[WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

[Ray Saintonge]

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