Wikipedia talk:Attribution/FAQ

message: Great structure here. My only suggestion would be that this start with a short section titled something like "What kind of sources are regarded as reliable?" Better perhaps to start with the positive? qp10qp 15:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention reliable sources first?

message: Do we need a separate section for each web site that anyone can contribute to?  Or could we just lump MySpace, YouTube, Wikis, and so on in a single section.  And maybe even combine them with blogs.  That seems better to me, as the same problems apply to all:
* They're self-published
* The authors are usually anonymous
This means the same exceptions may apply to all of them. JulesH 07:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of web sites... 

message: This section in the proposal currently doesn't seem to answer the question enclosed in the section title. In the single paragraph of that section there are currently some circumstantial explanations that reliable sources can conflict (maybe amounting to something like "don't panic" as part of an answer to the initial question). But no real answer to What do I do...
May I suggest to add something in this vein as a second paragraph to that section:When each of the differing versions are notable in their own right, are based on reliable published sources, and there is enough difference between the competing versions to be noteworthy, then proceed with what is described in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "(...) all significant published points of view are to be presented (...)", each with their own reference. An example that also the difference between the sources needs to be non-trivial: for instance, if competing official sources give a few percent difference in population numbers for an average city, that is maybe not a "notable" difference - just round the number and put "approx." before it, referring to the available reliable sources.? --Francis Schonken 07:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What do I do when reliable sources conflict?]] 

message: The FAQ refers to A New York Times account of a George Bush speech is a secondary source. This is creating the false impression that all  newspaper articles are secondary sources, when actually, a large amount of newspapers accounts are primary sources. Wording needs to be found to make that distinction clearer. The reason I am rasing this, is that some editors are claiming that an article that appears in a small town newspaper (e.g. 'The Post Crescent" From Menosha, Wisconsin) is "a reliable secondary source", because of this FAQ, and claims that that small-town newspaper is more reliable than a book on the subject by a respected author. So, please, let's clarify these issues in the FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You desribe the book that you propose as an alternative source as encyclopedic which is a tertiary source. Andries 06:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And it is untrue that the book on the subject is by a respected author. The book discusses many subjects and this is just one of many subject and its treatment of the subject is not very good and thorough. Andries 06:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem in using tertiary sources in WP, on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And still better that  'The Post Crescent" From Menosha, Wisconsin... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a tertiary source may be fine for use in Wikipedia. Andries 08:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Jossi, then why do you say that a report in a magazine is a secondary source . I see little difference between this article in salon.com and a newspaper article. Andries 08:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A newspaper can be both primary and secondary sources. That is what I am trying to say. Some material in newspapers can be a primary sources and other material can be secondary sources. A 1941 newspaper article thatthea reports the Perl Harbor attack is a primary source. A newspaper column in which a reputable journalist compares Perl Harbor with 9/11 attacks is a secondary source. Magazines are mostly secondary sources, for example The Economist as they not provide news, but analysis of news. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following your definition (that I do not trust as useful), the article 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake violates Wikipedia policies, because it uses primary source material i.e. newspaper reports from 2004 and early 2005. Andries 16:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are thousands of articles in WP that do not conform to policy. In articles about which there is no controversy, sometimes you see situations such as 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake that uses only primary sources. Nevertheless, the use of primary sources as the only sources for an article is highly discouraged, in particular as these tend to violate WP:NOR, when these attempt to forward a position based on new analysis/commentary/synthesis of these primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake violates Wikipedia policies in this respect and I challenge you to test your opinion that the article violates the policies by leaving a message on the article or on the talk page. I do not think that the contributors there will agree with you. Andries 16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misinterpreting my comment. What I am saying is that there are articles that rely mostly on primary sources, and in some cases, such as 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake that is perfectly OK. Nevertheless, the use of primary sources as the only sources for an article has been always highly discouraged, in particular as these tend to violate WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting. My take on it is that articles using entirely primary sources may "tend to" violate NOR, but not so much because they use entirely primary sources. An article using entirely primary sources may violate NOR if primary sources are being used to make unsupported analytical claims, but secondary sources being used to make unsupported analytical claims are equally unacceptable. If the issue is lack of analytical context at all, that's an NPOV issue, unrelated to type or quality of sources. Meanwhile, NOR presently states that "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or Braunfeld v. Brown)". That's missing in this version -- I'm not certain why. -- Bailey(talk) 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspapers 

