User talk:Crum375/att

Initial draft

I started an initial draft for a new WP:Attribution policy, using as input the current WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:ATT, as well as many of the recent comments on WT:NOR and WT:V. Comments welcome. Crum375 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the flow and organization are somewhat clunky, since much of the material was imported verbatim from WP:OR and WP:V. I felt that, wherever possible, it is important to preserve existing content first, and remove or condense it only with community input. Crum375 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Primary Sources

I would add something to this paragraph to the effect: Primary Sources that are widely cited in secondary or other primary sources are generally suitable and reliable for citing specific facts, ideas or quotations in an article. I think this has much greater validity the older a primary source is. Primary sources written in the 17th-early 20th century that have been widely cited in other works, should be condsidered reliable.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid controversy, I copied the current WP:PSTS section essentially verbatim. If substantive changes are proposed to PSTS, I think they should either be made on WT:NOR, which is the current talk page for that policy, or wait until this policy is adopted, which may take a while. Crum375 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to take a look at the Proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which could be relevant to your project. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, that proposal failed to gain consensus, and my goal here is to take the existing official policy sections and not introduce substantive changes to current policy until and unless this proposal becomes policy. At that point, any section, including PSTS, can be modified by consensus. Crum375 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attribute, attributable, attribution. Right words?

I googled using the keywords: 1) attributable definition 2) attribution definition 3) attribute definition. Are you sure that these are the right words to use? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as a problem? Crum375 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the definitions by googling the above, you are satisfied with those words? Hmmm.

Anyhow. You might compare the definitions of the verbs attribute and cite using the following links:

attribute (Also note, "used as a verb is rare".)

cite (Also note, "used as a verb is common".)

Maybe WP:CITE would be better than WP:ATTRIBUTE? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, in the publishing business (which WP is in) the verb "attribute" is well defined and commonly used. We have been using it on WP in the same publishing sense for years. To "cite" is a synonym in a sense, but I believe that "attribute" is more appropriate, esp. when we include the forms "attributable", "attributability", "unattributable", etc. Also, on WP the terms "cite" and "citation" refer to the physical format of the source description (e.g. citation template, Harvard citation), while "attribution" refers more to the concept behind it. But the bottom line is that "attribute" in its various forms is well defined and common both in the publishing business and on WP. Crum375 (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very few editors that come to Wikipedia are in the publishing business. When they come to policy pages to get clarification of the reason that one of their edits was reverted, shouldn't the policy pages be written for them, using words that they are the most familiar with? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps very few come here from the publishing business, but once they are here, they are in the business of publishing, so that terminology is the most relevant. Also regarding "familiar" terms, "to cite" is often used as a synonym for "to quote". So a citation (in publishing) could mean a quotation of a source, which would be confusing. Also, the more common meanings of "citation" are a commendation, or a summons, both of which could add confusion if used in lieu of "to attribute" and "attribution". The noun "attribution" is clear and well-defined, it means supplying a source which makes (or directly supports) the statement that we publish. "Citation" is more amorphous. Crum375 (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful if you cited here a source for the definition of attribute that you want to use and give the excerpt here, and perhaps you could comment as to how rare the definition is. Note that the link I provided said that the use of "attribute" as a verb was rare, and to use it in the sense that you want to use it, would thus be even rarer. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like all English words, the meaning depends on context, so in the publishing context it would be meaning #3 for the infinitive: "at·trib·ute (transitive): 3. to consider as made by the one indicated, esp. with strong evidence but in the absence of conclusive proof: to attribute a painting to an artist."

To the best of my knowledge, in the publishing context, not only is it not rare, but it is the most appropriate (and possibly the only) word which means to supply a source for a published statement. Crum375 (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me emphasize another linguistic point: "To cite a source" means to quote (or provide) a source. On the other hand, "to attribute a statement to a source" has two objects: the statement and the source, and it makes the connection between them. In other words, it means that the source made that statement (although it might be paraphrased). As far as I know, "to cite" is not the correct term for this usage, and "to attribute" is the only available choice. Crum375 (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition from the source that you cited, has the meaning of giving someone credit for something, i.e. to judge that someone deserves credit especially "in the absence of conclusive proof". Are you sure you want to use that word, attribute? Note how much more appropriate is definition #2 for cite from the same source that you used.

