User:Theleekycauldron/Essays/DYK and attribution

DYK often finds itself in the curious position of attempting to apply policies and guidelines to a section of the encyclopedia with unique formatting and customs. This sometimes results in DYK de facto ignoring policies and guidelines that absolutely should apply to it, but the guidelines on in-text attribution shouldn't be overlooked. Even for quirky hooks, DYK should take caution when dealing with quotes and avoid the appearance of endorsing subjective viewpoints. This essay discusses how DYK can best apply attribution guidelines in hooks.

Policy bases

Multiple areas of policy and guideline in Wikipedia give guidance as to how text should be attributed inline – in fact, for articles themselves, this is a settled question of policy. The two most relevant guidelines come from WP:INTEXT and WP:WEASEL. The former reads:

In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation)... it should always be used for biased statements of opinion.

And the latter reads:

[Weasel words, such as "said to be", "regarded as", and "reportedly"] may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.

Application at DYK

The interplay of these two guidelines creates a curious problem for DYK . For best practice, WP:INTEXT requires the inclusion of some attribution, but WP:WEASEL clarifies that it need not be a full breakdown of the source in every circumstance. The more reliable the source of a quote, the less attribution is needed – but any time you are using a quote, you should at the very least be including some kind of weasel word (such as "reportedly", "said to be", or "thought to be") to signal that the quote is not from Wikipedia. It is almost always inappropriate to simply include a quote without attribution of any kind.

If the source of the quote is...	The hook can use...	And the article body can use...	Example
A fact that can be verified in a reliable source and is relevant to the topic at hand, where the hook is quirky or an April Fools' Day special	No attribution	Attribution to the RS	... that "the Hurricane Shark is real"?
Anything that is using quotes to mention a phrase or term, rather than use it	Usually no attribution, as long the hook qualifies under other policy areas	Handle on a case-by-case basis	... that "Step Chickens" on TikTok replaced their profile pictures with an image of Melissa Ong, whom they call "Mother Hen"?
A reliable source stating it in its own voice	A weasel word		... that it was said that public school teacher Arthur Hathaway Hewitt "'hath-a-way' of striking terror into the hearts of all who dare oppose him"?
A reliable source using a weasel word	A weasel word	Depends on the weasel word. If it relates to a relatively identifiable collection of people, like "users on social media" and "experts in the field", you're fine repeating the weasel. If it's simply an "it is said", this does not provide an encyclopedic claim.
A reliable source quoting another reliable source	A weasel word	Attribution to both RSes
A reliable source quoting a person	Attribution to the person	Attributon to the RS and the person	... that a resolution introduced into the Nebraska Legislature by Joni Albrecht praised Julie Schmit-Albin as "never one to let a public official waffle on pro-life legislation"?
A person self-publishing something about themself	If it's a quote that's interesting enough to be a DYK hook, it probably doesn't comply with one or more of WP:PRIMARY, WP:DUE, and WP:BLPSPS, so maybe find something else? If you're really sure, attribute fully.		... that after John Oliver remarked that "the city of Danbury, Connecticut, can eat my whole ass", they named a sewage plant after him?