Editors, please note:
In February 2007, after four months of discussion at Wikipedia:Attribution, a number of editors at Wikipedia talk:Attribution agreed on a means of merging Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:No original research, while also streamlining Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a simpler FAQ at WP:ATT/FAQ. In a wiki-wide poll in April 2007, the community voted 424 to 354 in favor of the merger (with 102 neutral or suggesting other compromises), which was not a sufficient majority. After this, at the suggestion of Jimbo Wales, the page held a unique quasi-official status as a "canonical summary".
WP:ATT is intended to be a cohesive version of the core content policies with which the Wikipedia community is already familiar, discussing how these core policies work together and support each other.
Index
| ||||||||||||||||||
In the past, I've used "attribution" to refer to the very simple idea that folks adding content should attribute claims, particularly opinions, not just for sourcing purposes them but to identify whose opinion is involved and provide some context to help evaluate it. Thus, in a dispute on some religious topic where secular scholars disagree with relgious claims. It's important to say something to avoid saying things like "some say C but others say Y", and instead say something like like "Bob Smith, a professor of archeology and Sumerian specialist at the University of A, says 'X', or "John Jones, a theologian and professor of bible at the B Theological Seminary, says 'Y'". It would be nice if there were a quick, simple policy link that would explain why attribution is important in covering controversial subjects and diverse opinions neutrally. This page used to be the one I used. The title is valuable and represents a simple but important idea. As a result, the page's conversion to an essay represents something of a loss. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
See the section Status March 2010 lower down this page for a further discussion on this issue.
The paragraph Shirahadasha is looking is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV/ WP:SUBSTANTIATE. From looking at the history of these shortcuts it's not clear how or even if the WP:ATTRIBUTE shortcut ever went to that paragraph. But the title to that section of WP:NPOV, "Attributing..." has existed since at least July 2006, and the original NPOV page uses the word attribute frequently, always meaning in-text attribution of controversial statements.
Thus, when people talk about attributing something on Wikipedia, they generally are thought to mean attributing an opinion in-text rather than presenting it as fact. I think that this page (WP:ATTRIBUTION) uses the word attribute in a confusing way, particularly given the existing jargon in Wikipedia where attribute means in-text attribution. Better to retitle this page to something which indicates that it is a summary of core policies or something, as that's what it really is, then to use a word which has a particular meaning as a synonym for verifiable or reliably sourced. Unfortunately, I have no good title ideas. II | ( t - c) 05:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Can we in addition to attributing authors discuss the quality of a source, ex. whether it discusses an issue in detail or just in passing? I raised the issue here. Comments appreciated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Should Rejecta Mathematica be regarded as a reliable source? VictorPorton ( talk) 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
SV after over a year and after a very long discussion you only just realized that since 23 July 2008 it had been marked as an essay. That was a compromise thrashed out by a lot of editors over a period of a year. I do not think you should have changed it without seeking a wider consensus than you did. I have put it back to an essay. -- PBS ( talk) 02:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As you seem to have been absent for the second half of the conversations now archived see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 18#What about "Essay"? for BB's compromise solution which I for one was not keen on I wanted {{ historical}} or {{ rejected}}, but I could live with it if it put this page to bed. -- PBS ( talk) 02:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
From the edit history:
Crum375: It was marked as an essay for well over a year after extensive discussions and only reverted by SV a few months ago without any wider consultation other than a statement here. So where is the consensus you claim exists expressed in an section on this talk page or in its archives? -- PBS ( talk) 06:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, Philip, please don't start this again. It's not an essay. It's a combination of two policies written by large numbers of people. Please just leave it tagged as such, as was agreed at the time. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ryan, it really does matter. Creating a "summary" implies that it accurately summarizes policy, which it may or may not, but requires constant energy to maintain the accuracy and update changes to policy. Summaries of critical documents including rules, professional opinions, etc. are very tricky, since deciding what to ommit can seriously alter the interpretation. The reason this became an issue recently was that this page was being cited elsewhere as a way to create "policy" without the rigorous process of attaining consensus. This is why it is important that we follow the format described at WP:Policies and guidelines and not subvert them to find the more cozy and polite avenue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to Philip and Kevin. Of the relatively small population of Wikipedia which are even aware of this page, it is obviously extremely controversial. It doesn't seem like we have the energy and time to keep this "summary" up to date and verify its accuracy. Therefore, it shouldn't be labeled as a summary because its accuracy may be questionable. Crum says he reviewed it and saw no "significant discrepancies", but anyone can say such a thing. At the least there needs to be a disclaimer that this page may not track entirely with the policy pages. Knowing Wikipedia, its decentralized system allows things which are supposed to track to very easily diverge. II | ( t - c) 03:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've put {{ supplement}}, {{ failed}} and a brief introduction. Other combinations will also cover the ground, and I don't really care which of them we do; but a dispute over tags seems one of the worst solutions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to make clear for the record that the plan after the poll was to make this page policy because we did get a majority, even after a wiki-wide poll, which no one expected. The idea discussed with Jimbo was that I should set up a working party to decide how to implement it, while being careful to preserve the status of NOR and V.