message: I would like to change 
:By demanding reliable sources for all assertions, Wikipedia depends on the research and opinions of experts.
to 
:By demanding reliable sources, Wikipedia depends on the published research and opinion of experts.
Since (1) WP:ATT does not "demand sources" for all assertions and (2) the changed wording emphasizes that we are looking for published sources, not hearsay from experts. CMummert · talk 13:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not truth section 

message: I have added what ATT actually now says, and commented out the paragraph that would be a, quite controversial, change in policy. I have an idea on how to reduce this to questions, but at a minimum, this FAQ should represent what ATT proposes. If someone wants to smoth this over, great; if not, I should be back within 24 hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: NE2, could you say exactly what the sentence you restored (in bold below) means?
MySpace: MySpace is generally not a reliable source because its material is virtually always self-published, and much of it is anonymous or pseudonymous. An exception in which it may be an acceptable primary source is when a reliable source has confirmed who it belongs to.
SlimVirgin (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reliable source says "famous person's myspace is myspace.com/famousperson", then we know whose it is. --NE2 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded that statement to make it less ambiguous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with Jossi's rewording: "An exception to this would be those MySpace pages about which there are secondary published sources that attest to the identity of the person featured in that MySpace page." First, the edit summary claims it is to make the FAQ compliant with the Attribution policy, but I can't find where the policy says that. Second, the statement confuses reliable with secondary. We are not talking about interpretation or analysis, just a simple fact: is the purported author or publisher of a MySpace page really the author or publisher? Reliable primary sources are just as acceptable for establishing straightforward facts as secondary sources, and we should never use the phrase "secondary source" as if it were a synonym for "reliable source". --Gerry Ashton 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I have reworded it to make it compatible with the wording in the policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that the current wording is unclear.  There are two problems with MySpace: first, it is generally anonymous/pseudonymous.  Second, it is self-published.  Establishing identity using reliable sources answers the first objection, but not the second.  This should be made clearer.  Robert A.West (Talk) 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The self-published aspect is already covered in the section about self-published sources in articles about themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but so is the bit about anonymous or pseudonymous sources.  This is a FAQ, not a policy page: we are explaining how policy is applied in certain common cases that come up over and over again.  The audience is someone who has read the policy and doesn't quite get it, not you or me or Slim Virgin.  Robert A.West (Talk) 15:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: It's a paradox; not caring about the Truth is our best hope of approaching it.  This is a guideline; we can afford, here, to reassure those who fear we are Uncyclopedia, and make up what we like. I think it is the case that the effect of WP:ATT will be to make us as accurate as we can hope to be; why not say this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I read "As human knowledge improves, and we include more of it, Wikipedia will become more truthful" my first thought was: can we contrast the last word with "truthy"? CMummert · talk 02:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not sure we should be hardwiring epistemological skepticism into the guideline. Truth isn't always unknowable, and we shouldn't imply that ignorance of the truth is our normal condition. Honestly, if we can't provide accurate information on a variety of subjects, why do we bother writing this? If we don't think our sources provide accurate information, why cite to them?  DCB4W 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth isn't always unknowable; Euclidean geometry is one of the fields in which the present consensus is overwhelmingly "likely to be the truth, or a special case of the truth." But all encyclopedias have had to rewrite their geology articles in the last 50 years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also removed (just now) a rhetorical flourish. ("Not attempting to proclaim the truth gives us the best prospect of accuracy.") I think it's stylistically superfluous, and logically incorrect. (If anything, including divergent views makes us less accurate, although it makes it more probable that the truth will be included in the various positions included in the article.) Following my own logic, I also rewrote the flourish at the end of the subsection. DCB4W 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the rest of the third paragraph, for which it was written. We are more likely to attain accuracy, in the long run, by following the debate of experts, than by trying, with our limited judgment, to declare which one is right. In the short run, we can be accurate in saying that "both X and Y are now supported by scholarship"; saying simply "X" or simply "Y" is guesswork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing my point about the wording. Comprehensiveness is the enemy of accuracy. If we have eleven incorrect theories and one correct one, the article is horribly inaccurate (eleven errors!) but it does have the answer contained therein. Our policy is the way it is not because it leads to accuracy, but because we are not always in a position to discern truth from falsehood. I think we're disagreeing over wording rather than policy. DCB4W 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's an argument that comprehensiveness is the enemy of precision, which I suppose it is. You should also consult Robert West's post above the section break: saying "these are the twelve theories" can be done with perfect accuracy.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. For one thing, the words "precise" and "accurate" are usually used interchangeably. To the extent that they're used distinctly, "accurate" means "free of error" whereas "precise" means "exact." Look at Accuracy and precision for the gunshot metaphor. The comprehensive approach is the shotgun: it's neither precise nor accurate but the target is extremely likely to be covered. The Wikipedia approach is the shotgun; aiming may imply POV or other editor bias. The statement "these are the twelve theories" may be accurate, but an article that includes 12 theories, 11 of which must logically be incorrect, is inherently inaccurate. It's an inaccuracy we accept as the price of doing business, because we're willing to sacrifice accuracy for comprehensiveness. Again, it's not clear to me that we're arguing over anything more than semantics at this point. DCB4W 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paradox

