Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Attribution

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drogheda (talk | contribs) at 11:29, 25 March 2007 (→‎combining is a really bad idea). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Wikipedia:Attribution was worked on over 5 months (more than 2,000 edits to the page itself, and more than 5,000 edits to the talk page by more than 300 editors), and it was upgraded to policy on the 15 February, 2007. The discussion was made public on various policy talk pages, on the wiki-EN-l mailing list, and was announced on the The Wikipedia Signpost.

Important aspects of Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS) were also merged into WP:ATT, with other information to be incorporated into the accompanying Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ (WP:ATTFAQ). The intention was to express present policy more clearly, concisely, and maintainable, not to change it.

Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo stated that, despite the very good work by people laboring on ATT, he believed that there wasn't wide consensus for such change in policy structure, that the merger was done out of process, and that there should be further attempts at consensus building prior to a final decision.

Jimbo requested:

  • "a broad community discussion on this issue", followed by
  • "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results."

A poll draft has been set up at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll.

This is not a place for recriminations about how we got here, justified or not; this is a discussion of where we are now.

There seem to be the following major questions:

Where has this been posted?

Could someone list where this discussion was posted to, so that we know we're generating the "broad community discussion" Jimbo has asked for? Marskell 08:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted at (please add links if you know of others):

This discussion is not sufficiently widely advertised. One thing that is needed and that is missing is prominent proposed-merge tags on WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, with links to this discussion. This discussion should continue at least until such merge tags have been in place for a good long time. --Coppertwig 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, do you really think an edit summary of "...he can't add merge tags because the pages are locked... so all he can do is (over) complain" is helpful? Maybe you might consider that a number of people here believe these merge tags should be installed, and that the fact that they are being resisted is really ironic, given that we are all here right now because they weren't used the first time around? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why merge tags are not being used. And there's still no link in the "page is protected" notice to the discussion. Xiner (talk, email) 00:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Should WP:V and WP:NOR have been merged at all?

The chief argument for this was that they had an extensive area of overlap. It is more efficient to state the same policy in the same place, once. When they diverged, as they did from time to time, the result was two somewhat different policies on the same issue, of equal authority.

As a lesser advantage, "verification" in WP:V was not the common meaning of "verify": confirming the truth of what Wikipedia asserted; but checking that Wikipedia's statement could be attributed to a reliable source, and was therefore not original research. The change of name may well mean that we don't have to explain this once or twice a month to some well-intentioned soul who has just encountered our policy pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • When I first heard of the proposal to merge V and NOR into one combined Policy my initial reaction was negative. Especially since part of the proposal involved also shifting RS (which I have been involved in heavily) to a FAQ page. I was sceptical, thinking that this might be an backhanded way to slip policy changes past the watchful eye of the community, under the guise of simplification. While I did not get heavily involved with the drafting, I did pay attention to the discussion about it. After a while I discovered that my fears had no basis. The folks who drafted this really did mean it when they said they did not intend to change anything. Before too long I found that I had changed my mind... this actually was a very good idea. While V, NOR and RS seem to be seperate concepts, they actually overlap in many areas... Perhaps not in wording, but in concept. Changes to one greatly affected the others. We even had times where they were in direct conflict - two policies saying opposite things about the same idea. It now makes sense to me to have them combined into one Policy to avoid such confusion. Not only was this merger good... it should have been done a while ago. Blueboar 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with the merger. The concepts expressed in the two policies are both part of the same basic idea that everything we report here be based in external confirmable reality. Simplifying redundant policies into cohesive single pages is an excellent idea and should be done often to avoid both inconsistency of policy and inadvertent WP:CREEP. If nothing else I hope we keep the rewording from "verifiability, not truth" to "attributability, not truth", because the first was oxymoronic and meant "truth, not truth". --tjstrf talk 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with merging these two. No original research, and no novel syntheses, is different form verifiability. Something can be verifiable from impeccable primary sources but still be original research because it is compiled entirely from primary sources, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. The value of WP:ATT is in taking the examples and putting them in context, showing how - well, attribution is necessary and how it should be done. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to see them remain separate. I feel they were more understandable when presented in discrete chunks: together, they are a bit too much to process at one time. It also is a bit too much to process on one talk page. That said, if condensed, it could be a good summary page. So, although I would like to see WP:V and WP:NOR remain as separate policies, WP:ATT, if condensed, would be a good guideline to show to people who would prefer to do less reading. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This is already a subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution and is slated for further investigation at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. I don't see the point of this thread existing here on this odd page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course. The policies are intimately related; after all, Original Research is essentially an argument or synthesis that cannot be Verified to a Reliable Source. Combining them clarifies the relationship between them, and helps avoid policy (and guideline) divergence. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • YES! Until now, it's been impossible to clearly articulate and enforce NOR or RS. People followed V, but almost never NOR, and rarely RS until now. The Wikipedia is getting way better in quality now.--Urthogie 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, indeed. People were always complaining about the policies being spread over two pages — three pages if you count RS — and in addition newbies got confused about how the word "verifiability" was being used. This is much clearer, and it was a very popular move. I've received more e-mails in the last few months saying this was a good move than over any other single issue since I've been at Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, but now that is has been done, I think the more important questions are should ATT totally subsume V and NOR (and possibly RS), should ATT just go away, or should ATT be a summary policy and the others more in-depth explorations? I lean toward the third option. I can't see a rationale for completely undoing ATT. A lot of good faith work has gone into it, and while some of us weren't entirely happy with the process, that's kind of water under the bridge at this point. The real challenge will be to have separate documents that actually agree with each other. I don't think this problem is insurmountable at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • YES. Think of the new editors coming to join the project. What better than having two simple and well presented policies WP:NPOV and WP:ATT? We need to think of the future of this project and embrace evolution. If you do not evolve, you die. A conservative move to keep a status quo that has created enormous problems for editors is not a good thing for this project is not a good thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. WP:V and WP:NOR should not have been merged. At one time Wikipedia:Verifiability had instructions for how Wikipedians should verify article content. The instructions for fact-checking by Wikipedians stressed the importance of multiple unimpeachable sources to support statements in encyclopedia articles. Of course, that was bad news for POV pushers, but WP:A now tells us that only for certain "exceptional claims" need editors think about comparing multiple reliable sources in order to check facts. This change does not help editors keep garbage out of articles and improve the encyclopedia. There was never any problem in having WP:V and WP:NOR discuss similar issues from different perspectives. WP:V should go back to its roots and serve as a resource for guiding Wikipedians in their fact checking work. WP:NOR is needed for examples that define the distinction between trying to slip unpublished research into Wikipedia and doing the kind of analysis of sources that Wikipedians must do in order to produce an encyclopedia. Merging the two pages only serves to weaken and dilute those important functions. --JWSchmidt 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What JWSchmidt has to say here makes a lot of sense to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • YES, there has not been a single refutation of my proof, so the merger is a good idea. More seriously, attribution doesn't mean you should not compare and contrast sources... but in any case, I'm very glad that this merger has highlighted (although it's irritating that it is being blamed for) the role of truth in more recent versions of WP:V than those cited above. Perhaps WP:V should go back to its roots, but it should definitely not go back to the "truth, not truth; but the first truth in this context means something other than truth" formulation. --Merzul 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me start from rephrasing my very first objection I ever made w.r.t. WP:A. I am afraid that this section title is a loaded question, and vaguely (I am sure, inadvertently) stated, too. Yes, the pages were merged. But the policies were not. The renaming them from "policies" to "key principles" is merely a bureaucratic trick. Of course, there was much trimming/cleanup done in the process, but if right now you cut WP:A into two pieces along the VPL (er..., "visible partition line") and rename "key principles" back into "policies", will it make any difference? IMO one of the core troubles is that the two WP:NOR & WP:V had their long lines of evolution, and significantly shifted in essence, so that their meanings and purposes are no longer immediately deduced from their titles, and this confuses new generations. This happens all the time with many technical terms in all natural languages (take the word "computer"). Their contents grew over time until it became evident that the two bushes turned into one thicket. Naturally, many felt that something should be done. But I have an impression that instead of thinking and deciding how to proceed, the merge itself and the discussion of what is to be done run in parallel (and the first draft of VP:A (whose structure I like more) differs from the result drastically).
After this long rant, let me answer to the "correct" question: Should the policies WP:V and WP:NOR be merged? — YES, but... (to be continued...) (and to the original one: yes, it was a useful and instructive exercise) `'mikka 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • YES - As a result of creating Wikipedia:Attribution, the debates at AfD began to move away from the subject test of whether a topic was important or famous enough to include in Wikipedia towards the objective test of whether there was sufficient source material to include a attributable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Instead of telling newcomers that Wikipedia doesn't want their article and thinks the topic is unimportant (which really gets newcomers upset), the AfD focus began to move towards yes, the topic is important, but there is not enough source material to include an attributable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Newcomers seem to have better acceptance of this reasoning. This seemed to work towards reducing hurt feelings at AfD. -- Jreferee 04:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's very compelling if true (examples?), but even if there has been a general trend away from criteria of importance and fame at AfD, I suspect it has more to do with the recent changes and discussions regarding Wikipedia:Notability than the ATT merger.--ragesoss 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • yes - easy to understand policies are important - it means more people will follow them. if it is possible to merge these two into an new, easier to understand one (which, as far as i can tell, has been achieved with WP:ATT), then it should certainly be done. to be able to accurately summarize one's policies in as few sentences as possible seems to be a good goal for any policy maker. Mlm42 09:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm undecided. I agree with the valid point made above that "attribution" is a more accurate wording than "verifiability", as "verification" usually refers (outside Wikipedia) to determining the truth of an assertion, rather than attributing it to an external source. Therefore, the famous Wikipedia doctrine "Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion" makes little sense to many non-Wikipedians. However, it might have been better to simply rename WP:V to WP:ATT, and keep WP:NOR as a separate policy. Although they do refer to two sides of the same coin - original research is, by definition, the absence of attribution - it's sometimes clearer to refer to WP:NOR, especially when explaining things at AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, It was done with too much haste. Wikipedia has become a gargantuan project. Big changes at its core should only be made slowly and carefully. SmokeyJoe 09:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Is 5 months. 2,000 edits to ATT and 5,000 comments in talk haste? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Your point has my sympathy. I don't understand why, but it seems that so much work over such a long time happened in the complete ignorance of so many. I am interest in policy, and keep many policies, including WP:V and WP:NOR on my watchlist, and yet I was completely unaware of what was happening until there was an announcement that it was about to happen. How many editors, as a percentage of active editors, participated in the creation of WP:ATT? SmokeyJoe 04:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No Verifiability was about increasing article accuracy through fact checking and providing sources to enable this. Attribution is turning into "if it is not attributed then delete it" and (using the NOR merger) "only worry about whether the attribution is accurate", both of which would damage Wikipedia --Henrygb 13:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    Can you repeat this below? This is an assertion that WP:ATT is a change in policy. I agree that any such change would be a bad thing, and have attempted to word ATT so as to preserve the present policy, which I like. What further changes does WP:ATT need? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I think it is better if they are combined. But several things have changed while the combining took place (see my comment below about a change in OR, there has also been a change in the wording in Primary sources etc) which I think should not have been made until after full discussion about such changes on the talk page of ATT, after ATT became active. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, Verifiability and NOR mean the same thing. One says, "articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources", the other says, "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis". Having two "different" policies which mean practically the same thing is pointless. --Xyzzyplugh 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. My initial reaction to the announcement of the merger was skepticism and a bit of dismay at not having known about it before. However, the more I thought about it (and looked at the result), the more I liked it. As long as reliable sources remains independent (as it really is an independent issue), I don't see any big problems with merging verifiability and no-original-research, except that it will take awhile for everyone to use the new jargon. Maybe that's a plus in and of itself, though.--ragesoss 05:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. I was also taken aback at discovering that there'd been a change, but once I'd realised that it was only a change in organisation, I thought that it was significantly better. In fact, I'd be dismayed if it changed back permanently. More than half my time is spent removing text that's simply placed in articles without explaantion o source (and often having to argue with people who don't have time for explaantions or source-finding, but have plenty for acrimonious protests); the simpler and clearer the policies and guidelines are, the better. (I find it difficult to understand the claim that policy is simpler to understand if it's split into different chunks on different pages.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. They made more sense to me as separate items. WP:NOR has an intuitive meaning to anyone who's ever had to deal with science cranks, which it loses once it's buried inside some other doctrine. Wasted Time R 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No. Each have a specific point, a specific and very different topic. Merging all does not make sense! And Wikipedia change is just too disturbing anyway. Reasons specified above also defend my point. Merging is efficient and organised, but the different points addressed lose its value, I believe. -- Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes If something is NOR, then it's verifiable. Xiner (talk, email) 23:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That sounds backwards to me. A person can cite an external source published by someone else, making it NOR, but that source could be completely bogus, meaning it's not V. On the other hand, original research is by definition not verifiable, so the statement should be that if something is verifiable, then it is not original research. --DachannienTalkContrib 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. On the question of merging the two concepts, I agree that they are intricately linked enough to make them one policy. As per my subcomment above, V is a subset of NOR that is necessary to the function of Wikipedia, so that subset should be emphasized, with NOR being used to reinforce it. --DachannienTalkContrib 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes the essential idea of NOR and V is identical in that both require information posted on Wikipedia to have reliable attribution instead of fancy theories. Wooyi 00:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Also I think the WP:NOR and WP:V links should redirect to their respective section of the merged policy if they ever get merged. Wooyi 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes While the merger was disconcerting at first, the merged layout is clear and effective. It is appropriate for the more detailed clarifications such as WP:RS to be linked from this (merged) core policy. .. dave souza, talk 00:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes Original research is a bunch of information that verifiability is in question. Verifiability is when somebody can check the information to make sure that it is correct. Therefore, those two concepts are closely related and should be merged to enforce it as one policy.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes The debate at various places seems to not really center on "Is the merger a good idea" but "Was the merger handled correctly". If changes to wikipedia article happened as people wanted this process to happen, wikipedia could never be improved. WP:BOLD should apply here as well... 5 months seems more than adequate, simply because someone didn't send every registered wikipedia member a personal invite on their talk pages does not mean that adequate warning wasn't given. Furthermore, even if the process of creating the new page irked some people, it has no bearing on whether or not the results of the process (i.e. the new page) is beneficial to the project. That is the only thing that matters: Does the new ATT page significantly improve the project. It does. That's all that matters to me. Plus, as a tacit verification of acceptance, the new page seems to be being used in many places. Consensus is displayed by many more means than a simple straw poll... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am one of those editors who does not offen comment on policy pages, and didn't really follow this discussion when it (the merge) was happening. That said, the merge seemed logical to me. I tell someone "We can't have OR" and they wonder, "How can I show that this isn't OR", the answer: provide verification. So they post something from their website. No, provide verification from a reliable source. It just made sense to me to take out the overlap under the heading of attribution. Also, as others have pointed out, we don't actually verify (go and check each source -- especially print sources), we merely expect the information to be attributed. So, for me, Yes. -- Pastordavid 02:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, they say basically the same thing. There's no reason why small differences can't be handled by different aspects of one policy. The fewer policies there are, the easier it is for new users to get a handle on things. delldot talk 02:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, they are two distinct and seperate concepts - I don't think there's really anything to gain by putting them both on the same page. I don't really think there was anything wrong with things being as they were before, and I can't see any improvement being made from the merger. Perhaps if there are issues with the policies work should go into improving them seperately rather than deciding to combine the two. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, this seems a sensible idea to me. I didn't like the idea at first, but having read the pages, everything seems to slot together nicely. As has been said, the two separate policies cover the same idea from two different angles, therefore it's much better that they are covered on the same page, without significant overlap. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No - firstly, they are distinct, secondly, many people do not know what "attribution" means while "verify" (root word) and "no original research" and "reliable sources" are common words and commonly understood. I didn't even know about the discussion despite 12 months of activity on Wikipedia and regularly reading many of the policies, and I don't doubt others were in the same boat - I heard about it by accident from another admin a few weeks after it took place, and even now most people on AfD debates don't seem to know they've been merged. I do tend to favour harmonising the policies to create an overarching Attribution framework, but keeping the others as core policies much as we have parent and child Wikiprojects. The maxim "if it ain't broke don't try to fix it" fits here IMO. Orderinchaos78 03:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    But "attribution" is a term naturally associated with high quality source-based scholarship, while "verifiability" is naturally associated with high quality original reasearch. Which intuitive idea should be conveyed to new editors? --Merzul 10:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No - Wow. Look at the bolding trend. Anyways, I don't think they should have been merged at all. To me, verifying something would refer to validating something that is primarily unknown or just needs to be clarified for "upgrading" the validity of the article. OR, on the other hand, tells me that original research, that is not based on anything, can not be included. Now, they are similar on a certain level, but I feel they both qualify for seperate articles. I could, however, see V and RS be merged. Disinclination 04:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye, all the relevant pieces can be better displayed in one place. Taking the long term view, editors don't just figure out the minutiae of policy and how it is applied from reading the policy, they also get there by observing and being involved in day-to-day editing, therefore seeing how it is applied and how others interpret it. Having one page to refer back to works better for me. Deiz talk 05:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes; it took me a little while to see how the pieces would fit together, but conceptually it makes a lot of sense. A single policy page that authoritatively defines "what material we can include" will always be easier to understand than two policies. WP:NPOV defines "how we write included material", and WP:NOT defines "what not to include". Easy peasy. -/- Warren 05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • YES, as per User:Jayjg: "The policies are intimately related; after all, Original Research is essentially an argument or synthesis that cannot be Verified to a Reliable Source." Merging the three policies to one page makes it easier for all to figure out a) why their additions to Wikipedia are being considered original research, b) how to find acceptable, reliable sources if they disagree, and c) how to use those sources to verify or attribute their additions. I consider myself an experienced editor, and even I've found myself swamped in policy at times. Merging them for simplification can only be a good idea. ♠PMC♠ 06:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, It's simpler & more likely to be read & followed. Attribution more accurately describes what is called for than verification; I can verify that I have five fingers on each hand (to borrow an example someone has used here) but if I'm a non-notable person, that information should not be in WP. Attribution to a reliable source seems a more intuitive description of what is generally wanted Ewulp 06:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, Fully aware I'm in the minority. If (or more likely when given the discussion thus far) this happens the templates used to tag articles will probably have to altered right? I'll guess we'll get to that later. I'm curious to see what they'll look like, given that this looks like a foregone conclusion. Quadzilla99 06:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:ATT (with an accompanying FAQ for detail) is better; it is more concise and easier to absorb (for new users especially). Since this is a core concept and policy, it can only be a benefit to the project to communicate it all in one way and one place. (Yes, the topics, to any reasonable approximation, are one concept.) Make the replaced policies inactive and leave their redirects pointing at them (with links to ATT at the top of the page, obviously). Incorporate any detail in WP:RS that is not captured in ATT in the ATTFAQ. Applaud policy developers for level-headedness. –Outriggr § 09:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. While at first against it, I think the benefits outweigh the problems. If two policies have some area of overlap, too many problems can arise if one of the policies change. — Pious7TalkContribs 10:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If they remain merged, should WP:RS remain merged with them?

