[WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT

[Guettarda]

On 3/21/07, Philippe Beaudette <philippebeaudette at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jossi,
>
> We all appreciate that a great deal of work went into this.  The problem
> is, despite all those efforts, people still didn't know.  Jeff didn't
> know.  I didn't know.  I'm on wiki every day, and think of myself as fairly
> well informed.  I get Signpost.  I read VP as much as I possibly can.  But I
> don't read every arb case that's published - why would I?  Why would most of
> us,  ESPECIALLY non-admins (like myself)?


From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-02-19/News_and_notes

Verifiability + No Original Research = Attribution?

Work has been done to merge Verifiability and No Original Research into a
single policy, Wikipedia:Attribution. Discussion is underway on Wikipedia
talk:Attribution; the proposed move/merger has sparked significant
discussion.

I can't tell you how many times I see people site V and NOR in discussions,
> and not once in ANY of those that I saw did anyone mention this.  That alone
> should tell you that there are well-informed editors that didn't know.
>
> Also, your last paragraph ends with the words "that has not been
> disputed."  Actually, your premise has been disputed.  By Jimmy.
>
> Philippe
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jossi Fresco
>   To: English Wikipedia
>   Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:51 PM
>   Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT
>
>
>
>   On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
>
>   > I'm in the process of trying to get [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]]
>   > into
>   > something worthwhile.  Will it work?  Damned if I know, but I'm
>   > trying.
>   I am aware of Wikipedia:Article inclusion. Hope it gets somewhere.
>
>   > But I also know that I need to make sure I touch as many people as
>   > possible to get the consensus to make it what it will end up
>   > being.  I'm
>   > not sure if that really happened w/ATT.
>
>   These comments still puzzle me, Jeff. How can it be possible that you
>   missed it? It was referred to in recent ArbCom cases (e.g. Free
>   Republic); it was discussed *extensively* in the talk pages of V, NOR
>   and RS,  it was announced on the Village Pump...
>
>   The point that keeps being lost in this discussion is that WP:ATT is
>   **not** a new policy or a new formulation of existing policy. WP:ATT
>   is an effort to consolidate V and NOR into one easy-to-understand
>   policy page, based on a need that has not been disputed.
>
>   -- Jossi
>
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   WikiEN-l mailing list
>   WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>   To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>   http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>