message: Actually, I think DCB4W is arguing over emphasis; he has a different set of concerns than I do. He seems to be chiefly concerned with the pseudo-scientists and their websites; I don't think WP:ATT can, or is intended to, deal with them. WP:NPOV#undue weight and several guidelines exist for them. Perhaps some additions to the section, outlining distinct concerns, are in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Emphasis

message: What does WP:RS have that this page or WP:ATT doesn't? Hiding Talk  21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Answer: Nothing that I can spot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leads me to believe we could think about opening up the deprecation of WP:RS in favour of this. Personally I'd rather see WP:RS redirected to where WP:V currently is.  Where to point WP:V is a problem though, maybe WP:ATT#Key principles? Hiding Talk  14:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would agree to WP:RS >> WP:ATT#Key principles ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faq and [[WP:RS]] 

message: I started a new subsection. It needs expanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  : )  I think it might be best to rank them in order of importance, and state that they are ranked in that way.  However, that would require finding a consensus as to their relative importance.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What kinds of sources are generally regarded as reliable? 

message: The Parent article was promoted to official policy on Feb 16. What about the FAQ page?? --Otheus 21:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are working on it to eventually upgrade it to a guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would definitely not support making this a full policy.  I do not know if I would like it to be a guideline or not, but I am happy with some of ≈ jossi ≈'s recent changes.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion has always been about eventually upgrading this to a guideline, not to policy. The tone and verbosity of a FAQ is not good for a policy. WP:ATT is the policy, this is ab FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed or official policy? 

message: What happened to all the new sections on this page? I can see them when I go back in the history , but not here. Please excuse me if I've made a stupid mistake. Sparkzilla 06:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be better now. Very strange :( Sparkzilla 06:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Something wrong with this page?