  • Keep WP:RS along with V and NOR as in-depth explorations of their subtopics, but make sure that ATT accounts for the basics of RS to the extent they are relevant to RS (and that NPOV do likewise to the extent that RS issues are relevant to NPOV; i.e., just make of these things agree with each other). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not think WP:RS should remain merged with them. WP:RS is sufficiently complex and controversial that it really should have its own page for us to try to improve it on.
That said, if WP:RS is to be merged with something, I think it should be merged with WP:NPOV, not WP:ATT. If well-rewritten, it could fill in a gap in WP:NPOV - figuring out what due weight is - as well as providing further clarification on the difference between facts and opinions.
— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
agreed RS needs to exist as a clear guideline. muddling it into ATT just prevents a clear policy. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is the correct place to hold Wikipedia's institutional memory of past debates and decisions about which sources are not reliable. We have a spam blacklist and we need a sources blacklist for unreliable sources that are frequently cited by Wikipedians. There are many sources that are biased and cannot be trusted and we need tools to blacklist them from use at Wikipedia. I'm skeptical of the idea that a few examples of unreliable sources as part of subpage (Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ) should replace a function that can be served by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rather than put discussion of reliable sources on the page of that name, we are told it is "better" to spread that discussion out over WP:A and a subpage. That only serves to dilute and hide the process by which Wikipedians battle POV pushers who continually cite unreliable sources. --JWSchmidt 02:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with JWSchmidt's points here as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. WP:RS must be related to whatever policy be via Wikipedia:Summary style, but rewritten: it has two distinct parts: policyish and guidelineish. This distinction must be drawn clearer, to decrease the amount of possible dispute. `'mikka 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, as they have different functions. WP:ATT (or alternatively WP:V and WP:NOR) are core content policies that must be followed in articles. WP:RS, on the other hand, is a guideline; it's helpful to users in understanding what kind of sources are appropriate, but it isn't necessarily as central to the running of Wikipedia. Also, WP:RS contains a lot of detail, that could potentially make WP:ATT excessively lengthy and confusing for readers. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • RS was not policy and was in a very poor state to say the least. The current verison of WP:RS is actually the result of the work done at WP:ATT. We took a totally messed up, verbose guideline and made it compatible with V and OR. Then we added all the details and examples and placed the in WP:ATTFAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to quibble with Jossi's statement a bit... I would say that the concept of having reliable sources is policy - as it is mentioned as being a key concept on all of the policy pages we are discussing. What isn't policy is the guideline page: "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" - that page is only a guideline ... this is an important distinction. One problem with V and NOR was that while they mention the need for reliable sources they don't really give an explanation of what that phrase means or how to determine what a reliable source is. The WP:RS guideline was created to fill in this omission. The ATT Policy, on the other hand, does give a clearer explanation of what we mean by Reliable Source(especially when you add in the attendant FAQ page). So... I would say that the CONCEPT of RS should indeed be part of ATT. The ATT/FAQ page should be worked on and eventually promoted to a guideline status firmly under the ATT banner. If we keep ATT, then I do not see the need for the WP:RS guideline... However, if we go back to V and NOR, then we should keep WP:RS as a guideline to explain the concept. Blueboar 13:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. If they remain merged, RS is quite a different topic. Merging that with this loses is value, I believe. And merging is a very drastic and sudden change of Wikipedia that is too disturbing. Oppose merge. -- Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably not. RS is sort of a HOWTO on the topic of fulfilling ATT / V+NOR. On the other hand, ATT should make more than a passing reference to the concepts of RS, and in fact, the idea of RS should be made plain in ATT as policy, while the execution of RS should be in the RS guideline. Merging the two promotes RS to policy status, and that promotion should have a discussion all to itself before such a merger takes place. --DachannienTalkContrib 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I should clarify this by saying that my suggestion goes a bit beyond that of a simple merger and into that of changing policy. Discussion of adoption of ATT should be very clear on that point if any of RS is included in it. --DachannienTalkContrib 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No I was torn about this, since ATT should include a requirement that sources be reliable. After some thought, and originally considering Yes, I came to a conclusion. What is really needed is 3 pages: Why we cite sources (WP:ATT), How to cite sources (WP:CITE), and What sources we should cite (WP:RS). These three pages should be internally cross referenced so people are directed to read all three, but since all 3 serve a different purpose, we should maintain all 3 seperately. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The poll comes later; now is time to discuss the proposal.--JEF 04:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the present text of WP:ATT in general come close to representing present policy and practice without changing them?