That didn't happen because I couldn't stand the pettiness and I walked away from it. It saddens me to see the same attitude continuing over what to call it. This is not historical because its contents are currently policy; and it's not an essay because of the degree of consensus it attracted, the amount of work a large number of editors put into it, and the fact that it was policy for a short time. It is unique. It would be policy today had it not been for an intervention from Jimbo. And that only happened because we inadvisedly stuck a "superseded" tag on the NOR page, which when Jimbo saw it made him think NOR had been abandoned. During the following truly insane discussion and poll, a lot of people didn't understand what was being proposed, and those of us trying to explain were half exhausted, half demented, and couldn't get the message across. And so the day was lost. What happened really was a case of " all for the want of a horseshoe nail".
I appeal to Philip Baird Shearer to let his three-year campaign against this end. You won. It isn't policy. Instead we're stuck with two core policies that should be combined, because they only make sense when they're read together. But that's Wikipedia for you.
There doesn't have to be a tag or a template for every single thing in the world. Please allow the top of the page to describe what it is with words that don't involve squiggly brackets. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Upon consideration, the quotation from WP:Essay is like much of Wikipedia space: the flat statement of a generalization, usually but not always true. How many attempts have been made to gauge consensus for deletionism or inclusionism? We all know the tesults: Neither pure position has consensus; both have advocates. Yet there are many essays explaining both positions, and shades in between. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 19:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Attribution → Wikipedia:Attributing statements — I think that Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia should be moved here. – xeno talk (originally written at 18:23, 30 March 2010, resigned after it was made into a formal move request) 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's something interesting to think about: how do we determine if a published source is reliable? Do such sources tend to be considered reliable if they publish true things? If so, isn't truth still an influence on inclusion threshhold? Ranze ( talk) 00:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Feedback of knowledgeable editors is sought regarding the transclusion of one talk page discussion to another, wherein
(1) all talk page comments have been previously signed and dated by those editors participating in the discussion; and
(2) the following notation is included in the transcluded discussion:
Question: given (1) the existing signatures of all participating editors and (2) the specific notation of the transclusion and hyperlink to the original talk page discussion, does the transclusion constitute a violation of either WP:COPYVIO or WP:ATTRIB? Thank you, in advance, for any feedback provided.
Please note: I a simultaneously posting this request for feedback here and the talk page of WP:COPYVIO. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I just realized that I have been citing this page as the reason to keep edit histories of merged from/redirected pages, but I cannot find where in this page that information is located. Is this information here anywhere, or us on another page? Steel1943 ( talk) 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This 2007 edit changed "surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media" to "surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography". thx, Humanengr 15:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The edit summary does not provide rationale for that part of the edit, particularly the change from 'reliable' to 'mainstream'. Perhaps I missed it, but I see no reference to that change in archives here. Humanengr ( talk) 22:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This page is not maintained see the diff between Revision as of 22:15, 25 March 2010 and Revision as of 09:27, 20 June 2019.
So I have removed the sentence from the nutshell that was added some time between those edits that stated "As a result, this page is kept as a cohesive summary of these two of our core content policies, a discussion how they work together."
