Wikipedia attribution policy

From Offset

Well, I don't have the balls to post this on Wikipedia talk:Attribution. Should I do it anyway?

Rewrite proposal

I still think this policy is too long and disjointed. It's not clear where the policy ends and the explanations begin, and it continues to suffer from a tendency to overexplain rather than defer to separate documents/guidelines for definitions.

As I suggested in the 'Bloat danger' thread, I propose a rewrite with much tighter organization, with concise definitions and much greater clarity in which parts are prescriptive. My rewrite, below, is significantly different from what is currently up – primarily in that all definitions, explanations, and examples are separated from the core statements, and definitions that are (or should be) covered by WP:RS and WP:CITE are dropped.

I'm sure I'm just pissing in the wind, but I'd like to offer it up as a source for ideas, if nothing else. Don't forget to Assume Good Faith. —Mjb 22:58, 13 Oct 2006 (MDT)

Rationale:

Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought.

Summary:

The threshold for inclusion of material in Wikipedia is whether it can be attributed to a reliable source, not whether it is true. In order to facilitate verification that material is attributable to reliable sources, those sources should be cited; material without such citations may be challenged.

The policy:

The attribution policy is normatively encapsulated by these key principles:

• Every Wikipedia article must only contain material that is attributable – able to be attributed – to a reliable source.
• Every Wikipedia article should cite the reliable sources to which its content is attributable.
• In a Wikipedia article, material without cited, reliable sources is considered unsourced and may be challenged.
• In a Wikipedia article, material for which reliable sources do not exist is considered tantamount to original thought or original research, and is forbidden.
• Every Wikipedia article must cite reliable sources for any material about a living person; unsourced material should be removed immediately, especially when the material is controversial.
• No part of this policy should be applied to cause disruption by prematurely removing or demanding citations for material for which reliable sources can reasonably be found, except in the case of controversial material about a living person.
• This policy must not be interpreted in isolation from the WP:NPOV and WP:C policies.

Terms used in this policy are normatively defined as follows:

• Wikipedia article – The current version of an article in the aggregate publication Wikipedia.
• Material – Claims or information of any kind, or paraphrases thereof, in a Wikipedia article, regardless of truthfulness.
• Attributable – Able to be directly obtained or easily derived from a source other than the Wikipedia article in which the material appears.
• Reliable source – A source that meets criteria for reliability, as defined in the WP:RS guidelines.
• Cite – Explicitly make reference to a source, in a manner that facilitates "verification" that the material is directly or easily derived from that source, regardless of whether the material is "true". The WP:CITE guidelines provide principles and methods of citation for different types of sources.
• Unsourced – Not yet having any reliable sources cited. Unsourced material can still possibly be attributable to a reliable source, but without a citation, there is no way to verify that status.
• Challenged – Tagged in the article as requiring citations, questioned on the article's discussion page, edited, and/or removed.
• Original thought – Any argument, concept, data, statement, theory, or neologism that is not attributable to a reliable source.
• Original research – Any analysis, synthesis, or extrapolation of material from any source (reliable or not), excluding simple calculations and logical deductions, with the intent to produce a novel interpretation or advance a position, even if that interpretation or position is not explicitly stated.
• Reasonably – [uh, any takers?]

[FAQs and informative elaboration on specific points can follow.]