  • I would say that it definitely does come close ... and may even improve understanding. One advantage of the merger was that extraneous verbage that had worked itself into the old policy pages could be made more concise and clearer in the new merged version. Blueboar 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, not only that, but work was done to fine-tune the wording so that the principles of V and NOR were better expressed. In addition, the mess at RS was resolved by making the principles behind RS compatible with policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, yes. I have not seen any complaints made about the actual policy contained in WP:A that was not simply a reiteration of an older complaint about WP:V or WP:NOR. I also gave all three a thorough readthrough when the merger was announced, and found no complaints to make but a couple swiftly-repaired typos. --tjstrf talk 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you have not seen the complaint I raised at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth and which has also been raised by others; I put a note on your talk page explaining it. --Coppertwig 22:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps it has been seen and, because you are being shrill and troll-like, your complaints are being ignored? Just a thought. Marskell 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This is already a subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution and is slated for further investigation at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. I don't see the point of this thread existing here on this odd page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a better place to discuss it than the dribs and drabs at WT:ATT, In particular, I hope Mikkalai will be clear in distinguishing between where he disagrees with existing policy (below); and where he agrees with existing policy but thinks WP:ATT is changing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Mikkalai will only be clear in his effort of picking at defects in any text at hand, but I see it pointless to do a "vdiff" of two imperfect texts. Besides, I do not express any disagreement with any of the policies. So far I expressed disagreements with language and structuring of them. `'mikka 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any compelling reason not to do that at WP:ATT's talk page, where these issues have already been open and discussed, and remain unresolved. Forking a new thread on another page is "better" how, exactly? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. The discussion at WT:ATT is already fragmented, and will be continually further divided by discussions of subway stations, and wording changes for ATT which have nothing to do with the questions raised here. Does any else agree with S McCandlish's merge proposal? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and, in fact, is in some ways even more clear than the original. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The current version of ATT is clear, concise, easier to understand that the previous text spread over three pages on V, NOR, and RS, and yet is entirely consistent with them, both in letter and spirit. It's a vast improvement, and people are happily linking to it and quoting it in support of their edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Close, yes. I think Wikipedia talk:Attribution already identifies issues, and I see that below one of the disagreements has already been re-raised here. I don't have any fear that the issues will not be dealt with in usual WP fashion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this means not much positive besides that some people did a good job. The questions remain whether this job was useful, whether the job of restructuring may be done even better, whether the job decreased the uncertainties of the original policies, and whether this version is mature enough to be declared a new/replacement/whatever policy `'mikka 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. The current text of ATT represents current practise and policy extremely well, and is much clearer than having text spread across three pages (V, NOR, and RS) that were time-consuming to maintain, and confusing for editors, particularly new ones. In addition, the titles of NOR and V caused confusion. Some people thought that "no original research" meant no research at all, which of course is absurd, and others thought "verify" meant they were expected to find out whether particular claims were true, rather than simply attributed. It was for both those reasons — ease of access on one page and clarity of title — that the move to Wikipedia:Attribution was made and it turned out to be very popular. As I've said elsewhere, I've had more e-mails (positive ones) about this issue than about any other single issue since I joined Wikipedia nearly two and a half years ago. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, on the whole. In fundamental content there is little difference between this and the earlier policies. However, I think that WP:RS should be separated, for the sake of clarity, concise expressionm and separation of policy and guideline. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. This is my answer to the question above, because this seems to be set up like a poll. Any discussion of this topic is supposed to take place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth at least for now unless the discussion is moved elsewhere. (I am relatively neutral about where the discussion takes place; I said it would be on this page; someone else moved it there.) However, I feel my answer to the above question belongs here. My answer is: No, it is not a fair representation of the policies; it contains a very basic, fundamental flaw: the new proposed wording at WP:ATT says "not whether it is true" without balancing this with a word such as "verifiability", thus it invites editors to knowingly insert false (but attributable) statements -- something the longstanding policies did not do. I have a strong objection about this. --Coppertwig 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig: Please do not delete or move material from this page. It is disruptive and uncalled for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
User User:Jossi, will you please demonstrate impartiality by giving the same message to the other user who moved material from this page? I was only moving material that would have been moved together with the rest if it hadn't been accidentally posted in the wrong section. I apologize for accidentally posting my message to the wrong section -- I don't know how that happened. If anyone moves the discussion back here, (preferably moving all the comments back here that were posted here,) I would welcome that. I've been advised not to make edits without clear consensus first or I'd move it back myself. --Coppertwig 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is not attributed, delete it

  • Although there is agreement to the principles, there is no agreement really on the detailed proper meaning of OR, or the definition of how much N needs to be sourced to justify a stub, or many other matters. The debates at AfD make this evident. There is therefore probably something to be gained by separating the principles from the details; just as the various subpages of N had the details, and just as the RS page can be seen as a more specifically detailed discussion. I think keeping the basic material together at one place will probably facilitate it. The literal following of JW's advice would delete half the encyclopedia. The use of it as a general principle is however very valuable. DGG 03:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

In reply to tjstrf: No, that wording has essentially the same problem. The problem is that "not truth" implies two things: (1) true but unattributable material is unacceptable and (2) false but attributable material is acceptable. The second of these is undesirable. As far as the second item is concerned, it would be best to say nothing about truth, and let people use common sense and the status quo in trying to decide whether a Wikipedian writing a Wikipedia article means what that one says.
The word "verifiability" contains the idea of "truth" in its definition, so it negates the second item. If "verifiability" is taken away, something else needs to replace it; unless there is a consensus that when someone knowingly writes false statements into a Wikipedia article, as plain statements without prose attribution, they are actually helping to write the encyclopedia; is anyone willing to admit that they support that? And if so, what do you think the ultimate purpose of Wikipedia is? I mean, if you think the purpose of Wikipedia is to write a summary of what's in the literature regardless of whether it conforms to reality, then what is the purpose of writing such a summary? To complete homework assignments with the purpose of getting good marks regardless of whether one learns anything useful? To leave a record, after our civilization falls, of the falsehoods we believed so that some later civilization can learn from our mistakes? Or what?
I think the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information that conforms to reality a large proportion of the time, and that requiring attribution is merely a method of trying to achieve that goal. --Coppertwig 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I deny that Wikipedia's sense of verifiability ever implied "truth"; it implies that the sourcing of our assertions was verifiable. WP:V did, and does, say so at some length. Our only hope to conform to reality is the faith that our sources conform to reality; if they err, we must. (To some extent, this can be avoided by choosing better sources; by acknowledging, exempli gratia, that a newspaper, however reliable on other days of the year, is not a reliable source when it prints flying reindeer stories; but this is a minor point.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ever? Try [1] when WP:V became policy. It said "accuracy" and I can live with that, but verifiability was all about being able to check facts. --Henrygb 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree that the wording does leave the idea that: "(2) false but attributable material is acceptable." and this has bothered me, so I will speak out now that it has been brought up in this context. I understand that you can't claim truth without references, but you can't claim something you believe to be false is really true, just because you have references. And if you have a reference you believe is wrong, you don't have to include it (although I have seen arguments to the contrary). I think the concept of "verifiability, not truth" needs to be reworked. Dhaluza 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree in principle with what Coppertwig is saying here, however, lets look at it this way. Consider this wording: "Truth is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia. Where any statement of objective fact is added to an article, such statement must be attributed to a reliable source" That seems to capture the essence of the "Verifiability, not truth" idea, without its inherent problems. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In editing articles relating to religion, I see aa great deal of value to the statement that the issue is not truth but attributable info. We can argue endlessly (for example) over whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true; what is attributable is that it is a Christian doctrine that states X. People often want to make that case that such and such POV is "true" when dealing with religion articles, and the fact is that that point is irrelevent to an encyclopedia (in the sense that they mean). -- Pastordavid 02:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

While we can argue about the truth of Trinity, there's absolutely no arguing about the truth of the statement "it is a Christian doctrine that states X". Correspondingly, the article should say precisely that and we should be relentless in making sure that no such article goes towards a presentation of the reality of Trinity. Pascal.Tesson 07:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiable" is a bad word

As far as I can tell, the word "verifiable" in Wikipedia has come to imply the word "attributable". I believe here people began using "verifiable" to mean "verifiable by a google search", and then this evolved into "verifiable using reliable sources," and finally this was shortened to "verifiable".
Unfortunately, whether Wikipedia says so or not, I can verify that I have ten fingers, I can verify that the sun rose today, and I can also verify that paper cuts often hurt. To people in the real world, these are easily "verifiable" facts. But they are not so easy to attribute to a published source, though; and crucially, one would not so easily claim these points to be "attributable".
If there is a conceptual difference between "attributable to a reliable source" and "verifiable using a reliable source", it seems small. The important point I am trying to make, though, is that when you shorten the phrase "attributable to a reliable source" to a single word: "attributable", you get much closer to the implied meaning.
Anyway, i think wikipedians use the word "verifiable" a lot, and i think it would make things much clearer if they used "attributable" instead. Mlm42 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It has too many letters to be a bad word. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This statement is gold. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, Attributable must replace verifiable.--ZayZayEM 06:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about attribution to a seriously flawed source?--Bejnar 09:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If done properly, the fact that the source was seriously flawed would be apparent to the reader. The people who keep bringing up this complaint are ignoring that a statement does not magically "become attributed" in a vacuum: you actually have to say who the source is, and why they are relevant. Sure, under WP:A someone could hypothetically add "According to South American KKK divisional leader and political activist John Doe, the Native Peruvians are half-llama weremen who transform under the light of a one-quarter waxing moon." and be within policy (assuming John Doe had in fact made that statement), but the statement would be obviously ludicrous to any rational reader. This is the entire point of attribution: if we divulge who makes what claim, then people can make informed judgments between conflicting ideas. --tjstrf talk 09:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the present text of WP:ATT have flaws of detail?

  • Probably (although I could not give you an example off the top of my head) ... but so do all of our policies and guidelines, including those that were merged into ATT. That's why we don't slap a big DONE sign on them and close them to further editing. At least with the merger the flaws and debates about them are in one central place instead three or four... we won't have to have the same debate on three or four different pages. Blueboar 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of the question? That flaws have been identified is already evident from Wikipedia talk:Attribution. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus there on which are actually flaws, and there is no consensus there on which are merely flaws (as opposed to changes in policy, as per the section above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. An assertion is not the same as a proof. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
So those issues should be discussed there. If they are not resolved there yet, they won't be resolved here magically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tools needed

If that is the case, then you need to go back and re-write WP:V and WP:NOR as this new page is just a merge of these policies. This discussion is not not be about re-defining policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You've got a sincere, fair, and actionable answer to the posted question. No need to go boldface, but next time just to think carefully how to ask the question about what you really really want to know. `'mikka 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There are. I think, two questions here:

  • Does JWSchmidt assert that these tools exist in WP:V and WP:NOR? (I read him as not claiming this; but it would clear the air to say so.)
  • If not, what would these tools be?

Personally, blacklisting of unreliable sources (short of extreme cases, like the National Enquirer or The Onion) is insufficiently subtle. Often a source is reliable for one purpose and unreliable for another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed, I suggest that JWSchmidt's argument shows a certain bias.There is no source that is automatically reliable above all other possible sources in general. Any source can be challenged by one of equal or greater authority. And I do not think there is consensus that there are no purposes whatever where the NEnq could be used--it does document the existence of absurd beliefs. (I remain amused by its use in Men in Black).DGG 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes These are conceptually different ideas. All are corollaries of one another, but they complement each other, and if you can remove the duplicate statements from each document, you'll find a very agreeable collection of Wikipedia principles. Xiner (talk, email) 23:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to make any changes to present policy or practice, while we have this opportunity?

