118:, not a policy. Trying to tie down what types of sources are reliable, given the different kinds of sources that are used in different fields, is a next-to-impossible task. The issue seems to be a matter of opinion rather than an objective fact, and the attempts to reach consensus have led to dramatic changes. It is therefore not suitable to be raised to policy status by being merged with other policy pages.
284:
However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on
Knowledge should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research";
346:
If this sort of thing continues in the future, it may be very difficult to achieve changes in the new wording; even users attempting to revert back to the original wording of the original policy pages might be criticized for "changing" policy and threatened (implied or explicit) with admin action.
52:
to WP:NOR, WP:V or WP:RS as a concise way of making a point. If the page contains other rules too, the point may not be clear. Links in past messages will also be affected. The resulting confusion is apparent in many arguments around
Knowledge, as editors are getting confused about two very
367:
at the same time, it would be hard to maintain consistency (in part that is why it appears to many that the three pages are not currently giving consistent messages) and likely that discussions would take place in different places, making it hard to track.
192:
has removed the editor's duty to ensure that some secondary source has verified the assertion that the editor will make leaving it up to an editors' wrangle whether a clearly attributable quotation is mainstream science or NPOV enough to include in a page.
334:. Objections were raised in the week prior to the declaration of a "consensus", and these objections were to a large extent ignored rather than thoroughly discussed; it's not clear what if anything the word "consensus" actually meant in that context.
200:
as the old wording but that the old wording is more easily "misinterpreted". However, who is to say that a given interpretation is a "misinterpretation" rather than a valid interpretation? Proponents have not given a yes or no to this question:
235:, weakening it to "directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources", leaving it up to an editors' wrangle whether strings of clearly attributable assertions of fact and quotation are Original Research, pseudoscience, or POV.
347:
Therefore, before approving a new page with new wording, we need to be sure that either we're happy with the new wording, or that we have a process in place that will allow input from a broad spectrum of users.
309:, many others were surprised when longstanding policies that had been marked as "policy" were suddenly demoted. Even some participants in the discussions were blindsided by the way WP:ATT was adopted.
98:
216:
with the GFDL requirement to provide links attributing material to the
Wikipedian editor who contributed it. Words such as "source", "reference" or "verify" are more familiar.
305:
were kept on the pages allegedly being merged until eight days before the deed was done. Although many editors participated in developing
85:, the status of the entire merged page may be thrown into doubt. For example a dispute concerning the reliable sources section would put
89:
on the page, with the side effect of weakening the message on no original research; or the whole page might be blocked from editing.
203:
Are you really suggesting that an editor who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is helping write the encyclopedia?
150:
Moving away from "verifiability", which includes the meaning of "truth" within its definition, brings in two problems:
254:
in an assertion that is fully attributable in each small piece but false, wrong, and hurtful in the overall assembly.
165:
such as falsified peer-reviewed scientific results. This will only add to
Knowledge's reputation of being unreliable.
276:
requirement to verify that the assertion in the
Knowledge page has support "directly referenced for the point."
264:
by ranking "reliability of sources" by factors such as "editorial oversight" and "declaration of sources" that
86:
30:
or against particular implementations. It contains points distilled from various discussion pages.
72:
We might as well have a single policy for everything, and just call it "WP:write an encyclopedia".
161:
It frees the phrase "not truth" or "not whether it is true" to become an invitation to users to
257:
243:
17:
247:
364:
313:
306:
298:
290:
224:
189:
185:
169:
123:
27:
355:
A compromise solution which led to extra policy pages could lead to confusion. If
269:
268:
enhance attributability of individual facts and quotations but totally ignore the
261:
239:
232:
154:
In itself it changes the meaning and purpose of library research from a search for
107:
285:
it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
360:
356:
273:
173:
337:
Some users who attempted to edit WP:ATT have received messages from an admin
26:
This essay attempts to summarize the arguments against merging policies into
145:"Of all the phrases we need to keep, that is the single most important one."
