Slim Virgin wrote:
On 3/1/07, Rob Smith wrote:
On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
"Attributability" is much cleaner.
It looks like some kind of semantic game. Capable of being attributed? It suggests that we don't need to make an attribution, only assert that it is possible. Actually attributed statements (or attributions) are then verifiable.
The concept is simple and clean. All material published by Wikipedia must be attributable -- that is, it must be possible to attribute the material to a reliable source, which tells us it's not a Wikipedian's original research. But not all material must actually be attributed. It needs a source only if it's challenged, or if it's the kind of thing that's likely to be challenged (including contentious material in BLPs where sourcing is particularly important), and if it's a quotation.
This way of formulating policy helps to clarify that not every single sentence in Wikipedia ("the sky is blue") needs a source. Editors have to use their common sense to ask themselves "is this something that's likely to be challenged?" and if the answer's yes, they should add a source.
Forget the issue of "verifying" whether material is true. That's entirely unconnected to checking whether it has already been published, which is the only thing the policy's concerned about.
I don't think that we disagree on the principle objective. As I see it "verify" and "attribute" both accomplish this.
Ec