message: I want to echo some embedded comments above.  It's, well, basically kind of silly to declare that blogs are unreliable.  It's like saying "sources printed on A4 paper are unreliable".  A web log is simply a medium, and the content conveyed by that medium has to be evaluated on its own merits.  Jakob Nielsen's blog is a damned-well reliable source, as he is arguably the most emminent writer in the field of computer-human interface usability (and absolutely in the top five even if you have another favorite.)  Notably (no pun intended) he cites sources (often to usability studies performed by his own company, but I don't see anyone, anywhere challenging them, and their methods are sound within the bounds of social science).  The blog of Jimmy Smith, high school sophomore in Norman, Oklahoma, is not likely to be reliable for much of anything other than what girls Jimmy thinks are cute.  But the same would almost certainly be true of a book somehow published by him, or a Jimmy's World TV show hosted by him.  It's not the medium, it's the reliability of the message.  The problem with blogs (and wikis) generally is not really a problem with blogs, etc., it's a problem with lack of editorial control, and that problem is something that some blogs, etc., actually escape. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The anti-blog stuff

message: Okay, I am amazed, nay stupified at how people cannot seem to grasp this concept.  Thusly, I am going to go over it again.  Slowly.
This is the dicdef of synthesis:
Thus, the word "synthesis" is interchangable with "collection" or "combination".  This is not debatable.  That's the definition as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
Now let's look at the FAQ text everyone seems so intent on keeping:
That might initially seem acceptable, but let's replace "synthesis" with the above words which mean the exact same thing.
Neither of those are in line with the Wikipedia policy on OR, because they effectively prohibit any article from drawing on multiple "ideas".  Don't believe me?  Here's an example, taken from a real article:
Research suggests that ADHD arises from a combination of various genes, many of which affect dopamine transporters.Roman T, Rohde LA, Hutz MH.  (2004). "Polymorphisms of the dopamine transporter gene: influence on response to methylphenidate in attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder." American Journal of Pharmacogenomics 4(2):83-92    Suspect genes include the 10-repeat allele of the DAT1 gene,Swanson JM, Flodman P, Kennedy J, et al. "Dopamine Genes and ADHD." Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000 Jan;24(1):21-5.  the 7-repeat allele of the DRD4 gene, and the dopamine beta hydroxylase gene (DBH TaqI).Smith KM, Daly M, Fischer M, et al. "Association of the dopamine beta hydroxylase gene with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: genetic analysis of the Milwaukee longitudinal study." Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2003 May 15;119(1):77-85. 
Seems fine and dandy, right?  But wait, look at that second sentence.  It clearly uses not one, not two, but three different "ideas", or a collection/combination of ideas, if you will.  And since I can't find any other source which used that exact collection/combination of ideas, that makes it a "new" collection/combination of ideas.  This means it's original research, and must be removed from the article immediately.
Obviously, the above reasoning is inconsistent with the actual policy, but if someone were to edit an article based on this FAQ that would be the conclusion they would have to come to.  Hence, the word "synthesis" should not appear in that sentence.
Now as to Jossi's assertion that "there's a new definition of synthesis according to policy": No.  You are wrong.  Try again.  The word already has a well established definition in the english language.  If I decided to re-define the word "pederast" to mean "experienced Wikipedia editor" and then wrote a policy FAQ using that "new definition", exactly how many seconds would it be before the FAQ was deleted and I was banned?  (And yes, this is an extreme example, but I'm trying to prove a point here)  The word already has a definition that almost all english speakers understand, and trying to re-define it will only confuse people.
I am amazed that this is such a big issue.  This is a mind-bogglingly simple concept to grasp: the word you are intent on using has a definition that makes the sentence inconsistent with policy.  I realize it's a nice-sounding word (most latin-derived words are) but no amount of shoehorning here will fit it into the FAQ properly.  Someone made a bad word choice a while ago and nobody caught it until now.  It's a single word; find another one to use.  -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not following your objections. Can you make them more succinctly, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You cannot be serious.  But in case you are:  the word "synthesis" means "collection". That's it.  That's all it means.  What policy sets out to prohibit is a collection of ideas that implies or leads to a separate, new idea.  The term "synthesis" doesn't cover that; it covers any collection, meaning anything made up of multiple elements.  This includes things like the above sentences from the ADHD article, which are obviously not OR.  The word "synthesis" is not the right word to express that particular concept of the OR policy, unless it is specifically mentioned that said synthesis must lead to a new idea or conclusion. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then let me rephrase my example: if I wrote a policy where I used "pederast" in the context of "experienced Wikipedia editor", and nobody removed it for, say, a year, would it be okay to leave it in (and also insist that the same use appear in all other policy documents) because it was "a long-standing formulation"?  No, it would not.  The word clearly has a well-established meaning that is different than what we want to talk about.  There is no excuse for using the wrong word. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: YES!  EXACTLY!  THAT WAS THE POINT!!!  That sentence is not original research, but the langauge in the FAQ says it is while the current "synthesis" wording remains.  And again, you used that word "synthesis"; from the context of your sentence, it seems like you think it means something like "a new creation based on assumptions from multiple, lesser elements."  Am I right?  That's the problem; that isn't what "synthesis" means.  The word "synthesis" is interchangable with the word "collection".  I don't know how I can make this any clearer. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think synthesis can cover a range of writing: simple collection of facts from various sources at one extreme, to combining earlier ideas to form a new idea at the other extreme. I think editors could write some passages that could be called synthesis and yet be acceptable in Wikipedia articles. So I tend to agree with Yukichigai, although his use of synthesis does not seem to include the generation of new ideas. --Gerry Ashton 15:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm with Yukichigai on this, completely, but I think this dicussion needs to happen at Wikipedia talk:Attribution since this is really a dispute about the language of the policy; the language in the FAQ is simply derived from that.  The word "synthesis" is clearly being misused here, and even if someone can dig up an alternative dicdef somewhere that supports the way the term is being used here, that won't solve the problem, as ambiguity about the meaning will remain, and the policy will be open to too much interpretation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Synthesis" does not mean what some editors seem to think it means 