  • Emphatically no. I think it would be a major error to commingle trying to sort out merge consensus on the one hand and introduce new substantive policy changes on the other. I am not opposed to change, I just think that the changes are separate issues and their own discussions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Widespread community involvement is always a good thing when it comes to changing policies. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What opportunity? Besides all pages being protected I see no difference one day or another. `'mikka 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My general opinion is that we do not need to make any changes; but several of the objections to WP:ATT appear to me to be objections to wording which is present policy, and which derives unchanged from WP:V or WP:NPOV. Such proposals deserve a place for discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We emphatically do not need to make any changes whatsoever to existing core content policies. The rules on sourcing and attribution are absolutely essential, and work better than any other alternative method. This discussion should concern only the possibilities of merging and renaming, not any changes to the existing processes of Wikipedia. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "changes"? If we want to bring policies in line with practice, is that a "change in policy" since it changes the in-writing policy, or is it "not a change in policy" since it doesn't change the policy as practiced? For that matter, is clarifying an ambiguous part of policy a "change in policy"? Ken Arromdee 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a discussion of whether we should make changes to this policy/these policies is a prerequisite to merging the policy documents. There are two reasons for this: one, pure efficiency, as it seems silly to me to merge portions of policies that are going to be changed immediately afterwards; and two, it seems to me that it would be easier to change the policies while they're in the form most people are familiar with, i.e., separate. --DachannienTalkContrib 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. While I won't deny the possibility that changes may be needed, NOR and V had broad support and I think it's better to discuss the merger/rewrite separately from any changes we may want. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarify NOR

I think we need to clarify what OR is and that it is not the same as, or reducible to, verifiability or some broader concept of attribution.

Here's one example: I have no difficulty with the idea that the material Jimbo recently removed from the Langan article was original research, but I see others objecting both on-site and on the mailing list. IMO, the policy pages need to be clear enough that good users can see that this material was within the concept of OR.

For starters, why don't you follow the existing policies and provide a "reliable reference" to the thing you are talking about. The "Langan" article has a single edit, and it was not Jimbo. `'mikka 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this. Jimbo ripped out a large chunk out of Christopher Michael Langan in the form it was in the other day, and various people on the mailing list (and there were also some comments on the talk page) objected that he was adopting a novel and expansive interpretation of OR (which it was not in my view). That's the incident I'm referring to. I assumed this was well known, Sorry if I confused you. Metamagician3000 07:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Her blessed transparent hooves! Is that article still causing trouble? Anville 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example. In my opinion, this List of FRSs with public religious stances is an exercise in original research - taking statements from here and there as a research project to try to demonstrate a point that is (apparently) made in no existing secondary source: that few Fellows of the Royal Society have expressed views about religion and few of those have been critical of it. On the talk page, the creator of the article/list seems fairly open that it is intended to demonstrate something. To me, that is an exercise in OR, even if each constituent fact can be sourced somewhere (which is why it is not good to think that the OR concept is subsumed under something called "attribution").

I think there's been a tendency for us to adopt an overly lenient interpretation of the NOR principle. That overly lenient approach is being applied widely, and the written policies are not doing enough to dissuade people from it. The emphasis on verifiability and attribution tends to encourage it. I see a helluva lot of OR pervading Wikipedia, though it is not necessarily urgent to deal with it all except where there are also BLP issues involved. Metamagician3000 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this covered by WP:ATT#Unpublished synthesis of published material? If not, why not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is ... and quite well, at that. And yet, and yet, I also think that it needs to be given more emphasis and maybe additional examples, because it's a point that a lot of valued, sincere and productive editors either find difficult or apparently just plain disagree with. I see many people, even during the current debate, give definitions of the NOR concept that are not consistent with WP:ATT#Unpublished synthesis of published material.
What do you think, Septentrionalis? Were you just asking a question, or implying that it's already covered adequately? Note that I'm not really advocating a change of policy, assuming that my understanding of policy is more or less correct, but I'm advocating that a widely misunderstood and ignored aspect of policy be emphasised and explained more. Metamagician3000 07:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Asking a question; I thank you for clarifying. You think then that we need more explanation and emphasis than ATT gives, which is (in my judgment) more than WP:NOR gave. You may be right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this sort of thing happen fairly often in the AfDs which show up at WikiProject Physics. In the extreme case, we get articles claiming that (for example) aliens from Europa rigged the 2004 presidential elections, then citing a NASA website for Europa's mass, composition and distance from Earth. The article is then called "well-referenced to reliable sources". OK, this is a caricature I just made up, but I think it's pretty clear how this can confuse people trying to decide the fate of some "theory of everything" physics article (the type of "original research" which was a big motivator behind WP:NOR in the first place). All things considered, I think the "Unpublished synthesis" section of WP:ATT should be expanded with a couple more examples, drawn from different fields. At the moment, its only example is a case of purported plagiarism; I think we'd benefit if it also included a case of history-related OR-by-synthesis and a case drawn from the sciences. Anville 16:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A good idea. Why not add the examples to WP:ATTFAQ, which is not protected? We can discuss moving them to WP:ATT when we see what they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for this useful discussion. Are we going to drop Anville in the soup and ask him to do the work on this that Septentrionalis suggests? I'd be interested to see the examples that Anville had in mind, which would have to be tricky ones to make the exercise worthwhile. The actual example I gave is a slightly controversial one, as it is being discussed at AfD right now, and I'll be interested to see how the community views it. Metamagician3000 07:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Original research" in Wikipedia-policy-talk is indistinguishable from nonattributability. "Original research" in common everyday speech includes the act of googling to find sources to use to attribute claims. 4.250.138.205 04:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially keeping in mind that non-native English speakers may think that "original research" means "search of originals" :-) "Nonattributability" ... mmm. yummy word. `'mikka 06:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

NOR and the entry on Christopher Michael Langan: lessons

I would like to make several points in relation to NOR and the entry on Christopher Michael Langan, which was discussed above (I am an involved editor, if only for the past week). I will try to keep discussion of the details of the entry to a minimum, while still giving enough information to demonstrate what I consider important policy considerations arising from the dispute. I apologise for the length of this comment, but hope interested parties will see the importance of the conclusions arising from this case study.

  • I believe the policy against NOR is extremely important in relation to biographies of living persons, and I agree that there is a tendency for the policy to be interpreted leniently. But it is more than a question of leniency, and it is more than a matter of "good editors" not understanding the policy correctly. The problem is that a good editor of one entry can at the same time be a bad editor of another entry. What makes the difference?: the editor's perspective on the subject of the entry. Thus it is possible, for example, that an editor may be productive in relation to the entry on "intelligent design," working diligently to keep out original research, while at the same time utterly fail to see when they are themselves violating NOR in an entry on a person they consider a proponent of intelligent design. This problem will of course be particularly acute where the subject of the biographical entry is not very well-known and there are not many editors prepared to invest time and energy defending the entry (thus, even though more people hate George W Bush than hate Chris Langan, there are also more people prepared to defend the Bush entry from original research). It is extremely difficult to defend such entries from original research violations, especially when a group of editors share a similar antipathy for the subject of the entry, and thus can act in concert.
  • When a failure to understand the applicability of NOR is combined with a failure to understand that neutrality means more than merely a neutral tone, and combined again with a failure to understand the need to edit living-person biographies sensitively, and combined still further with a failure to understand the need for such entries to avoid controversy, a powerful cocktail results. The outcome may be disastrous for the person who is the subject of the entry, and by extension this is disastrous for the Wikipedia project. (All this occurred with the Langan entry, due to a confluence of factors I cannot go into here.)
  • Thus when User Jimbo Wales deleted the section violating NOR from the Langan entry (in brief, a section about a minor legal dispute between two High-IQ societies), this deletion was attacked as incomprehensible. How, they cried, could reporting what is said in court documents constitute original research or biased editing? Opposed editors could not grasp this possibility, even though they knew that Langan did not show up in court to contest the case, and thus knew that only one side was represented. They could not understand, in other words, how the editing strategy they were using was in fact the very strategy used by tabloid journalists to justify one-sided but “factual” reporting of court cases. In fact, of course, it is possible to factually report what court documents state, and still be engaging in original or biased research. Naturally they also could not envisage the possibility that their desire to include the section constituted bias or malice.
  • Additionally, they could not understand how factually reporting the contents of court documents necessarily means selectively choosing what to report from primary sources, and thus, in the absence of secondary sources, necessarily constitutes original research. Mr Wales stated very clearly that, lacking secondary sources about the case (since there is no evidence that the case has ever been discussed in any newspaper, magazine, TV news story, etc.), reporting about the case almost necessarily constitutes original research. From this, however, some opposed editors drew the conclusion that one must not ever refer to primary sources for an entry. They therefore claimed to have found a reason to argue against other material in the entry.
  • Also compounding these problems was the difficulty opposed editors had in connecting the different pieces of policy together. Thus they might see the point about original research, but fail to see the connections between this and policy regarding sensitivity toward living persons, policy regarding the need to avoid controversy in relation to living persons, or policy about what counts as notable and important in an entry on living persons. Thus the argument was put, for example, that if the Langan lawsuit was not notable enough for inclusion in the entry, then Langan himself must not be notable enough to even have an entry. By failing to see the interconnected nature of policy, opposed editors were able to permit themselves long-term serious violations of several policies.
  • At least two conclusions follow from all this. Firstly, policy should be written to make clear that living persons have a legal and moral right not to be the victims of original research in their biographical entries. When editors violate policy in relation to living persons, and especially when they do so by engaging in original research, they violate the rights of the person about whom they are writing. The seriousness of this should be made much clearer than is currently the case.
  • Secondly, the way such policies are written should emphasise the interconnections between policies, to encourage editors to understand how it is the constellation of policies which really defines how a dispute should be interpreted. When two or three or four policies are involved in a single issue, this amounts to more than the sum of the parts. If editors do not see the connections between NOR, neutrality, notability, sensitivity, and avoidance of controversy, then they really do not understand each one of these policies singly. I acknowledge that the subtlety of this point is easily lost on editors (especially editors in dispute), but I do believe policy can be written in a way that encourages this understanding. It may be that merging policies is a way to make this clear, but merger alone will not suffice, unless the text of the merged policies also makes these interconnections very evident. It may in fact be the case that merging policy about NOR and about attribution in fact clouds the fact that NOR is more than a matter of attribution. I do not claim to have the final answer to this question, but I strongly believe that those who have invested energy in these important issues should keep firmly in mind the considerations I have pointed toward. FNMF 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Wrong venue. A random talk sub-page that hardly anyone knows exists is not the proper place to determine how policy is made. That's what WP:PUMP is for. Also, I object to the suggestion that this is some kind of special "opportunity". WP is a Wiki. Every minute of every day is an opportunity, and an equal one. Just the mere idea that that we should take the "opportunity" to change policy for some reason, off in this Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion hinterland is kind of grotesque and scary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As Steve Block says below, that's why there's a link from WP:PUMP, ain't it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Noted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What process should be used to change policy structure or policy in the future?

