231:, 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.
97:
41:
417:
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";
488:
Every day, new users are joining the ranks of
Knowledge's editors, and some of them become high-volume editors. In a certain sense, this is like joining a culture: they learn the tools and learn the language. When a new editor can participate in discussions that use acronyms such as "NPOV" and
479:
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 to the original wording of the original policy pages might be criticized for "changing" policy and threatened (implied or explicit) with admin action.
165:
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
489:"NOR", they may feel that they finally "belong" to the Knowledge community. Therefore, the possibility that a small group of super-editors can actually change the very language that Wikipedians use suggests that Knowledge is more of an aristocracy than a democracy or anarchy.
325:
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.
467:. 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.
211:
333:
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 not to this question:
265:
tries to more significant opinions more weight than less significant opinions. If significance and reliability are seen as related, degrees of reliability should determine due weight, rather than having a clear-cut binary threshold for inclusion.
368:, 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.
480:
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.
442:, 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.
349:
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.
529:
254:
261:
encourages a more binary interpretation of reliable sources, with the threshold for inclusion being "attributability to a reliable source".
438:
were kept on the pages allegedly being merged until eight days before the deed was done. Although many editors participated in developing
198:, the status of the entire merged page may be thrown into doubt. For example, a dispute concerning the reliable sources section would put
132:
524:
202:
on the page, with the side effect of weakening the message on no original research; or the whole page might be blocked from editing.
56:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
57:
336:
Are you really suggesting that an editor who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is helping write the encyclopedia?
238:
283:
Moving away from "verifiability", which includes the meaning of "truth" within its definition, brings in two problems:
387:
in an assertion that is fully attributable in each small piece but false, wrong, and hurtful in the overall assembly.
298:
such as falsified peer-reviewed scientific results. This will only add to
Knowledge's reputation of being unreliable.
234:
519:
409:
requirement to verify that the assertion in the
Knowledge page has support "directly referenced for the point."
397:
by ranking "reliability of sources" by factors such as "editorial oversight" and "declaration of sources" that
123:
and little or no improvement. Please help by introducing links to this page from other related project pages.
199:
17:
143:
or against particular implementations. It contains points distilled from various discussion pages.
120:
61:
185:
We might as well have a single policy for everything, and just call it "WP:write an encyclopedia".
71:
294:
It frees the phrase "not truth" or "not whether it is true" to become an invitation to users to
495:
390:
376:
104:
49:
380:
262:
242:
116:
108:
513:
446:
439:
431:
423:
357:
322:
318:
302:
271:
258:
250:
140:
64:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
402:
401:
enhance attributability of individual facts and quotations but totally ignore the
394:
372:
365:
287:
In itself it changes the meaning and purpose of library research from a search for
220:
418:
it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
406:
306:
246:
23:
470:
Some users who attempted to edit WP:ATT have received messages from an admin
139:
This essay attempts to summarize the arguments against merging policies into
96:
413:
Things that have been left out of the merged version but are still needed
329:
Proponents of the new wording "attributable ... not whether it is true"
175:
Reducing all policy to one thing is just not going to be helpful.
178:
Eliminating the separate explanatory pages of what are, in fact,
371:
Without the "directly referenced for the point" requirement of
91:
35:
496:
http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/DCForumID8/21964.html
477:
475:
465:
463:
461:
459:
457:
455:
453:
186:
183:
176:
167:
79:
119:
link to this page. This may result in the page having
445:Among the editors who were involved in developing
345:The word "attribution" is a relatively uncommon,
484:Problematic implications for Knowledge culture
8:
422:Problems with the process by which the page
255:Knowledge:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight
430:Through the four-month process of editing
270:Problems with the wording suggested at
210:have not been assessed, as pointed out
7:
530:Knowledge essays about verification
362:"directly referenced for the point"
353:"Directly referenced for the point"
347:unfamiliar word and can be confused
321:; you will get zero hits – because
133:User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy
196:dispute about any part of the page
62:thoroughly vetted by the community
58:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
31:
331:say that it means the same thing
274:as a merged version of the pages
229:flexibility of being a guideline
161:People are accustomed to giving
95:
39:
383:by allowing fully attributable
296:knowingly post false statements
239:Knowledge:Neutral Point of View
305:does not accurately represent
147:Reasons not to merge the pages
1:
379:can be seen as contradicting
291:to a search for empty words.