280:
Things that have been left out of the merged version but are still needed
196:
Proponents of the new wording "attributable ... not whether it is true"
62:
Reducing all policy to one thing is just not going to be helpful.
65:
Eliminating the separate explanatory pages of what are, in fact,
238:
Without the "directly referenced for the point" requirement of
351:
Problems with some suggested ways of proceeding from here
344:
342:
332:
330:
328:
326:
324:
322:
320:
136:
73:
70:
63:
54:
147:
It's succinct and clear, and instantly ends disputes.
312:Among the editors who were involved in developing
212:The word "attribution" is a relatively uncommon,
8:
289:Problems with the process by which the page
297:Through the four-month process of editing
122:Problems with the wording suggested at
97:have not been assessed, as pointed out
34:Reasons not to merge the pages at all
7:
188:; you will get zero hits -- because
229:"directly referenced for the point"
220:"Directly referenced for the point"
214:unfamiliar word and can be confused
359:had to convey the same message as
83:dispute about any part of the page
24:
198:say that it means the same thing
126:as a merged version of the pages
116:flexibility of being a guideline
48:People are accustomed to giving
250:by allowing fully attributable
163:knowingly post false statements
172:does not accurately represent
1:
246:can be seen as contradicting
158:to a search for empty words.
156:meaning about the real world
252:facts to be strung together
114:Reliable Sources needs the
382:
131:"Verifiability, not truth"
339:telling them not to edit
260:lowers the standards of
176:. Search for the words
141:verifiability, not truth
135:As user SlimVirgin said
106:Reasons not to include
87:template:disputedpolicy
184:in the policy text of
95:Possible consequences
69:, is not a good idea.
318:significant dissent
53:different concepts.
373:
81:When there is a
381:
380:
376:
375:
374:
372:
371:
370:
353:
295:
282:
227:leaves out the
222:
210:
133:
128:
112:
67:different ideas
36:
22:
21:
20:
18:User:Coppertwig
12:
11:
5:
379:
377:
352:
349:
341:policy pages:
294:
287:
281:
278:
221:
218:
209:
206:
167:
166:
159:
139:of the phrase
132:
129:
127:
120:
111:
104:
103:
102:
91:
90:
78:
77:
76:
75:
57:
56:
45:
44:
39:The change is
35:
32:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
378:
369:
366:
362:
358:
350:
348:
345:
343:
340:
335:
333:
331:
329:
327:
325:
323:
321:
319:
315:
310:
308:
304:
303:no merge tags
300:
293:was developed
292:
288:
286:
279:
277:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
253:
249:
245:
241:
236:
234:
230:
226:
219:
217:
215:
208:"Attribution"
207:
205:
204:
199:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
178:verifiability
175:
171:
164:
160:
157:
153:
152:
151:
148:
146:
142:
138:
130:
125:
121:
119:
117:
109:
105:
100:
96:
93:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
74:
71:
68:
64:
61:
60:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
46:
42:
38:
37:
33:
31:
29:
19:
354:
338:
336:
317:
316:, there was
311:
302:
296:
283:
265:
256:
251:
237:
231:doctrine of
228:
223:
213:
211:
202:
197:
195:
181:
177:
168:
162:
155:
149:
144:
140:
134:
115:
113:
110:in the merge
94:
82:
66:
49:
40:
25:
41:unnecessary
258:WP:ATTFAQ
244:WP:ATTFAQ
248:WP:NPOV
365:WP:NOR
314:WP:ATT
307:WP:ATT
299:WP:ATT
291:WP:ATT
225:WP:ATT
190:WP:ATT
186:WP:ATT
182:verify
170:WP:ATT
124:WP:ATT
28:WP:ATT
270:WP:RS
262:WP:RS
240:WP:RS
233:WP:RS
108:WP:RS
50:links
16:<
363:and
361:WP:V
357:WP:A
274:WP:V
272:and
174:WP:V
137:here
99:here
180:or
301:,
266:do
242:,
143::
101:.
43:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.