  • Jimbo suggested that for these type of changes, the process should be one that includes a checkpoint in which we seek Jimbo's input, followed by a poll to assess support, and followed by a "closing process" (to be defined) in which the changes are certified. I have tonnes of questions about this, though... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think many people agree that it would be much less annoying that along with relaying Jimbo's words you provide a reference to the source. I fully understand and have nothing against the fact that it is easier for Jimbo to communicate with a smaller circle of people, but the feeling that you are a second-class citizen is really devastating at times. `'mikka 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume that we are talking about how entire policies get approved, challenged/demoted, merged, etc. and not about how the wording of an individual policy or guideline gets changed? If so, I agree that a clear process is needed, and can see that Jimbo should be involved at some stage. Perhaps this discussion could be a template... A dedicated page for discussion and comment (to be closed after a given duration, at least full week, probably longer) followed by a straw poll (both well anounced on any related talk pages, at the pump, on the mailing list, etc), then an application to Jimbo summarizing the results of the poll... and finally the certification of approval or notice of rejection. Blueboar 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm floored by all this. "Jimbo suggested that for these type of changes, the process should be one that includes a checkpoint in which we seek Jimbo's input." I dunno. I'm as unclear on the structure of Wikipedia as I ever was, but that's no suggestion, that's a statement of intent. I feel like that bit in Star Wars when Solo says "That's no moon." I think I'm going to take time away. There's a lot been happening around here lately that has given me pause for thought. This is an admirable project, and it has been a pleasure to add what little I could, but ... thanks for all the fish. See you all sooner rather than later, I hope. Steve block Talk 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think Jimbo/the Foundation need to be clearer about what they want here. We're basically just left guessing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    The Foundations has nothing to do with this, as it does not concern itself with policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'll spell it out better: If Jimbo is speaking as The Jimbo, in his official role here, then he needs to be clearer about what he wants. If he's just speaking as Jimmy Wales, another Wikipedian, which he sometimes does, he should make that clearer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    The real problem is that we don't really know this, because we don't follow WP:A here, see my very first remark to Jossi at the top of this page. We don't even know what actually Jimbo said. We even don't know whether Jimbo said this to Jossi or Jimbo said it to Bimbo and Bimbo said it to Jossi. We even don't know what Jimbo meant in what was relayed in the words "these type of changes", hence, e.g., the Blueboar's and yours and mine confusion. `'mikka 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever process be, it must definitely include a moderator (per discussion or per 2 days or flexible, whatever), whose only role would be to keep the discussion it tracks. I keep wondering why for, like, 5 years this well-known idea was not implemented in wikipedia policymaking. Did I miss a discussion where the idea was rejected? `'mikka 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The Mediation Committee does not accept policy disputes. See Wikipedia:Mediation#What_is_mediation.3F.

    • "Mediation is not a forum for policy decisions. If the locus of the dispute is not covered by current policy, the matter must be referred to the Wikipedia community as a whole. Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building."

    • Even if the Mediation Committee did take policy disputes, I am not sure if you could find a mediator who could be neutral about this, but maybe I am wrong.
    • — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Although the words "mediator" and "moderator" begin with "m" and end in "or", they have different meanings. May I remind you the history of soviet (council)s, which have the same noble idea to give power to people, but only gave power to those whore "more equal than others". OK, may be the term "moderator" is too strong. What I meant is a role of a clerk in discussions, who keeps track of the suggestions and helps to stay on topic. In case you didn't notice, this de facto is already happening: someone refactors discussions, redirects them into subpages, arranges polls, archives subpages, etc. It is done on a volunteer basis, and may well be a "ritual" of assignment of a "clerk" is simply unnecessary. In case you didn't notice, I ended my suggestin with a question,let me restate it here: was the idea of explicitely assigned clerks discussed and rejected? My idea was to increase the productivity and decrease chaos in discussions. I may be wrong, but again, was this discussed? `'mikka 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I know mediators and moderators are different, but as far as I know, none of the dispute resolution steps currently involve moderators, so the Mediation Committee would be the closest.
        • We do have clerks, although not for the purpose you describe. Perhaps you could propose this somewhere?
        • — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          I believe 'mikka has just proposed it here. It sounds like probably a good idea to me. Maybe there needs to be an impeachment process or something in case the moderator is overly biassed. --Coppertwig 22:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
          I meant somewhere on its own.  : ) In mediation, you would just say, "I want another mediator," or, if that didn't work, "I no longer consent to mediation." I don't know what the equivalent would be for what mikka suggests. It might be better to work out the bugs in its own proposal, like Wikipedia:Organised community policy discussion. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The existing process is fine. Jimbo emphatically does not have the authority to demand consultation and/or approval during the policymaking process. Policy should be determined by a consensus of the community. If there is a consensus for change, then change should be made. Jimbo should, of course, be invited to participate in discussion and notified of any policy changes. But his opinions should carry no more weight than those of any other editor. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Does not have the authority? If anyone else but Jimbo would have undone the redirects, do you think we will be discussing this issue now? Of course not. The fact is that Jimbo has the respect of the community to afford him such interventions. Not only that, but now is is most definitively asking to be the the sounding board for all major policy changes, and be consulted to ensure that he agrees with the proposed changes. That is not a bad thing, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I am part of the community, and I am challenging his authority to make such interventions. He should be consulted in the same way that other active users should be consulted, but I have a serious problem with the idea that he has any authority to unilaterally change Wikipedia policy. Don't get me wrong; I have great respect for Jimbo as an individual, and would treat his views on Wikipedia issues with the attention they deserve. However, to draw an RL parallel, I respect George W. Bush as an individual and as a great leader, but would still not be happy if he decided to unilaterally dissolve Congress and pass all laws by presidential decree. In RL we have liberal democracy; on Wikipedia, we have WP:CONSENSUS, which should not be circumvented. Even though I agree with some of Jimbo's criticisms of WP:ATT, he was wrong to reverse the community's decision. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Jimbo has the power and prestige to act as God-King. He did so in requiring this discussion, and that probably was wise. But that's his personal variant of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules; it shouldn't be written into the rules. For one thing, Wikipedia should be structured so that it can continue if he loses all interest in us. (A requirement that proposed changes in policy have a discussion and poll announced in Signpost would be a good idea, and would in fact tell him.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked Jimbo these same questions, and his response was that (a) he wants to be involved and consulted in any major policy change or re-structuring of policy; (b) he believes that many editors did not know about ATT, despite the announcements and the 5 month of discussions, and asserted that there was no wide consensus for ATT; (c) He requested a wide discussion and a vigorous debate on the virtues of ATT; (d) he also requested a poll and a defined mechanism to close the poll and "certify the decision", and (d) He very clearly stated that he will abide by the consensus of the community after that process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What should be required is adequate notice in particular places. And all required places should be on Wikipedia. Discussion off Wikipedia may be useful to some, but on Wikipedia discussion is primary, so notice off wikipedia should be at most suggested, not required. Consensus should always be measured on Wikipedia, without regard to off Wikipedia discussion. Jimbo's participation should explicitly not be required; if he wants to participate he can watch the same forums that any other editor watches. The wikipedia community will have greatly matured the day that something is made policy when he is in opposition to the consensus of the community. GRBerry 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this is the place to bring it up, but I've always found it odd that so many policy discussions that affect the entire community take place on the email list. Being a participant (and admin) on a wiki shouldn't require subscribing and following (filtering and deleting) a multitude of e-mails as well. We have talk pages here for a reason, no? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Prior to the merge, I had some idea that it was going on -- and if I had cared to spend my time in that way I would have gotten involved in the discussion. Quite frankly, somme of us would rather spend our little available time working on the encyclopedia itself, and leave the policy discussions to those who want to spend their time on such things. The discussion was on the tlak page, I knew it was there, and I chose not to get involved. How is that a flaw? On the flip side, I understand Jimbo's concern, and respect his ability to call for such further discussion. -- Pastordavid 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?

Mind you, I'm not directly objecting to the existence of this page, I just don't understand what the point is, and have concerns that between Wikipedia talk:Attribution, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/FAQ, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll and Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll that the discussion is going to become too fragmented to follow. Yes, I realize I'm the one that undid the redir from Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll that was going to Wikipedia talk:Attribution (and if you look at how much discussion about the poll and its details there are this was a good idea, I maintain). But I can't discern at all any purpose difference between Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion and Wikipedia talk:Attribution, that isn't already intended to be covered at the poll. Indeed, this new page appears to be phrased as a poll asking roughly the same questions as the poll (I say "roughly" because the questions keep changing). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading all of this, and seeing that it is simply repeating debates already covered elsewhere, I do directly object to the existence of this page. I propose merging this immediately into Wikipedia talk:Attribution. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This page exists to consolidate discussions being conducted elsewhere. I oppose merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I do directly object to such a proposal and solemnly declare opposition to any merge. Steve block Talk 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth would that not take place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth would it? We're discussing four, maybe five pages here. Steve block Talk 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is "Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion", not "Wikipedia talk:Community discussion of Attribution, Verifiability, Reliable Sources and No Original Research", so your response doesn't seem to address anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else support this objection? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No, this is a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I don't see the point and it seems likely to cause rehashing of contentious arguments and their linked inter-personal disputes, but whatever... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Up until this page appeared, there was a lot of useful discussion on Wikipedia talk:Attribution. If the effect of this page is to dissipate the discussion of the very real policy issues, then I think this page is a bad move. --Rednblu 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Read the request by Jimbo at the top of this page. Jimbo undid the merger; Jimbo requested this discussion as a prelude to a poll, and thus we are having it. If you do not want to discuss it, you do not have to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a blatant straw man argument; no one here has suggested that the discussion should not take place, some of us simply don't think that forking it onto a new page is a good idea. Given that someone just went and archived over half of the still-active discussions at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, including all but the most recent disputes (and see comment above by Rednblu), I think this concern is a genuine one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, relax, SMcCandlish. What is the reason for such intensity? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I am relaxed. I'm not trying to come off as any more intense that usual. If anything, I've been pretty chill all day long. My observation above is pretty simple, and doesn't make any new arguments, just reminds that some concerns have been raised and what they are. Not everyone thinks the discussion should be happening here instead of at the main talk page, and given that disputes are being shuffled off into the archives before being resolved, these concerns may have some merits. What's intense about that? I don't think the honest concerns raised should be dismissed as allegedly counter-communicative. They aren't. That's all. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that it is a bit too late to beat the drum of "not here". The discussion has been advertised widely and it is happening here, while the talk page of ATT is used to address editors' questions as usual. 30 odd comments in a short period of time in this page, and the use of "blatant", is what made me make that comment. If that is not the case, and indeed you feel cool and collected, please accept my apologies for that comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that the horse is already out of the barn, but I don't think that that erases the concerns; rather they simply shift, e.g. to something like "let's not forget that these issues have in some cases already been discussed at great length on WP:ATT's talk page, and that those conversations haven't simply gone away or become moot because this new page exists, not even after they've been archived for some reason." I'll "counter apologize", if "blatant" seemed mean or something; I meant it the sense of "obviously", not "unforgivably".  ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case, try "flagrant."  :-) —David Levy 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The question in the section title is because of the poor title of the page. When a thread of the discussion is forked out into a separate page, its title must clearly indicate the topic of the thread. Now, someone say it again, what is the topic of this thread here? `'mikka 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have advertised it in WP:VPP, in all the talk pages of related policies and guidelines, and the Wiki-EN-l mailing list. Do you have any suggestions on how to advertise this better? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The page is an excellent idea, in my opinion. It will take time to become known and for people who don't usually edit policy pages to join in. We need to be able to evaluate this discussion as the step before the poll, and that will be easier to do when the merger alone is being discussed rather than other things to do with the policy pages. Otherwise Jimbo would have to pick through threads to find out which bits were a specific attampt at consulting with the community on the merger. SMcCandlish is welcome to disagree with that, but I am surprised that he wishes to repeat the same opinion so often. qp10qp 13:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

This is the question that keeps nagging at me. Not the discussion, but Wikipedia:Attribution. This is not a fundamental change, this doesn't affect policy, so what's the point in a) fixing something that isn't broke, and b) creating enough confusion that people think something new is happening? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The need for merging V and NOR was assessed necessary by those that worked in the proposal. This, in addition to attempting to fix RS, that five months ago, was most definitively broken to a point in which its value as a guideline and consensus about it was strongly challenged. WP:ATT simplifies the understanding of our policies to those thousands of contributors that join the project every month, and assist more experienced editors in content disputes by being able to point people to a well-written, and concise page that explains the principles upon which this encyclopedia is being developed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A valid question that should not be discounted. Perhaps there are other editors—like myself—who didn't get highly involved in the ATT writing because we didn't realize Wiki's most fundamental policies would be replaced/merged/changed/whatever without a much broader discussion and consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine editors who do not edit policy pages