message: I have raised this before, but this is a good time to raise it again... I often come across articles that imply a synthesis but don't actually state it.  ie, where the various parts of the synthesis are laid out in such a way as to strongly lead the reader to a given conclusion, but where the conclusion itself is not actually stated.  In our model it would be saying: A + B (= C).  When I have raised the issue at RfCs, I am often told it is fine, as long as the article just states the facts without actually reaching a conclusion.  The reader can reach their own conclusions.  The problem is that given the facts stated (often cherry picked) and the way they are laid out, the reader is led directly to the unstated conclusion the writer wants them to reach.  Thoughts? Blueboar 15:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why, Blueboar, there is no policy or guideline that trumps editors' common sense and good judgment. If a collection of facts is presented in such a way as to lead the reader in a specific direction, that would not be acceptable, would it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I am trying to determine... when is it acceptable and when is it not?  Where do we draw the line between "present the evidence and let the reader decide" (which, in theory, I agree with) vs. "present a synthesis with an implied conclusion" (which, in practice, I do not agree with).  I am wondering if we need to say something about unstated/implied conclusions in the FAQ, to further explain the idea behind WP:SYNT. Blueboar 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to try and add some examples, but I think that these nuances are better addressed in article's talk by involved editors, and if there are disputes about a specific case, they can take it to WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unstated or implied synthesis 