2. to mention in support, proof, or confirmation

But hey, it's your project and you need to use what you feel you can defend. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think there is only one English word which means in a publishing context "to indicate the source for a statement", and it is "to attribute". "To cite" means to quote (or indicate) a source (in a publishing context), but it does not make the connection between the statement being published and the source which made it. So cite is simply not the correct choice, and on WP itself it's used to quote or supply a source (independent of the statement made). In summary, "attribute" is the only correct linguistic choice, "cite" is incorrect for this use and conflicting with other use on WP, and WP editors (and policies) have been using "attribute" and "attributability" correctly for years. Crum375 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word attribution does not appear in a great many publishing glossaries online. That said I've always known what attribution meant. My suggestion is to leave the terms attribution, attributable and unattributable in the guideline because they are nouns and adjectives/adverbs with an uneqivocal meaning. On the other hand, I would substitute the word cite for every instance of the verb attribute. For example the sentence: The only way to demonstrate that material is not unattributable is to attribute it using an inline citation to reliable.... would read better if it read: The only way to demonstrate that material is not unattributable is to cite it using an inline citation to reliable..... There aren't many instances of the verb attribute in the guideline, but changing it to the verb cite will make for a better guideline.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, using the verb "to cite" can introduce confusion. In its publishing context, "to cite X" normally means to quote source (or reference) X, or provide a link to it, independent of any specific content statement that needs sourcing. On the other hand, the verb "to attribute" is a "connecting verb", in the sense that when we say "to attribute X to Y", it means to provide content statement X with a source Y. This is exactly what we need on Wikipedia: every content statement X needs a reliable source Y, whether we actually provide it ("attribute X to Y") or not ("X is attributable", but Y is not specified). Because of this difference, when we use "cite" (or "citation") on WP we normally, but not always, focus on the source (or reference), and the physical style and formatting of that reference. On the other hand, "to attribute" is unambiguous, and it always refers to supplying a source in support of a specific content statement, per the attributability requirement. Crum375 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No "No original research"?

Offhand I think it would be necessary to include a section on "No original research" in order for this to have any chance at passing muster in front of the community. Perhaps somewhat similarly to what's already at WP:ATT? Given its rich history as one of the three core content policies, I don't think it can realistically be made to just vanish into thin air. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vanished at all. It is simply renamed to "no unattributable material", or "no unattributable content". The WP:NOR shortcut remains the same, and the definitions are the same, with much of the text copied verbatim. The reason for the renaming of NOR to NUC (NUM is taken a the moment) is that the term "original research" creates vast confusion on WP, and is in many ways a misnomer, because by NOR we don't really mean "original", nor do we really mean "research". So the renaming (with no change in the underlying concept) is a key piece of this proposal. If you can find some part of WP:NOR that is missing here, it would be very helpful. Crum375 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "the term 'original research' creates vast confusion on WP, and is in many ways a misnomer, because by NOR we don't really mean 'original' " - But over at WT:NOR you opposed the effort to simply fix that at the RFC here. So if you want to fix that with your proposed policy WP:ATT, why did you oppose fixing it at WP:NOR? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion that we currently have with NOR is that it has a misleading name, not that the underlying concept is flawed. In fact, the underlying concepts of both V and NOR are just fine, and need no modification. The RfC in question proposed to change the underlying concepts, in a way that, in my opinion, would add even more confusion and would not solve anything that I can see. This proposed draft policy does not intend to change any underlying concept, and instead focuses on presenting the existing concepts, which have served us well, in a way that is better organized and with names that are less confusing, hopefully easier to understand and use. Obviously only the community as a whole can decide whether this combined version is better than the existing pair of V and NOR. Crum375 (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "The RfC in question proposed to change the underlying concepts" - That's false. The underlying concept of excluding material from unreliable sources was still present in WP:VER. The only thing the RFC would have done was fixed the definition of Original Research. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the definition of a core policy which has been constant for years, and is linked to in countless discussions around the site, will introduce a major change in a core concept and render all those threads meaningless. I don't think that's a step forward, when the only issue is a bad name. But in any case, the RfC and specific NOR discussion belong on the WT:NOR page. Crum375 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]