How do we get more of the above to join in the discussion? One of the things Jimbo said somewhere was that many fine and talented editors weren't consulted or did not know about the merger. I wonder if those of us who enjoy thinking and talking about policy (I do because it constantly refreshes and develops my editing ability) might consider contacting the various excellent editors we each know from article pages and asking them to come and check out this discussion. As things stand, this discussion might end up largely involving the usual interested parties and therefore not be seen as capable of achieving the broader consensus that Jimbo wants. qp10qp 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea... so long as we don't try to pre-influence their opinions and comments in our invitation... saying something like "There are some questions about policy being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion, and we would value your oppinion" would be fine... saying something like: "Help me save/delete this wonderful/awful policy ... go to Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion" would not. Blueboar 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I love this idea. Especially since it would make such an excellent fundraiser for the Wikimedia Foundation. Even if we only fined each person who didn't edit a policy page 10 cents, that would still equal out to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the end. Even more if we counted IP editors. And if we counted sockpuppets as individual people we could get revenge on guys like Cplot simultaneously because they would suddenly owe us forty or eighty bucks. Maybe we could even make it an annual thing, where everyone who hadn't made a projectspace edit in the last 12 months was fined. Or maybe you meant to say finD them, not finE them? --tjstrf talk 17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think he did mean finE... as in wonderful editors, excellent editors, good editors, etc... "fine" used as an adjective, not a verb. But I like your idea too (especially as it relates to sock puppets) Blueboar 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, we should never canvass (to be honest, I've almost forgotten what I think myself now). However, I feel tjsrf is taking my suggestion too lightly: we will only really ensure consensus here if we make the fines quite stiff. qp10qp 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind making our fine editors stiff... as long as they return the favor and buy the following round. Make mine a double!... no ice. Blueboar 18:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A template to place on user pages. "There is a proposal to merge... Jimbo has requested...Please pass this invitation on to other good editors."? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting a bad proposal, but still good poll: Do we need different thresholds for different fields?

I know this is a bad proposal, but I'm still curious about one thing: is there any correlation between what area editors are focused on, and their opinion on the merger, especially the diminishing role of truth that the name change seem to imply. Try to pick one term that broadly defines your area, such as "humanities" or "sciences", or "pop-culture", or just "everything" or "gnoming"...

PRO merger

CONTRA merger

faulty premise

I disagree with the premise of this mini-poll. There has been no diminishment of the "role of truth". The WP:ATT policy says the same things that WP:V and WP:NOR say. Blueboar 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that no change was made, but if there is a perceived change, even if that perception is faulty, it will still effect opinions. --tjstrf talk 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes totally agree! As I said above on the first poll, I think the merger has brought attention to the long-standing wording in WP:V, which in fact says verifiability has nothing to do with truth and has everything to do with checking whether the attribution is correct. Having said that, there is an ongoing debate about the role of truth, and it is related to the discussion because people do confuse the two matters. I didn't want to make the introduction to biased, but I am making it clear here: the rule of truth has not diminished. --Merzul 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Role of truth

I strongly object to putting the role of truth section on the main talk page. Since this, not the regular talk page, is the page people have to follow to participate, putting it there has the effect of burying it.

I also don't think the question has been given a fair shake, either there or here. There *have* been examples where information that is attributable is (by any non-Wikipedia definition) provably false. The majority of the argument seemed to either assume that those examples don't happen, or assume that they happen very differently from how they really did. It's absurd to say "well, you can quote the debate, if it's disputed" or "well, surely the false information has got to be a minority opinion", when it wasn't disputed and wasn't a minority opinion and still false. Ken Arromdee 19:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this current debate... The policy statements dealing with "roll of truth" as you call it have been long standing ones on Wikipedia. This discussion page is about whether V, RS and NOR should be merged into ATT... and if so, how... not about what those policy pages say. The merge does not change policy at all. It simply moves them to a new location. Once we know which policy will be in effect... then we can argue about changing what they say about the roll of truth. Blueboar 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
One of the questions above is "Do we need to make any changes to present policy or practice, while we have this opportunity?" So even though it says that the merger doesn't change policy, that clearly is not a settled issue.
I'm not convinced this is a change in policy anyway. It's clarifying areas that are vague, and may in fact be necessary anyway simply to keep the policy interpreted the same way the old policy has been interpreted. Ken Arromdee 19:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Blueboar. The proposed merge page, WP:ATT, contains different wording with different meaning than the original pages it's supposed to be merging. This discussion focusses on that change in meaning that happens when going from "verifiability, not truth" to "attributable ... not whether it is true". This is a discussion that relates directly to the wording of the proposed merge page; my part of it at least is not about any issues that existed before the new wording was proposed. Perhaps someone could post clear instructions at the top of each talk page about which kind of discussion is supposed to go on which talk page?
Meanwhile, the discussion of the "Role of truth" issue is continuing at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth where it was moved by user SlimVirgin. Please discuss in only one place (i.e. there, unless a clear decision is made to move it elsewhere.) --Coppertwig 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You are asserting The proposed merge page, WP:ATT, contains different wording with different meaning than the original pages it's supposed to be merging as if it was a fact. But that is only an ungrounded opinion. If you could be more specific about these purported differences, you may give editors a chance to comment on these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Several users seem to think the "Role of truth" discussion should be on this page, not on Wikipedia talk:Attribution. I agree; I prefer that it be here. Would someone please advise what is required in order to put it back? Also, would users please comment with agreement or disagreement about the idea of moving it back here?
The situation is: A long thread exists at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 12#Role of truth and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 13#Role of truth and Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. Some related comments were also posted on this page. A user moved the comments from this page to that page. Right around the time that the user moved the comments, I was posting a comment. Therefore, my comment (a reply to tjstrf) got posted here out-of-context, which I didn't notice until later. Two more people replied here to my out-of-context post. Later I moved my post and the two replies to the same place the other related material had been moved to. Still later, someone moved my post and the two replies back here, for the second time separating my reply to tjstrf from the comment I was replying to; it's still separated and I would like it put back into context.
As a solution to all this, I propose that the entire thread Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth including everything currently in it and everything added from now on, but not the parts currently in Archive 12 and Archive 13, be moved here. Alternatively, someone could figure out which parts were originally posted on this page and move only them (and the replies to them?) here. Note that there is also a proposal to have one of the poll questions ask about the "verifiability, not truth" wording; see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll#Verifiability, not truth. --Coppertwig 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree... this page is for discussing the merger... was it a good idea? was it a bad idea?... what should happen with NOR, V and RS? You are talking about the wording of ATT (and in many ways talking about changing WP:V and WP:NOR in the process). Wording discussions should take place on the talk page of the policy. Blueboar 22:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Redrafting, yes? Merger, bad?

At the moment I have an open mind, but it occurs to me that I might end up thinking that the merger was not a good idea but that some or all of the redrafting is an improvement. Is there a way to handle that position? It might be too complicated, but it seems to me that there could be reasons not to merge while at the same time there are reasons not to throw away good drafting work. Or at least, those who are latecomers to the debate (like me) might be tempted to see it like that. Metamagician3000 08:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an acute point. The period leading up to the decision to propose a new page (nothing to with me, I might say) was in my opinion one of dark days for the NOR and RS pages in particular. The pages were palpably badly written and RS had accumulated verbal and semantic débris to the point where it was actually contradicting and obfuscating NOR and V in places: yet it was no longer easy to improve these pages because custodial editors were assuming that each individual page was more or less untouchable. The result, in the opinion of some people trying to edit the pages at the time, was a horrible mess: here we had three pages that had become soggier and soggier, and even to attempt improving the wording of one of them required balancing the wording in the other two, leading to inconsistent discussions and (frustratingly) inconsistent and contradictory reversions on three different pages at once. Matters had sunk to the level where actual grammatical errors and punctuation mistakes were being restored to the pages (I could give plenty of diffs for that happening).
Although it wasn't my idea to propose a combined, shorter page to solve these problems (I don't have ideas like that, unfortunately), I immediately saw the advantage; and now I find it very helpful in article disputes to be able to refer to the Attribution page rather than taking a pick'n'mix of three different pages: the wording really does work, and I advise anyone who hasn't done so to try referring to the Attribution page during disputes. The page's superior usefulness as a policy tool in practice is for me the clincher in the present discussion—the proof of the pudding.
Should it be voted to keep all the pages as they were, I agree with you that it might be necessary to propose that some of the Attribution wording replace some of old wording in V, OR, and RS. No doubt that would be a laborious and piecemeal enterprise (but I would be depressed if a consensus defeat of the merger were to be interpreted as a dismissal of all wording on the Attribution page in favour of the older wordings}. qp10qp 13:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"The page's superior usefulness as a policy tool in practice is for me the clincher in the present discussion." Yes. The previous practice of having V rely on RS for its explanations was sloppy in the extreme. Marskell 14:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a line to the poll for the position Metamagician suggests; the wording could be sharpened. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

General en.wikipedia header?

Silly question: As this is such a massively HUGE thing changing (four core policies), shouldn't this be posted on the general header for all of Wikipedia to get attention to it? If not all of en.wikipedia, then at least... the Wikipedia: name space...? - Denny 09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not silly; it was done for the fundraising drives, and this is comparably important. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea to me.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not so sure. Only a very small subset of editors are involved in policy discussions, and this is not such a huge thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
isn't it good to get more people involved...? - Denny 18:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The precise problem with this whole policy implementation was that too few people were involved. Even today most don't know anything has happened. I agree with opening this up as widely as possible. Orderinchaos78 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the proposal, either way. I think Jossi's concern is resolved by limiting it to the Wikipedia namespace, but I don't think the concern is a huge one to begin with: People regularly ignore that which they are not interested in (like, um, WP fundraising drives), so it won't hurt anyone. If the fundrasing banner code were recycled, it is even dismissable after it has been seen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What would be required to make this happen? Where does it get requested/done? - Denny 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that WP:PUMP in the tech section is probably the right place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur that something on that scale should happen; I posted a few times and then largely ignored the first discussions of ATT, as I (apparently, mistakenly) didn't realize fundamental Wiki policy could be changed without a wide-ranging and extensive discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a message to MediaWiki:Watchdetails. A message is visible on everybody's watchlist. —Ruud 23:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! It works! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

An option to hide that thing once I'm aware of this would be very nice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That would likely require some scripting and using a cookie. For now you can add #watchlist-message { display: none; } to your monobook.css. —Ruud 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on finding a good way to notify an appropriate section of the user community. (Obviously ;-) the people you want to reach are people who are addicted to checking their watchlists! Sdsds 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The watchlist idea is a great one. Now people will actually realize something big is happening. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 00:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, except that it's vanished all of a sudden... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought it was a great idea to solve the problem handily. What happened? -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone removed it. See MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: 5-10 days now, duration of Poll

As Jimbo himself is directly involved and no one has given a good reason not to have the notice on the Watchlist page, perhaps leave it up for five or ten days, then take it down--that will give everyone absolute notification of this (per Jimmy Wales) very important discussion is happening... then, when it actually goes to a Wales-mandated Poll, the notice will go up again, to let all users know about it, so that all editors can weigh in. Everyone needs to be absolutely aware of this, and this... is the only reasonable way to do it. aside from people complaining that its annoying, I don't see a valid reason to not do this. why would we not want every eligible editor to see this? what can be gained for any sense of keeping this quiet? It should be known to everyone it affects (which is everyone!). If anyone can give a reason why every editor shouldn't have a chance to weigh in... then that is a reason to not do it. otherwise, it should stay up. - Denny 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I would suggest leaving it up until the discussion is done, replacing it with a different notice each time a certain milestone is reached in the process. The current form includes a link that will dismiss the warning, so users who don't want to see it can get rid of it. Meanwhile, if we had someone who came back from a vacation just after the discussion was taken down per your suggestion they'd miss out on the notice. Frankly, for something as important and impactful as this I see no reason why we cannot just leave the notice up until the matter is resolved, especially considering how long the fundraising notice stayed up. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A look at WP:RS and how it fits

Also posted at the main talk page... I notice that there is a lot of confusion and disagreement about how RS fits into all of this... some people think that RS has been merged into ATT, some people think it hasn't. Some think that ATT elevates RS to Policy, others ardently deny this. I thought I would comment -

The problem is that RS has always been a unique case... falling into a grey zone between policy and guideline status. Both WP:V and WP:NOR discuss the need for reliable sources to back our edits... so, to some degree, the concept of RS has always been a Policy statement. Saddly, neither WP:V and WP:NOR explained what was meant by the term "reliable sources", or how to determine if a source was reliable or not - so a guideline page, "WP:RS", was created take care of this. Unfortunately, the creation of that guideline page put RS into a half in / half out status... on one hand editors could say "RS is Policy" since it is prominently mentioned in several Policy page... but on the other hand, editors could say "no-RS is only a Guideline. See, it says 'Guideline' at the top of the page". Those who wanted to inforce the concept as expressed on the Policy pages, edited the Guideline to emphisize its "these are the rules" nature, those who disagreed with this enforcement edited the guideline to stress it's "this is just guidance" nature. And so we ended up with a Guideline page that stated both "guidance" and "rules" ... Neither betwixt or between.