In fact one of the reasons it failed to replace V and NPOV was because it was not a "cohesive summary" and never has been. -- PBS ( talk) 09:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:A and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 7#Wikipedia:A until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
interstate
five
17:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Editors, please note:
In February 2007, after four months of discussion at Wikipedia:Attribution, a number of editors at Wikipedia talk:Attribution agreed on a means of merging Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:No original research, while also streamlining Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a simpler FAQ at WP:ATT/FAQ. In a wiki-wide poll in April 2007, the community voted 424 to 354 in favor of the merger (with 102 neutral or suggesting other compromises), which was not a sufficient majority. After this, at the suggestion of Jimbo Wales, the page held a unique quasi-official status as a "canonical summary".
WP:ATT is intended to be a cohesive version of the core content policies with which the Wikipedia community is already familiar, discussing how these core policies work together and support each other.
Index
| ||||||||||||||||||
In the past, I've used "attribution" to refer to the very simple idea that folks adding content should attribute claims, particularly opinions, not just for sourcing purposes them but to identify whose opinion is involved and provide some context to help evaluate it. Thus, in a dispute on some religious topic where secular scholars disagree with relgious claims. It's important to say something to avoid saying things like "some say C but others say Y", and instead say something like like "Bob Smith, a professor of archeology and Sumerian specialist at the University of A, says 'X', or "John Jones, a theologian and professor of bible at the B Theological Seminary, says 'Y'". It would be nice if there were a quick, simple policy link that would explain why attribution is important in covering controversial subjects and diverse opinions neutrally. This page used to be the one I used. The title is valuable and represents a simple but important idea. As a result, the page's conversion to an essay represents something of a loss. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
See the section Status March 2010 lower down this page for a further discussion on this issue.
The paragraph Shirahadasha is looking is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV/ WP:SUBSTANTIATE. From looking at the history of these shortcuts it's not clear how or even if the WP:ATTRIBUTE shortcut ever went to that paragraph. But the title to that section of WP:NPOV, "Attributing..." has existed since at least July 2006, and the original NPOV page uses the word attribute frequently, always meaning in-text attribution of controversial statements.
Thus, when people talk about attributing something on Wikipedia, they generally are thought to mean attributing an opinion in-text rather than presenting it as fact. I think that this page (WP:ATTRIBUTION) uses the word attribute in a confusing way, particularly given the existing jargon in Wikipedia where attribute means in-text attribution. Better to retitle this page to something which indicates that it is a summary of core policies or something, as that's what it really is, then to use a word which has a particular meaning as a synonym for verifiable or reliably sourced. Unfortunately, I have no good title ideas. II | ( t - c) 05:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Can we in addition to attributing authors discuss the quality of a source, ex. whether it discusses an issue in detail or just in passing? I raised the issue here. Comments appreciated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Should Rejecta Mathematica be regarded as a reliable source? VictorPorton ( talk) 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
SV after over a year and after a very long discussion you only just realized that since 23 July 2008 it had been marked as an essay. That was a compromise thrashed out by a lot of editors over a period of a year. I do not think you should have changed it without seeking a wider consensus than you did. I have put it back to an essay. -- PBS ( talk) 02:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As you seem to have been absent for the second half of the conversations now archived see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 18#What about "Essay"? for BB's compromise solution which I for one was not keen on I wanted {{ historical}} or {{ rejected}}, but I could live with it if it put this page to bed. -- PBS ( talk) 02:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
From the edit history:
Crum375: It was marked as an essay for well over a year after extensive discussions and only reverted by SV a few months ago without any wider consultation other than a statement here. So where is the consensus you claim exists expressed in an section on this talk page or in its archives? -- PBS ( talk) 06:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, Philip, please don't start this again. It's not an essay. It's a combination of two policies written by large numbers of people. Please just leave it tagged as such, as was agreed at the time. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ryan, it really does matter. Creating a "summary" implies that it accurately summarizes policy, which it may or may not, but requires constant energy to maintain the accuracy and update changes to policy. Summaries of critical documents including rules, professional opinions, etc. are very tricky, since deciding what to ommit can seriously alter the interpretation. The reason this became an issue recently was that this page was being cited elsewhere as a way to create "policy" without the rigorous process of attaining consensus. This is why it is important that we follow the format described at WP:Policies and guidelines and not subvert them to find the more cozy and polite avenue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to Philip and Kevin. Of the relatively small population of Wikipedia which are even aware of this page, it is obviously extremely controversial. It doesn't seem like we have the energy and time to keep this "summary" up to date and verify its accuracy. Therefore, it shouldn't be labeled as a summary because its accuracy may be questionable. Crum says he reviewed it and saw no "significant discrepancies", but anyone can say such a thing. At the least there needs to be a disclaimer that this page may not track entirely with the policy pages. Knowing Wikipedia, its decentralized system allows things which are supposed to track to very easily diverge. II | ( t - c) 03:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've put {{ supplement}}, {{ failed}} and a brief introduction. Other combinations will also cover the ground, and I don't really care which of them we do; but a dispute over tags seems one of the worst solutions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to make clear for the record that the plan after the poll was to make this page policy because we did get a majority, even after a wiki-wide poll, which no one expected. The idea discussed with Jimbo was that I should set up a working party to decide how to implement it, while being careful to preserve the status of NOR and V.
