Wikipedia talk:Amnesia test

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

OK

Now, I actually like this idea especially "forget everything you know". It's a good point especially in keeping it POV. The end sorta sounds like doublethink though doesn't it? :) Lsjzl 19:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds worth a 'see also' link then :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this. I want to tell people "Write what you don't know!" because articles have to be verifiable by people without expert knowledge. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate shortcut: WP:AT clashes with the Attribution policy (proposal)

I wonder how popular this essay is. If it's not as hot as the Attribution policy (proposal), it should not be given a shortcut which is easily confused with that policy, namely WP:AT. I have found myself referring people to this essay to make a point about the Attribution policy (proposal). This makes my arguments confusing, to say the least. Itayb 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine the way it is. Wikipedia:ATTribution gets WP:ATT and Wikipedia:Amnesia Test gets WP:AT. I think that the disambiguation link at the top is satisfactory. WODUP 07:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

I had never stumbled on this before today. I understand the good-faith sentiment behind it, but I'm afraid I disagree with it very strongly. Many of our NPOV violations happen unintentionally because editors do not have enough knowledge of a subject matter to know the difference between a reliable and an unreliable source within a given field, or the definition of undue weight as regards to a particular topic. We always need people with expertise, and we always value that expertise. Chick Bowen 04:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]