User:Crum375/att/rationale

Draft ATT proposal Q&As

1. What is this WP:ATT?
   • A draft proposal to combine WP:V and WP:NOR into a single policy page
2. Is this the old WP:ATT which failed to gain consensus in 2007?
   • The motivation of combining V and NOR into a single policy page is the same, but the actual content is quite different. See How is this new ATT different from the old ATT? below for details.
3. How was this new WP:ATT page created?
   • The new WP:ATT draft proposal was created by importing the text, almost verbatim, from WP:V, WP:NOR, and some parts from WP:ATT. The goal was to minimize verbiage changes from V and NOR, except as necessary to incorporate the new names (see below), remove direct overlap, and integrate the material under a single page. The overall structure is:
     • Lead (based on A, V and NOR, modified for new terminology)
     • Key principles (overview and explanation of key concepts, from A, V and NOR)
     • Sources (description of acceptable sources, largely from V, WP:PSTS from NOR); and
     • Content material (description of acceptable content material, largely from NOR).
4. Is there any conceptual difference between this proposed policy and the current V and NOR?
   • The goal is to have no conceptual difference whatsoever between this combined proposed policy and the current V and NOR, from which it derives. Much of the verbiage is also identical, as noted above.
5. I don't see "Verifiability" (V) and "No Original Research" (NOR) inside the draft policy, why?
   • Both are there, under a new, hopefully improved, name. V is called "attributability", and NOR is called "no unattributable material" (NUM) or "no unattributable content" (NUC). The old names are mentioned for reference. See also Why do we need this?, How is V a misnomer?, and How is NOR a misnomer? below.
6. I like to use WP:NOR (or WP:OR) as a shortcut, can I still use it?
   • Yes, both WP:NOR and WP:OR will be linked to the appropriate section, as well as WP:NUC, WP:NUCM and WP:NUKE. (WP:NUM is taken at the moment.)
7. What happens to the WP:V shortcut?
   • WP:V will be linked to WP:ATT, i.e. the entire policy. It's possible also to link it to the first Key principle, if there is consensus for that.
8. I like to use WP:SPS, WP:SYN, and WP:SOURCES as shortcuts, can I still do that?
   • Yes. All these critical sections, along with most other common shortcuts into V and NOR, remain essentially unchanged inside the new ATT, with their verbiage and structure identical to the current V and NOR.
9. Why do we need this?
   • Based on long experience it seems that there are recurrent problems in understanding and using V and NOR, arising from the fact that there is significant overlap between them (effectively, one says, "everything must be attributable to a reliable source", while the other says, "nothing should be unattributable to a reliable source"). Also, both names are misnomers which cause constant confusion.
10. How is V a misnomer?
    • V is Verifiability, a word derived from "verity", meaning "truth". Yet we tell people that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Although this is technically correct, this apparent contradiction causes confusion and endless talk page threads with long explanations. Using the term "attributability" avoids this problem.
11. How is NOR a misnomer?
    • NOR is No original research, but on Wikipedia original research represents any material for which no reliable source can be found. Therefore, the way we use the term on Wikipedia, "original research" is often not really "original", and not really "research". Using the term "no unattributable material" (or no unattributable content) avoids this problem.
12. How is this new ATT different from the old ATT?
    • There are several ways this is different (and hopefully better):
      • The old ATT tried to integrate the separate RS (now called IRS) guideline into it (or a sub-page). The new ATT makes no such effort, but in the meanwhile much of the old RS material has been incorporated into V, and is therefore included "natively" in this new ATT.
      • The old ATT incorporated NOR under the same name, as a sub-policy within the main one. The new ATT imports the key concept of NOR as one of the three "key principles" of the combined policy, and much of its ancillary content (like WP:SYN) into a main section called "Content material" (the other being "Sources", where WP:PSTS is more naturally included). The name NOR is replaced by "unattributable content" (or "unattributable material").
      • The old ATT incorporated V and NOR (along with RS of that time) conceptually, but much of the verbiage was changed to improve it and integrate RS with V. The new ATT incorporates the current versions of V and NOR almost verbatim, except for some modifications for flow and to incorporate the new terminology. Since RS is now largely inside V already, there are no changes needed for that.
      • The structure of the old ATT was essentially V+RS in one main section, vs. NOR in another. The new ATT is similar, but its two main sections are "Sources" and "Content", where V fits mostly into Sources, and NOR into Content (with WP:PSTS going into the more appropriate Sources).
13. What are some highlights of this proposed change?
    • Single streamlined coherent policy replaces two awkwardly defined, partially overlapping ones
    • Simpler, clearer terminology should help reduce misunderstandings, esp. among less experienced editors
    • Clear overall structure: Principles, Sources, and Content
    • WP:PSTS section now incorporated in the Sources section, where many people feel it belongs
    • Clear unified explanation of how to create good content material by faithfully following reliable sources while avoiding synthesis
14. What is the goal of this draft proposal?
    • The goal is to replace V and NOR, but in a way that will have minimal negative impact on the community. It is also hoped that much of the controversy and discord of the old ATT can be avoided by obtaining more community input, publicizing more widely, and not pushing for acceptance or even polling before all known significant objections are addressed.
15. I have some suggested improvements to the current policies, should I incorporate them into this draft?
    • One important goal of this draft proposal is to avoid pitfalls from the past. Some problems with the last WP:ATT stemmed from minor differences when compared to the source V and NOR policies. If changes are to be made to V and NOR while this draft is under evaluation, they should be first made inside those policies, and only then incorporated into this one, so the draft can remain faithful to them.
16. Where should related issues be discussed?
    • For the time being, until (and unless) it gathers steam, the draft page remains in user space, and the best place to discuss it is on the draft's talk page. Issues specific to improving this Q&A should be discussed on the Q&A's talk page.