User:Chetsford/usuallyattributed
Q: What does "usually attributed" mean?
- A: I think "usually attributed" means that a discussion should occur on whether or not to introduce attribution anytime good faith objections are raised as to the veracity of a particular piece of content sourced to SPLC and, in such a discussion, discussants should consider thoroughly the value of attribution when they opine. I think the community has generally indicated that good faith objections about content accuracy are generally those supported by multiple editors and backed by well-articulated, reasoned arguments, as opposed to outlier opinions, or those that constitute mere obstinance or obstruction.
Q: Why didn't you say that specifically in the close?
- A: These interpretations are mine alone, and are neither supported nor opposed by the !voters and can't, therefore, be introduced in the close. Only the idea of "usually attributed" is supported by !voters in the discussion. The interpretation of what "usually attributed" means is left to the determination of the community on a case-by-case basis, or a subsequent RfC.
Q: Why do you say "usually attributed" is supported by the !voters?
- A: There were five major groups of !voters, unevenly divided into: (a) those who desired attribution in all cases without exception, (b) those who desired attribution but were not explicit as to whether it should only apply to certain situations or in all cases, (c) those who desired attribution only with respect to opinions, (d) those who felt attribution was rarely or never required, (e) everyone else (the smallest category with a grab-bag of opinions). Consensus is a "process of compromise" where the community expresses its desire through the holistic character of the discussion as opposed to plurality or majority voting from a set selection of options. If attribution exists on a spectrum ...
- Always → Usually → In Specified Situations → Rarely → Never
- Always → Usually → In Specified Situations → Rarely → Never
- ...then "usually" was the point on the spectrum that was the closest to the central tendency or qualitative mean of all !voters.
Q: The category "B" !voters actually meant to place themselves in category "C".
- A: Given the choice between assuming !voters express themselves perfectly or !voters express themselves imperfectly, the closer should always assume the former.
Q: Does this mean every article in which SPLC is referenced will have to have content immediately refactored to introduce inline attribution?
- A: No, the close did not set any automatic process into motion.
Q: What is the short version of all this?
- A: SPLC is generally reliable. However, the close didn't create a veto card that would permit the shut-down of future discussions about inline attribution. The decision of whether or not to attribute specific statements is taken locally with editors expected to give thoughtful reflection on well-meaning arguments for attribution.