Now let's look at what happened with the creation of ATT ... some people have complained that ATT "elevated" WP:RS to Policy... others have complained that it "demoted" WP:RS to little more than an essay. But in reality it did neither. The conceptual, "these are the rules" side of RS was re-incorporated into the Policy discussion and made clearer, while the "this is guidance" side of WP:RS was shifted into the FAQ page, to be worked on and eventually made back into a guideline (I would recommend renaming it to something like "Determining reliability". This was not an "elevation" of WP:RS to Policy status... nor was it a demotion of WP:RS to something less than Guideline status ... it was a needed breaking up of something that had alway been a little bit of both.

That's how I see it, in any case... comments? Blueboar 15:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up here as well, as requested. I think it will be more productive here. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say that moving it into a policy and a FAQ made it harder to change, which is bad because the details are highly contentious. It is easier to work towards a consensus when it is in a separate guideline, not too strongly tied to a policy.
Also, the merge into Attribution neglects that WP:RS is at least as related to WP:NPOV as it is to WP:V/WP:ATT, if not more so. I am not neutral on this: those who see reliability as binary, the source is reliable or it isn't, would probably see WP:RS as being more related to WP:V/WP:ATT.
I, on the other hand, see reliability as a matter of degrees, which leads me to see WP:RS as more related to WP:NPOV. Reliability can help distinguish between facts and opinions. (If a source is quite reliable and not contradicted by any sources of comparable or greater reliability, the statement can be reasonably stated as a fact.) Reliability is also a good way of gauging proper weight and under weight. Although still susceptible to systemic bias, reliability is most likely our best way of determining the proper weight an opinion should receive. Reliability, as a way of measuring due weight, must necessarily be a matter of degrees, not binary on/off. WP:NPOV currently discusses reliability as a matter of degrees, where you should look for the most reliable/reputable sources. If well-rewritten, WP:RS could provide very good guidance on determining due weight.
— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that the way that the RS material is included in ATT promotes RS to the status of a policy. I don't necessarily have a problem with this happening eventually - in fact, I think inclusion of some portion of RS as policy is a necessary change - but I think it goes far beyond the scope of the merger of NOR and V that was originally proposed, and I think it deceives the greater Wikipedian community to couch ATT as being merely the merger of NOR and V because of the inclusion of RS material in ATT. --DachannienTalkContrib 01:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Invitation template

I've drafted an invitation template at {{ATTCD}}. Invitations should be neutral, and it might be just as well if we agreed on wording. The indirect compliment to recipients at the end may help spread goodwill towards this project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral? I don't think so. The wording in that ATTCD template indicates very clearly to anyone understanding English who is right and who is wrong. Can't you see it? Maybe it is the glare from the angle of the lighting. --Rednblu 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this old version was fine.... — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see the resemblance to neutrality, yes, in that version. Good eye! But wouldn't it be a good idea to give just a taste of the widely varied opinions among editors that have already looked at this merger in detail? --Rednblu 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that was the version I originally looked at. The problem with giving editors a taste of the widely varied opinions is doing so neutrally. We are having enough trouble writing something neutral without getting into that.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:) --Rednblu 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Current version is not neutral; it's loaded. I agree with that version. I encourage involved editors to embrace NPOV, erase history, and really encourage and allow broader discussion this time through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version is a verbatim copy of the headers at this page and the poll page. It simply states facts. In any case, if you do not like it, you should not use it. Create your own message instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted. This is an invitation, not an argument. Those arguments do not need to be made in the invitation, in part because they are made in the headers; and in part because they will be perceived as tendentious by some recipients, which is contrary to policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention it was about 3x too long. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to say that I support Jossi's removal of Jimbo's quote. The best way to make this neutral would probably be to ruthlessly remove anything we don't all agree on. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What about process questions?

What about other, side questions, such as about the process that was (or wasn't) followed, what process should have been, whether process should be clarified, etc.? I think there are probably a lot of opinions on this. Even the very first reactions to Jimbo's stepping raised such questions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Just to be clear, I don't mean adding more questions to Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll, I mean rather that the questions are floating around, and I wonder whether they should be raised as separate topics here or what. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How do we get rid of the banner?

on My Watchlist. Where was the decision to put the banner up discussed? :) Seriously though, it is a very bad precedent not to mention annoying and I want it to go away. This whole merger thing sounds like a desire to change policy pages without actually changing policy and as such seems to be a large waste of time that I don't want to be reminded is actually going on. --Tbeatty 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been downgraded from the in your face blue to a simple message. I agree, though; there's a lot of people (myself included) who don't know/care about this, and it's just a nuisance on what is likely your most visited page. DoomsDay349 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The new box is more annoying. DoomsDay349 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Several of us have recently made it less in-your-face. It can be commented out in your skin sheets with div id "watchlist-message". — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for my first design. The current version (although is seems to change every minute) is better. To hide this thing add #watchlist-message { display: none; } to your stylesheet. —Ruud 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To hide this message (but not future messages), use the ID "attdiscussion" instead. —David Levy 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree a link to remove the message would be appreciated. —Ocatecir Talk 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not make it part of MediaWiki:Sitenotice? For one, everybody logged in will see it, and it will include a link to disable it. I would, but messing with Wikipedia's interface is something nobody should do unilaterally. --wL<speak·check> 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Casual reader are likely not very interested in this discussion. —Ruud 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Casual readers are likely not willing to login. --wL<speak·check> 00:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Your point being? —David Levy 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on experience, usually when most people come to Wikipedia to learn something, they usually go to the site and get what they need. They usually have no desire to edit the article. Also not everybody uses a watchlist. Being such a large policy change, I feel it should be shown to all who decide to edit (those who login). The Anonnotice will still show "", so those who get info will not notice it. Or in other words, those who login are more likely to edit than those who don't. --wL<speak·check> 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I.e., casual readers won't see it, of course. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is for editors, not casual readers. —David Levy 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, where was this discussed before it was put into place? Announcements like this are good enough for the community portal. It is not imperative that every person see this discussion. I think this is getting ridiculous and it should be taken down from the watchlist pages. └Jared┘┌talk┐  00:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't read community portal, and I'm an admin. --wL<speak·check> 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware of the history, the pages were merged, a lot of people got upset about not being properly informed, Jimbo interfered, unmerged the pages and called for a big community discussion. I don't think the watchlist message is that big of an annoyance (I don't think most people even noticed the Commons Picture of the Year Election spam there that was there a few weeks ago.) —Ruud 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I just think including it warrants other discussions to randomly be placed on MediaWiki:Watchdetails. And we wouldn't want that, so I say don't set a precedent of including discussions on the talk page. While semi-important, this shouldn't be blown out of proportion and including it on the watch page setup makes this seem like it's a huge problem and important crisis when it really isn't. Less drastic and invasive ideas may be including something more bold on the comm. portal, writing an article for the signpost, etc. There are alternative solutions that have yet to be implimented. └Jared┘┌talk┐  00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion you are underestimating the importance of this discussion (Jimbo rarely interferes personally in policy discussions) and overestimate the importance of the watchlist message (maybe we should even consider using it more often?) —Ruud 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

From the above comments, some users believe that the watchlist message is too prominent, while others believe that it isn't prominent enough. That probably means that the level of prominence is roughly appropriate. —David Levy 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be made dismissable after a couple of days. Is that possible? Xiner (talk, email) 00:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Working on it... but the fact the someone just removed the message makes debugging quite difficult. —Ruud 01:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo's implied position that major policy reworkings from here on out need correspondingly major community overview by poll, then we should probably make use of messages like this more often. On the other hand, we may have just come up with the perfect way to ensure NO CONSENSUS on everything. A possible future compromise could be a centralized discussion banner that appeared on all the village pump pages. --tjstrf talk 00:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Like {{cent}}? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like getting the notice of such important issues. --A. B. (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, it yields a lot of people making unnecessary posts about their irrelevant opinions. Just like the preceding sentence. But seriously, the people who care are already here. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, how much more flippant and self-important can you get. I'm sorry, but the opinion above is not irrelevent. There are plenty of us who don't normally content on policy, but are regular editors of the encyclopedia. There seem to be issues of WP:OWN around policy as much as there are around articles. An invitation like this does attract people who would not normally comment -- and that is the point. -- Pastordavid 02:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly... this is why I posted the suggestion. I can't understand why anyone can honestly feel that anyone shouldn't be trumpeting this like we did with the banner everywhere... everyone's voice is of equal value here. - Denny 03:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow - we have democracy now? ;) Seriously though ... I might not wish to contribute another irrelevant opinion, but that doesn't mean I don't want to know what's going on, so thanks for the banner. --Stephen Burnett 07:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

surely someone would have done this if....

Errm. This may seem a bit off topic, but I think it lies at the heart of some positions in this debate...

I've been involved in several arguments about WP:V. Some influential editors decry the "fetish-like attachment" to citing many facts. They say that cites do not prevent bogus info from being introduced, etc. They often say "Why should Wikipedia articles look like freshman research papers?" End of story: They want references at the bottom of the page, and as few cites as is reasonably possible in the article text.

I on the other hand think that cites make it physically possible for me to actually verify any one of the many assertions that have been made in the text; I can't do so without knowing which assertions come from which source, and from which page in that source.

Errm, isn't there any way to make an option at the top of a page to toggle on/off any and all citation templates? That means all cites would have to be done via template rather than via simple text, but that may be a smallish price to pay for an everyone-gets-what-they-want solution...

Surely there must be technical probs, or this would have been done, I think...

