Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 6

message: Attribution sounds like it could be as manual as Wikipedia:Citing sources, or confined only to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Perhaps "attributability"? What are some other options? —Centrx→talk • 21:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Attribution" is good because it implies that edits must be attributed to sources rather than being theoretically "attributable". Beit Or 11:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not policy. Unsourced contributions are welcome and always have been, and unsourced statements are not and should not be uniformly removed. Information on Wikipedia need only be verifiable, except in the special case of controversial material about living persons. That the information be in fact cited is optimal, but the mere absence of such citation is not a reason to delete half the articles on Wikipedia. Even "attributable" is problematic because it implies that obvious deductions of the kind under section What is not original research are not acceptable. —Centrx→talk • 20:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Attributability? There's no such word. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a combination of "attributable" and the suffix "-ility", with a well-defined meaning. You can find its widespread use at , including in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the IEEE, and the UK Ministry of Defence. —Centrx→talk • 16:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Atomaton, can you explain why you re-added: "Material from questionable or self-published sources may be used as primary source material in articles about that source's author only rarely, under exceptional circumstances, when other reliable references for non-disputed events cannot be found elsewhere.
I explained above that this is wrong: not what the current policies say or what current best practise is. It would mean we couldn't use a self-published source in an article about himself regarding an issue that was disputed. Also, could you answer my question above: what is the difference in that edit between "only rarely" and "under exceptional circumstances"? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting the impression that the people currently editing this page don't know what the current content policies say, which is why they're having difficulty editing the proposal without adding internal inconsistencies or unworkable new ideas. Am I right about that? If I am, it's a problem, because you need to very thoroughly understand the current policies in order either to streamline them or change them coherently. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My take is that WP:RS is in such a mess, that is creating false impressions of current policy. The sooner we promote this proposal, the better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My take is that it was this kind of editing that created RS in the first place. I'm sorry to write this way, but I don't know what else to say. People are making changes that are pointless at best, senseless at worst. If you feel you can really improve the writing, by all means edit it, but causing the writing to become even looser is taking us in the wrong direction. We need to tighten without altering meaning. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you say what you mean by "rarely," on the one hand, and "under exceptional circumstances," on the other? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, if you read what it says, it tells you when you can use self-published sources. The limits are explained. Did you read what I wrote about this above? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, this is not an attempt to change policy, and the change you made would be completely unworkable, and indeed absurd, because it would mean a self-published source, if accused of something by a reliable source, would not be allowed to defend himself. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't agree with you.  Wikipedia is not a forum for resolving dispute (what a topic that is...) Indeed, if someone is accused of something by a reliable source, Wikipedia is not the forum for resolving that.  The appropriate manner would be that a newspaper or magazine would interview the person regarding the dispute, the person would express their view, and then a wikipedia editor would quote the article and cite it appropriately.  Atom 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately that means that unless you are a "public figure," you can't defend yourself from libelous claims since you will not have access to the media. I'm ok with that as long as we can delete all living bios that do not meet the standard of being a "public figure." --Trödel 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point about access to the media.  However, we have a very tight policy regarding Biographies of Living Persons, and slander or unsourced negative comments are not allowed in them.  If a person can make what could be viewed as negative descriptions in a BLP, and find proper and reliable sources for it, then those belong in the article.  If there other views, even if it helps balance NPOV, but there is no reliable reference for the view, then that is unfortunate, but does not belong in the article.  Although we should be intimately concerned about acting ethically, it is not our job to resolve conflict for controversies described in wikipedia, nor to do reporting on events.  As an encylopedia we are here to report facts as cited by verifiable sources, not try to act as a judge, mediator, forum for fairness or collection of all opinions and viewpoints about a person or topic.  We can have compassion for people who are treated unfairly by culture, society, or the government, but it is not our job to offer a place where every notable person is represented to their liking.  Living BIO's should have content with facts as supported by other peoples research, not our own, or our or the subjects research or opinions.  Atom 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is incredibly irresponsible and poor scholarship too. Sorry you can't rebut this lie because it isn't in a RS - that is a ridiculous standard. --Trödel 04:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You say If there other views, even if it helps balance NPOV, but there is no reliable reference for the view, then that is unfortunate. That is totally wrong understanding of current policy! What we are discussing is that in BLPs and in articles about organizations, the POV of that person or organization can be sourced to their self-published material, be that a press relelase, a website, an annual report, etc. That has been the policy so far, as it is consistent with NPOV that states that all significant viewpoints need to be presented. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you've misunderstood what original research is. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll go review Original Research again, but IMO a wikipedia editor gathering data from primary sources is reporting, or original research.  Citing a Time Magazine article where a reporter gathered the data from primary sources would not be reporting, or original research.   Doesn't the NOR policy say "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article"  and "The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article"  When I interview Barack Obama and ask his opinions about the failings of the current administration, and then use that in the Wikipedia biography of Barack Obama, regardless of the content, isn't that original research?  Has this already been printed by a reliable publication before?  If it has, is it okay for me to refere to Mr. Obama's web page, rather than the Time article?  How is what I put in the Wikipedia article now considered to be "verifiable research?"  Atom 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, go and read WP:NOR, as you are indeed confusing things a bit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are not a journalist in a reputable publication, your interview of Mr. Obama cannot be included in his article as that would be OR. But we certainly can cite his website (if he as one) to describe his views of the current administration. That is what is being discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your question, points to the fact that you may not have not understood the principle of NOR. NOR is relatred to 'editors making that research, not persons about which  the article is about. If that person would want to edit Wikipedia, that would be a different story and a;ready covered in WP:AUTO and WP:COI ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One particular issue that may be the source of your confusion, is that Wikipedia content policies work together. You may be interpreting one, without the benefit of another. NPOV cannot be bypassed, so we can and should cite self-published sources in articles about their author if only to provide the viewpoint of the author. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Atomaton, you're mixing up a bunch of different issues. The sentence you changed was talking about self-published sourcces in articles about themselves, and that is, of course, allowed within the limits laid down by the policies, which are retained here. Your interviewing someone and using it would be OR, but that's not what is being discussed. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Our specific discussion went to discussion or NOR.  I was talking about that generally, and not specific to about themselves  I should have made the point that the general view of NOR should extend to articles about the person themselves.  Atom 21:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point, but note that you are taking it to an unnecessary extreme. An article on Acme, Inc. can  (and should) include material about the way that Acme, Inc describes itself in their company literature. If there are competing views about Acme, Inc, we list them. All to abide by NPOV. In the case of a person, sames applies. If the person declares in his website or perosnal home page that he considers himself an African-American, we can state that even if other reliable sources may provide the viewpoint that he is not from African ancestry, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And again

message: As an aside, I'd like to welcome SlimVirgin's approach here of questioning the amendment on the talk page rather than reverting. This allows for propoer discussion of Atomaton's suggestion - and after the discussions today in particular, I hope this presages a return to constructive collaboration from all interested parties, jguk 20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would gather that's only because another revert would violate 3RR. —Centrx→talk • 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to continue responding to Jguk, but for him to turn up here talking about collaborative editing after the revert war he engaged in with Radiant over the three content policies today, against multiple editors, is stunning. That's my last comment to you, Jguk, because you're doing this deliberately; you know you are; and everyone who knows your editing knows you are. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, I welcome the move towards active discussion of differences, a position I have advocated consistently since my recent return to WP, jguk 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aside