message: I would like to ask for some clarification on anonymous sources. 
An anonymous source is an unnamed person or a work created by an unnamed author. Anonymous sources are not acceptable in Wikipedia, because we can't attribute the viewpoint to its author. Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as Deep Throat in The Washington Post, are acceptable, because Wikipedia's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source.
In the article National Union of General Workers I have been discussing the inclusion of an anti-union editorial/commentary by what appears to be an anonymous teacher that was published in Metropolis magazine Killing the Golden Goose. The source magazine is a reliable publication, having been published for 13 years or so. There is a long history of editorials in the magazine, though they are usually not anonymous. In this case, I suspect the writer was concerned about reprisals from the union. However, the person highlights some very important points about the Union's activities that I feel should at least be added as claims.
My proposed text is:
:The union has been criticized for its aggressive militancy in pursuing the Shakai Hoken (National Health Insurance) issue. An editorial in Metropolis argued that the union's actions would actually harm the majority of teachers and force the wider community of foreigners working in Japan to pay high premiums with less coverage than alternative private schemes. The article argued that allowing foreigners to opt out of the insurance scheme was a benefit to all but a small number of long-term employees.
There already has been a long, long discussion about this on the Union talk page, that ended in the source being removed as being unreliable. However, the guideline above (in bold) says that anonymous sources can be used when in reliable publications. Should this particular source be included or not? Thank you for your comments. Sparkzilla 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why not. But you will have to discuss the details at talk page and find common ground with other involved editors. If you cannot find such common ground, you should pursue dispute resolution whose first step would be to ask for third opinions via an request for comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just note that op-eds cannot be used to assert a fact, although these can be used to assert an opinion, if you attribute such opinions to those that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't think there is much common ground. I had hoped that by placing the question here that I would be able to find opinions regarding the issue (use of anonymous source) that were not infected by the bias of the participants. I appreciate your input and if I could get a few more comments from other editors I would very grateful. Sparkzilla 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Jossi on this, word-for-word. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While text from an anonymous source that was published by a reliable publisher can be used, it shouldn't be taken out of context so it seems to have more credibility in Wikipedia than it had in the context of the reliable publication. This would apply to op-eds, advertisements, or quotations that the reliable publication expresses doubts about. --Gerry Ashton 17:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A request for comments has been filed about the use of anonymous sources in reliable publications. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:National_Union_of_General_Workers#Request_for_Comment_-_Use_of_anonymous_sources_in_reliable_publications in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. Sparkzilla 06:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous sources

message: The thread that used to be here was moved to User_talk:Ed Poor, since User:Blueboar argued this was not the right area for it. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, they can do so over at Uncle Ed's talk page. EdJohnston 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it okay to use verifiable sources which support one side of a controversy?

message: Yes, I'm back.  Yes, it's about synthesis again.  No, I'm not going to stop until the FAQ accurately reflects policy.  Now that we have that out of the way....
So, after the little "incident" on the WP:A talk page (which I'm really, really sorry about) I was finally able to get a clear statement on what y'all (or at least SlimVirgin) think "synthesis" means.
So if I can take this one step further, we can swap the terms "synthesis" and "a putting together" from now on.  Good, on to step two.
Step two is to examine the sentence I've changed. (repeatedly)  Prior to my change it read:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or new synthesis of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
So if we do that little word swap I described above (plus some grammar fixing) that sentence means:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas or a new putting together of ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
Read that again.  "A new putting together of ideas and viewpoints violates policy?"  I think not.  It does if that "new putting together" advances a point, but the sentence doesn't say that.  It doesn't even say "can violate policy" or "may violate policy," it says that all "new putting together of ideas and viewpoints" violates policy.  That is incorrect; hence, the sentence needs to be fixed.
Now, of course, comes the part where someone will inevitably say something like, "synthesis is an important part of policy, it needs to be in the FAQ."  I agree, it does.  Just not in that sentence.  Certainly it should go in that section, and probably should have its own section of the FAQ.  The problem is that the "synthesis" part of WP:NOR really cannot be adequately explained in a single sentence, certainly not in a manner that is as simple and easy to understand as is really necessary for a FAQ.  After all, a FAQ is supposed to be clear, well-spoken, and so easy to understand that there is virtually no chance for people to come to incorrect conclusions regarding what it says.
Finally, I'd like you to just evaluate the new sentence as it stands after my changes:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
Is that sentence not true?  No.  Does it in any way distort or confuse the reader about policy? No.  In fact, I'd argue that because it is so simple and to the point it is vastly improved; as it stands now it is a short, simple statement that is easy to understand and remember, and goes to the very core of the WP:NOR policy: "original ideas = bad for Wikipedia."  Hell, it even covers the "synthesis" issue, because a "synthesis" violation must "advance a point" to be a violation since that "point is" (say it with me now) an original idea. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis, part deux 