Thanks! --Ling.Nut 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that many people are not used to citing sources in their normal life and it becomes something threatening to them because of that. If wiki ever wanto become credible then there is only one way to go and this is taking things seriously and strive for acedemic quality. Otherwise we might just all move along to uncyclopedia.
About your technical suggestion, while probably possible, it should not take more than a few minutes to get used to reading artikelns that are cited, and it will be for the benefit of the reader. Drogheda 00:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, having massively cited articles does make Wikipedia look like a "freshman research paper", and thus interferes with its being taken as a serious academic source. Ben Standeven 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Never said it had to be massively cited, but even "freshman research paper" level would be a great leap forward so there is not much to lose. Drogheda 10:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

widely considered to have been the world's greatest

Many articles on sportspersons seem to be started / edited by fans. Many of those include an assertion like "X is widely considered to have been the world's greatest Y" somewhere in the intro, often totally unsourced. My question is, how can a strong assertion like that ever be adequately sourced? Shouldn't statements like that be mentioned as a red flag? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. Lot's of people have that as a sort of nickname. Look at Ali, nobody called him "The Greatest" until he began calling himself that as a promotion. And there is no way to prove whether he was or was not actually the greatest boxer ever, but to not put "The Greatest" next to his name would be wrong, because it is tantamount to a nickname. Many well known people have nicknames, and they should be documented. The only requirement should be that it's a verified nickname. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Does this go in this particular community discussion?
2. Is there already policy on this issue?
3. If the answers to the above are 1. yes and 2. no, I note that this bothers me, too. The FIRST LINE of today's featured article is "Ian Thorpe is a former Australian freestyle swimmer who is regarded as one of the greatest freestyle swimmers of all time." It then goes on to provide sourced evidence that would, IF we allowed statements such as "regarded as the best...of all time", allow Thorpe to be the poster child for such statements. So he'd make a good test case -- is there a better way to say this? A NPOV way to say it? A way to avoid trying to use superlatives and "best evar" comparisons in the 'pedia altogether? Jfarber 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
See WP:ATT... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a better way: it has to say who said it. (attribution). "Ian Thorpe is a former Australian freestyle swimmer who is regarded by XXX and YYY as one of the greatest freestyle swimmers of all time." (assuming XXX and YYY are reliable). To me, it says it, but it is neutral, because it is backed up. --ChaChaFut 02:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:NPOV provides extensive guidance on issues like that. First, you would have to find a source that held the opinion that X was the world's greatest Y, or a source showing a poll that shows that many people believe that. Then, you need to turn in into an indirect statement. "According to Source A, X was the world's greatest Y." Or, if a poll, "According to Poll A, 82% of B people polled consider X to have been the world's greatest Y." If you can, discuss some facts that might cause people to believe that X was the world's greatest Y.
Of course, if Source A is Mister Joe Bob's Myspace blog, no one cares. You would be giving Mister Joe Bob's opinion undue weight.
I hope that helps. Personally, I think WP:RS should strive to further explain WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, but that might be a radical idea.
— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the fact that relative newbies wouldn't know where to go to address this issue -- AND the fact that I have now been directed to three totally different places to answer it -- says what it needs to about both the importance of the current community discussion...and the need for whatever we decide to include, as a judging criteria, serious consideration of whatever ultimate solution would be as accessible and clear as possible.
For example, I find that ChaChaFut's/Blowfish's suggestion above makes a first sentence in an article goes against that same instinct towards clarity, as it makes that sentence both unnecessarily bulky and, in the case of true field-toppers as Thorpe, too citation-heavy to be effective (which of the hundreds of sources for that statement would you pick? Who would be the BEST XXX and YYY to pick?). Jfarber 02:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I posted this here because I wouldn't know where else to go with this, hoping for some input. It's also a question of NPOV, of course, but in this case, attribution seems to be the catch. I believe that "one of the greatest" and "the greatest" are subtly distinct cases. And die-hard fans are often hard to convince, in my experience. They tend to insist precisely on this statement of "widely considered the best/greatest", and whenever they come up with any kind of RS, they simply reference the assertion and treat it like the truth. Incidentally, I happen to believe that users should be educated as to this distinction between viewpoint and quoting. Is this difference between the two mentioned in any policy? Or do you have any suggestion where to go with this concern? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, KNcyu38, WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation discusses the difference between facts (including facts about opinions), and opinions/values. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Jfarber, the question of which XXX and YYY might be best is what should really be covered by WP:RS. The best XXX might be a poll conducted by a respected news source, like the New York Times or BBC. Or, perhaps a respected organisation that specialises in the topic. This is just a brief answer, of course. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Standards

Reading through this discussion there is one very significant omission occurring too frequently. This discussion is about original research, reliable sources, verifiability yet the discussion talks but doesn't practice its own standards. There are any claims about positive and negative affects like these: "People were always complaining about the policies being spread over two pages", "the debates at AfD began to move away from the subject test" or ". The debates at AfD make this evident."diffs these claims should be supported by diffs , diff not intended to single out any editor just an example. Gnangarra 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course this page doesn't comply with content policy. No talk page does; this is not encyclopedia text.[citation needed] Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The point remains... there are claims being made with no evidence to back them up. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for kicks I will add a reference section below[1]--JEF 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ JEF

No vote

I vote for no vote. Let's not have a vote on this. WAS 4.250 03:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo mandated it. - Denny 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Noone mandated anything. Jimbo noted that the process by which the three revert rule was implemented was a good one, and is probably the best available model for introducing large-scale policy changes. That involved much discussion accompanied by a series of polls (1, 2, 3, 4) to gauge consensus at various steps along the way. --bainer (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo requested "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results". Thats asking for a poll to gauge concensus, which is what is underway shortly... are you saying it would be best to run the poll through a few times to bulletproof the concensus? The problem from my understanding of how it went down--note, I support the ATT policy--is that not "everyone" got a chance to be informed/contribute, and he wanted that. Is it a bad thing for giving a maximum number of editors a firm voice in deciding this now for good? - Denny 04:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm reminding you that he specifically mentioned the process leading up to the final form of 3RR. That involved:
  1. much work in drafting and developing a policy proposal,
  2. broad community discussion on the proposal, and
  3. several polls along the way, held as needed when it was important to gauge consensus on particular aspects of the proposal,
repeated as necessary. We've already had the first step. Now we're having a broad community discussion, and we'll have polls along the way where it is necessary to gauge consensus. Noone has "mandated" a "vote". --bainer (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo also supports Voting is evil and Ignore all rules. Jimbo supports not having a vote, too. WAS 4.250 04:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it simple stupid

The above header gives my opinion. People are nitpicking on details when people need to focus on what will make Wikipedia easier to edit and that would be to have all the guidelines as far as sourcing on one page so I say merge, merge, merge.--JEF 03:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jorfer, you took the words right out of my mouth. The articles in question are related to an extent that requires merger. In addition, having on article to read will be easier and less time consuming.--88wolfmaster 04:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and it might boost Wikipedia's credibility showing that we can have one umbrella policy, that we value sourced statements, and are not divided over credibility issues. Plus it'll become much simpler and easier to understand.-Randalllin 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What if a newcomer is trying to accustom themself to the rules? They may be intimidated by a universal page of rules, I really don't see how it will be easier and less time consuming unless you account for the enormous amount of time it takes to click on a link. Ashnard talk 09:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good policy, terrible name

(This was originally a reply to Mlm42 in a section above, but I think it needs it own section.) While I see Mlm42's point, I think it's "attributable" that's the bad word. "Verifiable" is a relatively strong word, with the concept of truth at its root. The connotation of "verifiable" is of checking something against a trusted source, and finding it confirmed to be true. "Attribution", on the other hand, is a weak word: all it means is that you saw something somewhere and can point at the source. I can see a whole new generation of editors who see references to something called "Wikipedia:Attribution" and respond indignantly when their contribution is challenged, "but I attributed it!" (to a blog, to somebody's home page, to a gossip site, to a fan site, to a conspiracy forum). There's nothing innate in "attribution" that implies "attribution to a reliable source"; you have to actually read the policy to know that. I agree that WP:ATT is very good policy... but with a terrible name.

I support a community consensus endorsing the new policy, verbatim et literatim, but I don't think it's too late to come up with a better name, since if we don't, I fear endless explanations based on the misleading single word "attribution". --MCB 03:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the name either. I think the content from Attribution should be moved to Reliable Sources because I think that is the best name for the policy.--JEF 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Verifiability was no better, as it apparently led to widespread confusion over the role of truth in our articles and its catchphrase "Verifiability not truth" was oxymoronic. I doubt there is a single perfect word for the concept we describe on this page, or at least not one in English. What we really mean when we say attributable is Wikipedia:Only submit content that you didn't make up, can be looked up somewhere else, and is important enough to bother having an article about. --tjstrf talk 04:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Attributabliliy to a reliable published source ? WAS 4.250 04:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliability is perfect. Why has no one thought of this?--JEF 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
"Reliability" is not bad, but the one word I'd suggest is "Sourcing", since it has the advantage of not being in common use in that form and thus not carrying a lot of connotative baggage. So, consider this a proposal: Wikipedia:Sourcing. (The present page at that name is a redirect to Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles, and it certainly could be repurposed without breaking anything. --MCB 06:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:V, WP:A, WP:NOR are all policies regarding the content of articles, whereas WP:RS applies to the nature of sources. We can write that a source is or is not reliable, but we should never claim that an article or its content is "reliable", as "reliability" of wiki articles is not fixed. Anyone can edit and thus vandalise a wiki article, thereby rendering it an "unreliable" source. -- Black Falcon 07:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:REF ?

This discussion also involves the WP:REF which should be the main page.. I think and then have all these other pages merged into a "Supportive content" section --((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT with so much editing (300 editors, 5000 edits) should start out stronger

I generally prefer smaller singular policy pages. The nutshell looks good, but then comes the second principle: 2)Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, and this line: "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. I assume you mean "books and journals published by university press publishers," not "books and journals published by universities," as not all university press publishers are a close part of the university they are affiliated with in name. Even our article on University presses gets this right. I would like to have seen such a sweeping policy change have really been dug at by a large portion of the community such that basic details were correct--no, I haven't researched it, but I didn't write the policy. This is not a small detail way down in the article, this is prominent, the second principle tells Wikipedia editors to go to reliable sources and then mistates the reliable sources. University presses are subsumed in the last part of this also, as they are known publishing houses. It is requested on WP:ATT that the page not be changed, however I suggest that this sentence be corrected to say "books and journals published by university press publishers," as I think is intended. This should also be changed elsewhere in Wikipedia on reliable sources. I will change it there if I can find it. KP Botany 04:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Should it not say "academic presses"? Presses such as Routledge are just as respectable as Cambridge University Press. They also require their books to go through a rigorous peer-review. Awadewit 05:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that academic presses and university presses are the same thing. Routledge is an academic press, an academic arm of some mainstream publisher, not at all the same thing as a university press. It is, or should be covered, under mainstream or known publishers. KP Botany 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

I believe the intro to this discussion is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. "Jimbo stated that despite the very good work done at by people laboring on ATT" For shame. Also, what kind of sense does "work done at by people" make?! None! As the obsessive-compulsive nerds that Wikipedians are, why has this matter not been addressed before? ~~ Gromreaper(Talk)/(Cont) 10:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you see a grammatical error, just fix it yourself. There isn't a need to apply WP:NPOV outside the mainspace. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 10:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, is it not in your power to remove this or modify it? It is nonsensical rubbish on both accounts that you mentioned, and to think such a statement was placed about such a matter. Ashnard talk 10:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited it so it at least makes sense now, whether the whole statement should be removed or not is another matter, I didn't want to be too intrusive and delete it as it would basically degrade what followed as that leads on from the aforementioned statement. Ashnard talk 10:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes Michael, I see how your comment was so diverse to mine that it justified its addition (above mine as well).Calm down Ashnard, I must stop getting terratorial over a discussion page. Ashnard talk 10:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

combining is a really bad idea

Think! What is the primary use of these separate pages? As quick references in edit disputes, primarily as justification for rejection of material. Compare the likely understanding of a new editor when his material is removed with a pointer to WP:No original research versus WP:Attribution. The only people who could love this monstrosity are those who spend more time arguing about policy than writing articles --can't we find a separate project for them to work on so they don't interfere with the rest of us? This is a no-brainer! alteripse 11:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

he has a point! The laudable desire to have a small number of official policy pages collides with the need to have quick and succinct policy pages newbies can be pointed to depending on the case at hand. This can be alleviated by having shortcuts to h2 sections of the big unified policy page, but that isn't really all that different from having the different points on individual pages. dab (𒁳) 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Clearly each side of the idea can make strong arguments for their own sides, but in the end, what matters the most is that the policies work together, nomatter if they are on one or three pages. Unless there is any conflict between them then just do whatever is easiest and move on to greener pastures. Drogheda 11:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion&oldid=117731870"