289:meaning about the real world
492:"Does Eros owe you money?"
385:facts to be strung together
257:. Including it as part of
227:Reliable Sources needs the
546:
472:telling them not to change
279:"Verifiability, not truth"
131:This has been copied from
69:
33:Essay on editing Knowledge
525:Orphaned Knowledge essays
393:lowers the standards of
309:. Search for the words
237:may be more related to
219:Reasons not to include
200:template:disputedpolicy
317:in the policy text of
253:. Also see the essay
208:Possible consequences
182:, is not a good idea.
60:, as it has not been
18:Knowledge:Attribution
263:WP:NPOV#Undue_weight
243:WP:NPOV#Undue_weight
451:significant dissent
166:different concepts.
128:
127:
90:
89:
22:(Redirected from
537:
520:Knowledge essays
235:Reliable sources
194:When there is a
99:
92:
82:
43:
42:
36:
27:
24:Knowledge:ATTCON
545:
544:
540:
539:
538:
536:
535:
534:
510:
509:
508:
498:
486:
428:
415:
360:leaves out the
355:
343:
281:
276:
241:, particularly
225:
180:different ideas
149:
124:
86:
85:
78:
74:
66:
65:
40:
34:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
543:
541:
533:
532:
527:
522:
512:
511:
507:
502:
500:
494:
485:
482:
474:policy pages:
427:
420:
414:
411:
354:
351:
342:
339:
300:
299:
292:
280:
277:
275:
268:
224:
217:
216:
215:
204:
203:
191:
190:
189:
188:
170:
169:
158:
157:
152:The change is
148:
145:
126:
125:
121:low readership
114:
113:
100:
88:
87:
84:
83:
75:
70:
67:
55:
54:
46:
44:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
542:
531:
528:
526:
523:
521:
518:
517:
515:
506:
503:
501:
497:
493:
490:
483:
481:
478:
476:
473:
468:
466:
464:
462:
460:
458:
456:
454:
452:
448:
443:
441:
437:
436:no merge tags
433:
426:was developed
425:
421:
419:
412:
410:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
386:
382:
378:
374:
369:
367:
363:
359:
352:
350:
348:
341:"Attribution"
340:
338:
337:
332:
327:
324:
320:
316:
312:
311:verifiability
308:
304:
297:
293:
290:
286:
285:
284:
278:
273:
269:
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
230:
222:
218:
213:
209:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
192:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:
172:
171:
168:
164:
160:
159:
155:
151:
150:
146:
144:
142:
137:
136:
134:
122:
118:
117:project pages
111:
110:
107:is currently
106:
101:
98:
94:
93:
81:
77:
76:
73:
68:
63:
59:
53:
51:
45:
38:
37:
25:
19:
504:
499:
491:
487:
471:
469:
450:
449:, there was
444:
435:
429:
416:
398:
389:
384:
370:
364:doctrine of
361:
356:
346:
344:
335:
330:
328:
314:
310:
301:
295:
288:
282:
233:
228:
226:
223:in the merge
207:
195:
179:
162:
153:
138:
130:
129:
102:
47:
154:unnecessary
48:This is an
514:Categories
115:Few or no
391:WP:ATTFAQ
377:WP:ATTFAQ
80:WP:ATTCON
245:than to
109:orphaned
72:Shortcut
381:WP:NPOV
447:WP:ATT
440:WP:ATT
432:WP:ATT
424:WP:ATT
358:WP:ATT
323:WP:ATT
319:WP:ATT
315:verify
303:WP:ATT
272:WP:ATT
259:WP:ATT
251:WP:ATT
141:WP:ATT
505:TL;DR
403:WP:RS
395:WP:RS
373:WP:RS
366:WP:RS
221:WP:RS
163:links
105:essay
103:This
50:essay
16:<
407:WP:V
405:and
307:WP:V
247:WP:V
212:here
313:or
516::
434:,
399:do
375:,
112:.
249:/
214:.
156:.
135:.
52:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