message: The ability to cite references to archived Usenet articles from such services as Google Groups as a historical record of events such as software release announcements is an invaluable resource, and should certainly be an exception to the rule against citing Usenet posts.  While it is agreed that a Usenet posting in itself is not an authoritative source of verifiable information, Google Groups can certainly be used as a verification that a particular Usenet article was posted on a particular date, and is quite useful as a historical record.  --Thoric 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very strong support from my quarter. While the content of a Usenet post may be quesionable under WP:RS (wherever that goes by the time I finish typing this), the timestamps are sometimes of inestimable value. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I question why we would need to demonstrate that a particular usenet posting was made on a give date and time.  Perhaps this would fall under the "article about itself" clause ... Such time stamped postings can be used in articles about the Usenet itself, but not in other articles. Blueboar 12:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained why above -- as a citation of a historical event that wasn't historical enough to be cited in an official publication... for example the announcement of a release of a piece of software.  Sometimes such archived, timestamped Usenet postings are the only solid record of a software release date that exists.  --Thoric 15:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That raises two questions in my mind ... 1) If the release date of a piece of software is not notable enough to be cited in a more reliable publication, is it notable enough to be mentioned here? and 2) Since he main objection to usenet postings is that we have no way to verify what is being posted or who is posting it... how do we know that a post saying a piece of software was released is a valid record for the release date? Blueboar 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer #1, I would say that the release of well over 90% of GPL software gets released without any publication in a "notable" publication.  For example, you would never find a newspaper article boasting the merits of the next version of GCC, yet archives of gnu.gcc.announce would certainly be a reliable source for release history.  As for #2, I would argue that Usenet deserves more credit than you are attributing to it -- especially in the case of archived posts from the days when the World Wide Web was young (or nonexistent).  Archived Usenet articles are a valuable historical Internet record.  --Thoric 18:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  When I was at EFF in the early days, virtually all of our organizational communication to our constituency was through comp.org.eff.talk and comp.org.eff.news other than direct e-mail of our newsletters to subscribers.  What I or Mike Godwin said on comp.org.eff.talk was literally EFF speaking, in many cases (if they were just random conversations, not, but when we were speaking as EFF spokespeople on EFF policy matters, they are in fact reliably sourced statements about EFF policywork at that point in time.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RS -- Archives of Usenet postings as a historical citation 

message: This FAQ seems to indulge in the fallacy that all wikis are attempts to build encyclopedias.  Now, I can think of several reasons why citing such a page would not be a terrific idea, but remember, in general a wiki is just a way to build a web site.  Depending on who is allowed to edit and the policies in place, a wiki may have in principle as much reliability as any other web page.  (This may, of course, be damning with faint praise.)  What about, for example, software documentation which is made available in wiki form?  If the documentation derives from the software developers themselves, this seems just as good a source as any other company website.  As long as the citation links to the specific version of the page, what would be wrong with this?
Just an idea for consideration.  Anville 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of wikis 

