In response to the concerns about Wikipedia:Reliable sources and previous concerns expressed about NOR and V, I've put up a proposal that No original research and Verifiability be combined into one new content policy: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].
The policy in a nutshell would be that "All material published by Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."
The introduction makes it plain that not all material must actually be attributed. It must simply be capable of being atttributed. That is, it must not be original research.
I think this would get rid of a lot of the confusion that surrounds what "verifiability" means, and what the relationship is between V and NOR. I've also proposed that we rename RS to "How to find reliable sources" and that it become a page of advice about where to look for good sources (not a guideline or policy).
The proposal is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution
David and Phil, and others who have expressed concern about RS, I hope you'll take a look at it and explain where it might cause problems, because I'm pretty certain any concerns could be ironed out.
Sarah
On 11/10/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
In response to the concerns about Wikipedia:Reliable sources and previous concerns expressed about NOR and V, I've put up a proposal that No original research and Verifiability be combined into one new content policy: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].
They certainly do have quite a bit of unnecessary overlap and could be contained in a single policy. Anything to streamline policy and make it easier for new users to grasp is an improvement.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:53:02 -0500, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
In response to the concerns about Wikipedia:Reliable sources and previous concerns expressed about NOR and V, I've put up a proposal that No original research and Verifiability be combined into one new content policy: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].
NOR and V are important in and of themselves (and need to be much shorter). Attribution has the potential to replace RS and about 2/3 of each of NOR and V, which would be good. As a descriptive guideline it has great potential. I don't see it replacing the prescriptive policies, but it certainly augments them well.
Guy (JzG)
On 10/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:53:02 -0500, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
In response to the concerns about Wikipedia:Reliable sources and previous concerns expressed about NOR and V, I've put up a proposal that No original research and Verifiability be combined into one new content policy: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].
NOR and V are important in and of themselves (and need to be much shorter). Attribution has the potential to replace RS and about 2/3 of each of NOR and V, which would be good. As a descriptive guideline it has great potential. I don't see it replacing the prescriptive policies, but it certainly augments them well.
The intention is to replace NOR and V, because the last thing we need is yet another page about sources. (I'm leaving out discussion of RS for the moment and concentrating on the policies.)
Guy, what is missing from [[Wikipedia:Attribution]] that would need to be there for you to feel that NOR and V were well enough represented that we could get rid of them?
Sarah
On Oct 11, 2006, at 3:06 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I don't see it replacing the prescriptive policies, but it certainly augments them well.
I was of the same impression early today, but after engaging and contributing to the proposal, I see great potential and merit in this attempt, at this point.
-- Jossi
On 11/10/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
In response to the concerns about Wikipedia:Reliable sources and previous concerns expressed about NOR and V, I've put up a proposal that No original research and Verifiability be combined into one new content policy: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].
The policy in a nutshell would be that "All material published by Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."
This appears to be simply restating the spirit of the previous two policies as I understand them.
Which probably suggests it's on the right track...