User:FT2/attdraft

Ideas to think about related to User:Crum375/att

This page is to give ideas to users working on a proposed new attribution policy. Work in progress.

This page in a nutshell: All encyclopedic content, express or implied, in Wikipedia must be capable of attribution to reputable published sources. Statements likely to be challenged should be attributed. Material may be removed if unattributed, although this should not be done lightly, and should be removed if incapable of attribution.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of existing published knowledge. It is not a publisher of novel ideas and opinions, experiences, or arguments. Material in encyclopedia articles must be capable of being substantiated from (or attributed to) published sources that are deemed reputable and are likely to have taken care to maintain quality in the facts they report.

This covers both explicit content and its implications, including "synthesis" - novel suggestions made by inappropriately combining or juxtaposing reputable sourced material. Even though the original sources may be valid, the way they are combined and grammatical structure should not lead to claims that are not inherent or obvious in any reputable source.

Material that is capable of attribution but has not been attributed so far, may or may not be removed. Usually such material should be rectified by adding attribution using inline citation if reasonably challenged. Removal is a last resort. However sometimes summary removal is necessary. Material incapable of being sufficiently attributed is usually removed. The burden of providing attribution lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.

Attribution is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Together with neutral point of view, it determines the type and quality of material and its presentation that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. That is, content on Wikipedia must be attributable and written from a neutral point of view. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and the principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Key principles

Wikipedia articles must be based on reputable published sources

All Wikipedia content material must be attributable (or "verifiable") to reputable published sources, and all Wikipedia articles must be based on such sources.

Reputable (or 'reliable') means the source has a good general reputation for, or likelihood of, checking their published facts, and takes care to be accurate in its content. In most cases a formal editorial or publication process will exist, sometimes with independent scrutiny. It does not preclude bias in opinions, but does imply that claims and statements of fact may be relied upon as reliably reported and represented. See What is a reputable source? below.

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unattributed material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unattributed or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately.

Wikipedia does not publish unattributable material

Shortcuts

"Unattributable material" (sometimes called "original research" on Wikipedia) refers to material that cannot be attributed to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly attributable to reliable sources.

Note the difference between "unattributed" (also called "unsourced" or "uncited") and "unattributable" material:

Unattributed material is not yet attributed to a reliable source, but may be attributable.
Unattributable material cannot be attributed to a reliable source, because such a source cannot be found.

The only way to demonstrate that material is not unattributable is to attribute it using an inline citation to reliable sources that directly support it, and to adhere to what those sources say. If the material in question includes an analysis or an argument, the source must make that same analysis or argument in relation to the article topic.

Burden of evidence

Shortcut

WP:BURDEN

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.^[1] All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited, see below.^[2] If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unattributed or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.^[3]

^ This is because it is generally much harder to prove that a statement is unattributable than to attribute it.
^ When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy.
^ As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons" (Jimmy Wales Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006, accessed June 11, 2006).

[1] This is because it is generally much harder to prove that a statement is unattributable than to attribute it.

[2] When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy.

[3] As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons" (Jimmy Wales Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006, accessed June 11, 2006).

[1]

[2]

[3]