message: This FAQ currently states, "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources. Many of them license content under the GFDL, which might be worth importing into Wikipedia, but once imported, the material is subject to Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."
I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as source or reference for some fact. This will result in circular reasoning ("We should write X in Wikipedia because Wikipedia writes X here"). This type of logic is fallacious and only begs the question. (This also reiterated in [[[WP:OR]], where it states only primary and secondary sources should be used to cite statements, and tertiary sources, such as Wikipedia, are to be avoided.) However, we currently policy that states Wikipedia article can, in fact, be used as sources, per WP:SUMMARY. The policy states we can summarize the article, without giving references, so as to ensure article do not overly long. Of course, very long articles are burdensome for readers, and summaries of the main points are necessary to condense the general ideas. However, simply using a different Wikipedia article seems to violate the WP:OR policy and the one stated in this FAQ. Thoughts? ~ UBeR 03:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that WP:SS does not contradict WP:ATT in letter or in spirit; if the material is sourced in the subarticle as WP:SS requests then it is certainly attributable and so meets the requests of WP:ATT. Of course there are issues where a citation ought to be included in the summary - for example BLP issues, surprising facts, and direct quotes - but common sense says that if the reader is interested in the summarized material then she/he will go to the main article.  The summary paragraph should be a short, high-level summary; if it is long enough that it starts to meed many references, it is too long anyway.  The whole point of summary style is not to get into much detail. CMummert · talk 03:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  It's not WP sourcing itself, its simply cross-referencing to where the sources are.  That said, I don't see any problem whatsoever with SS articles having source citations in them for what they do assert; anyone who removed sourced from an SS article should be WP:TROUTed.  :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, what about intros/leads, however? There are people who are asserting putting two brackets around a phrase so that links to another Wikipedia adequately counts as a citation/reference. They use WP:SS to justify this assertion, but I honestly do not think it is applicable here. Thoughts? ~ UBeR 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Wikipedia as a source conflicting with [[WP:SUMMARY]]? 

message: This page (and the new Attribution page) have not included the following section of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. Why? Shouldn't it? Tazmaniacs 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability: language of sources 

message: Although I have problems with WP:ATT in general, this FAQ is a useful policy, I particulary like the extensive 'what is reliable' and 'what is not' section. Good job, and this should become a policy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General positive comment 

message: Where should i post questions about the Attribution policy (proposal)? Itayb 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Wikipedia talk:Attribution. Blueboar 12:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. Do i understand correctly that the questions that find themselves into this FAQ are those questions, which are frequently asked on the Wikipedia talk:Attribution page? Itayb 12:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of... WP:ATT (the common abbreviation for the Attribution Policy) is fairly new, and is a merger of several older Policies.  Most of these questions are a summarized version of many years worth of questions that have come up on the talk pages for the various policy pages that were merged into ATT.  Others are questions that no one has actually asked but which were invented, either because someone might ask it, or to help expand on the intent and meaning of the policy...  this is a common practice on most FAQ type pages.    13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should i post questions about the Attribution policy (proposal)? 

message: Please see my post there about using parts of this policy to update WP:RS.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Update_examples]]

message: Radiant tagged this as Historical... but I don't think it is.  As this is a sub-page of WP:ATT... which has been tagged as "Proposed"...  I would think this page should be tagged the same way? Blueboar 15:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical or Proposed? 

message: This is a very very useful subsection that should definietly be part of existing policies. Please note that there exists a similar page - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples; some form of merger, one way or another, should be considered. Also, per discussion here, I suggest adding a note on reliability of newspapers.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about the reliability of specific sources

message: This page has just been deleted and replaced with a redirect.  There's no explanation here and I'm not sure if it was deliberate or not (the change was marked as a minor edit).
Even if there are good reasons for deleting the material, incoming links need to be deleted before it is redirected so that we don't end up with meaningless links.  I have reverted for now for this reason.
Enchanter 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means fix links (not sure what you mean by "incoming"), but there's no need for this page because the ATT proposal didn't fly, and this page was always a mess anyway. I've therefore redirected it to the ATT essay. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By incoming links I mean links to this FAQ - there is one at Wikipedia:Attribution for example.  Ideally you should make sure that links to pages are removed before a page is redirected or deleted, to avoid there being misleading links.  I'm surprised at the redirect - is this as a result of a community discussion elsewhere, or a bold edit on your part? Either way, I would encourage you to discuss and explain edits on the talk page and include more descriptive edit comments. Enchanter 22:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of page

message: Wikipedia:Attribution is NOT marked as historical, and it DOES link to this page for further clarification. Therefore this page should not be marked as historical, not until there is a consensus WP:ATT is historical.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical?