[WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

[Slim Virgin]

On 3/1/07, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> 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.

Sarah