That didn't happen because I couldn't stand the pettiness and I walked away from it. It saddens me to see the same attitude continuing over what to call it. This is not historical because its contents are currently policy; and it's not an essay because of the degree of consensus it attracted, the amount of work a large number of editors put into it, and the fact that it was policy for a short time. It is unique. It would be policy today had it not been for an intervention from Jimbo. And that only happened because we inadvisedly stuck a "superseded" tag on the NOR page, which when Jimbo saw it made him think NOR had been abandoned. During the following truly insane discussion and poll, a lot of people didn't understand what was being proposed, and those of us trying to explain were half exhausted, half demented, and couldn't get the message across. And so the day was lost. What happened really was a case of " all for the want of a horseshoe nail".
I appeal to Philip Baird Shearer to let his three-year campaign against this end. You won. It isn't policy. Instead we're stuck with two core policies that should be combined, because they only make sense when they're read together. But that's Wikipedia for you.
There doesn't have to be a tag or a template for every single thing in the world. Please allow the top of the page to describe what it is with words that don't involve squiggly brackets. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Upon consideration, the quotation from WP:Essay is like much of Wikipedia space: the flat statement of a generalization, usually but not always true. How many attempts have been made to gauge consensus for deletionism or inclusionism? We all know the tesults: Neither pure position has consensus; both have advocates. Yet there are many essays explaining both positions, and shades in between. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 19:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Attribution → Wikipedia:Attributing statements — I think that Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia should be moved here. – xeno talk (originally written at 18:23, 30 March 2010, resigned after it was made into a formal move request) 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's something interesting to think about: how do we determine if a published source is reliable? Do such sources tend to be considered reliable if they publish true things? If so, isn't truth still an influence on inclusion threshhold? Ranze ( talk) 00:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Feedback of knowledgeable editors is sought regarding the transclusion of one talk page discussion to another, wherein
(1) all talk page comments have been previously signed and dated by those editors participating in the discussion; and
(2) the following notation is included in the transcluded discussion:
Question: given (1) the existing signatures of all participating editors and (2) the specific notation of the transclusion and hyperlink to the original talk page discussion, does the transclusion constitute a violation of either WP:COPYVIO or WP:ATTRIB? Thank you, in advance, for any feedback provided.
Please note: I a simultaneously posting this request for feedback here and the talk page of WP:COPYVIO. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I just realized that I have been citing this page as the reason to keep edit histories of merged from/redirected pages, but I cannot find where in this page that information is located. Is this information here anywhere, or us on another page? Steel1943 ( talk) 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This 2007 edit changed "surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media" to "surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography". thx, Humanengr 15:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The edit summary does not provide rationale for that part of the edit, particularly the change from 'reliable' to 'mainstream'. Perhaps I missed it, but I see no reference to that change in archives here. Humanengr ( talk) 22:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This page is not maintained see the diff between Revision as of 22:15, 25 March 2010 and Revision as of 09:27, 20 June 2019.
So I have removed the sentence from the nutshell that was added some time between those edits that stated "As a result, this page is kept as a cohesive summary of these two of our core content policies, a discussion how they work together."
In fact one of the reasons it failed to replace V and NPOV was because it was not a "cohesive summary" and never has been. -- PBS ( talk) 09:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:A and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 7#Wikipedia:A until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
interstate
five
17:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)