflect your ideas.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good policies must be applied equally to all subject matter

message: * As (nearly) always. Marskell 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A poll will not solve this

message: Please reread what we have now. It is no longer dogmatic. I think Phil's problem's are addressed. Are there problems with the current version? WAS 4.250 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil says "Spoo is a featured article based almost entirely on BB posts and Usenet, and nobody with any knowledge about the topic would criticize a one of them." Does that help? WAS 4.250 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The disagreement was on self-published sources when better sources were nonexistant.  I am happy with WAS 4.25's version, which is allowing self-pushished sources when they are written by reliable experts.  That leaves enough room for the things I was most concerned about.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please reread what we have now

message: What are we seeing as the difference between "must be attributable" and "should be attributable"? Everything in Wikipedia must be attributable because if it's not, it's OR. It needn't actually be attributed, but it must be attributable. That is the absolute essence of this policy (of existing policy too). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Policies should probably use must for their main points and guidelines should probaly avoid must entirely.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My dictionary distinguishes between the two as "must" meaning "to be compelled to" and "should" as "expressing obligation or expectation". If we mean to say that we want and expect something "should" should be used. If we mean to say that we will will force it to be so then "must" should be used. I would rather we didn't add to existing bad feelings by deputizing source-nazis to carry out the mandate implied by "must". WAS 4.250 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a question of source nazis, but of using the words correctly. Articles must not contain original research, and any OR is removed immediately. They must not contain any defamatory material. We're saying that those are minimum standards. To change it to "should" would suggest these things are sometimes allowed, or that we don't really mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our objective is to successfully communicate; not use words correctly. Or to argue over what is correct useage. WAS 4.250 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I wasn't making a point about vocabulary for its own sake, but because "must" does communicate what we need to say in this case. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See also RFC2119.  If we can keep our interpretation of must and should in line with the ones introduced there, it would be beneficial, I feel. JulesH 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I share SV's concern about the change from must to should. Should implies that it is not a requirement but an expectation. Additionally, "should" is often used for things that we ought to do but for some reason don't - we need to stay far away from that implication. If the must language implies (must right now) then I would have reservations but I read must as an eventualist - it must be attributed and we are working on getting it there, removing spurious and controversial claims that are not attributed as we continuously improve the articles. --Trödel 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It sounds like words are getting in the way of communication here. We should (must?) find a third alternative between "must" and "should". Perhaps a different word or a two-word choice maybe with one word in parenthesis. Any suggestions on a third choice? WAS 4.250 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say "must" is important for material "must be attributable but need not actually be attributed" to a reliable source. That sentence is the core of the proposal. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I proposed some alternative language - not exactly right - but I think it is getting there. --Trödel 21:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using "will" instead of "should" or "must" works perfectly for me. I love it. WAS 4.250 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how that helps. What's the difference between "must" and "needs to"? I would prefer just "must". —mjb 03:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Must vs should

message: In the key principles, there is this:
* Wikipedia does not publish original research.
I understand that this statement is intended to express an ideal for the purpose of providing guidance, but it is also a refutable observation. I would like to replace "does" with "must" so that it just provides guidance. Support? Objections? Concerns? —mjb 02:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Must vs does

message: I would propose a "design freeze" at this point (and a page protection, maybe?). We could then "present" this proposal to the Foundation, Jimbo, et all for comments. Would this work? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Freeze for comments. So everyone can read and comment on the same version. WAS 4.250 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the FAQ isn't finished.  Perhaps we should wait until both are ready...? JulesH 21:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can freeze this and work on the FAQ.  --EngineerScotty 21:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there general agreement that this is a good version? Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One last suggestion: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether the material can be attributed, not whether it is true."  This is a lot like a current sentence in WP:V that has been criticised before.  Changing it to either "...attributed to reliable sources..." or "...not just whether it is true" would address the criticism there, that taken by itself, the sentence makes wikipedia's reliability sound flawed: "we'll publish anything somebody has said without regard to whether it is true or not" is a valid interpretation of that sentence. JulesH 22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jules, "not just whether it is true" misses the point. Truth doesn't come into it — at least not directly. We simply report what reliable sources are saying. End of story. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "attributable to reliable sources", then.  Emphasise that if the sources we use are reliable, then so are our articles. JulesH 22:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my comment wasn't constructive. We could possibly just not mention the issue of truth. The reason I always liked that phrase (verifiability, not truth) is that it immediately told new editors what was going on i.e. that we don't want to know what they think is true, but we do want to know what reliable sources are saying, true or not. We don't know what is true for any given issue anyway, and usually there is no "truth" involved, just opinions. Some reliable opinions, some kooky ones. We report the reliable ones. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always liked the sentence myself, too.  It sums up the point very neatly.  But it has generated negative PR in the past.  I think emphasising reliable sources is definitely the way to fix that. JulesH 22:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, don't freeze it.  That's not the way to develop policy.  It's okay if people are commenting on different versions, comments can always be changed too.  JYolkowski // talk 22:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you are right... if the proposal is really good' then it will not be challenged and changed dramatically. There are enough people involved in the creation of it, that I am sure it any massive challenge can and will be well defended. After all, we have summarized the main aspects of V, NOR and RS, and hopefully captured the spirit of these without diluting them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not freeze this yet. I only just discovered this proposal discussion, and I have an issue I need to bring up that has only been slightly touched upon, from what I've read so far. I would like to work up and post some notes about it, but it's 3 am here as I write this, so I'll need a few hours tomorrow to bang out my thoughts. Thanks, --Aaron 06:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design freeze? 

message: The Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ still needs lots of content.  I've added a section relating the what I call the Wikipedia Paradox (don't create that article, please, as it would be filled with OR)--why we think we're a reliable encyclopedia (or can become one) when we clearly don't meet the requirements of this policy, or WP:RS.  See what you all think. 
Also, I've put in a placeholder for primary/secondary/tertiary sources.  While the distinction is confusing on the policy page, it might be useful on the FAQ.  I'd like User:Phil Sandifer to fill it in... :)
--EngineerScotty 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ 

message: According to the current proposed formulation, can Media Matters or National Review be considered reliable sources for anything other than the publications themselves? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already treat them as advocacy groups whose claims require verification of sources. Mangoe 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we give such examples in the FAQ? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No clearly questionable sources.  Anything worthwhile should be also available from a reliable source. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another case

message: Before I go further, I'd like to ask the editors with in-depth knowledge of this proposal how it would apply with the following:
*Hammerspace, a well-established and notable fandom expression with zero academic presence. (I admit that the article asks for citations at the moment, but they're on the talk page - just not integrated yet.) Would fan-made glossaries and articles on large fansites be not rejectable as sources?
:*Assuming the term can satisfy people on notability grounds, I should think that, assuming the sources are respected in the relevent communities, they ought be usable. Phil Sandifer 01:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Straightforward - the films are valid primary sources. Phil Sandifer 01:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * This is probably a more complicated issue, actually.  The films themselves would be suitable sources for a hypothetical list of films by death scene, but the actual list is making a value judgement—that some death scenes are gory while others are not (and, glancing through the list, there certainly seem to be a number of entries for which this is not at all obvious)—and would therefore need to be more thoroughly sourced. Kirill Lokshin 02:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Again - the game is a reasonable primary source. Phil Sandifer 01:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, could you comment on the #Some_other_cases above? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few questions about application 

message: Jossi, can you say what you have in mind in adding these? "Racist" is covered by "political," and I can't think of an anti-religious website that is widely acknowledged as extremist; but even if such a thing exists, it would be covered by "political" or "any other." SlimVirgin (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if you keep it only in the "political, and religious" realm, we are asserting the POV that only in these two you can find extreme views. We can either add more exmples of extremist websites, or remove the examples.  I will try to edit that section so that we do not include examples at all, and see if that works. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works better, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-religious, racist

message: A think tank has a reputation for producing solid research in the field of economics.  It is widely known that it employs experts in the field to produce papers for it, which it then publishes without independent fact checking.  The papers are published under an organizational banner, without the name of the individual expert author.  Is this source acceptable?
A few points of analysis:
* The papers are probably self-published.  There is no independent review; the think tank instructs the author what to write about and then publishes the result without checking it.
* While the author is an expert, there is no way to verify this fact.
* Could the organization itself be called an expert?  Its reputation may go some way towards this, but it seems a stretch to apply the word.
Ideas? JulesH 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The papers aren't self-published if they're being published by a respectable think tank. No respectable think tank would publish what the authors wrote without reading it to make sure they wanted to be associated with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm underwhelmed. A considerable number of "think tanks" are highly partisan, operating as a kind of intellectual engine for this or that political party. They have grand names and intellectual pretensions, but are blinkered. Solid research nurtured (financially and otherwise) within a good think tank can then be published after traversing the same hurdles (no higher or more numerous) as those for anyone else: the authors can submit their works to peer-reviewed journals or to reputable publishers. -- Hoary 07:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A hypothetical case