Rewriting with named sources and plain claims
Parent: Vague attribution and promotional register in LLM prose · Published reference · snapshot 2026-09-23
↓ Facts as markdownall context files
Source-anchored research for Rewriting with named sources and plain claims. Run status: COMPLETED.
These notes link each claim to its source. Some citations identify archived research reports that are no longer hosted on this site. A published reference means the content is available; it does not certify independent review or accuracy.Read the editorial policy and follow the sources before relying on a claim.
Definitions
- Swapping a vague authority for a named one is not sufficient: RAG chatbots may attach statements to named sources (example: 'Roger Ebert highlighted the lasting influence') regardless of whether those sources say anything close, so each rewrite must be checked against the source text. (low confidence) (verified as of 2026-09-23) [source]
Comparisons and alternatives
- Plain-language guidance says to use concrete words and specific nouns over abstract ones, give exact figures instead of vague quantities, and prefer active voice that names the actor ('We recommend' rather than 'It is recommended'). (medium confidence) [source]
Facts and statements
- Wikipedia guidance fixes vague attribution three ways: attribute to a specific named reliable source, use in-text attribution that accurately reflects the source, or rewrite so no attribution verb is needed. (medium confidence) [source]
- Claims about what people say, think, feel or believe should be clearly attributed; phrases like 'some people say' or 'research has shown' give an impression of support without letting the reader assess the source. (medium confidence) [source]
- In-text attribution is required for opinions and dubiously reliable sources; the form depends on source type (author, agency, title for anonymous works), and the full citation should keep all known information. (low confidence) [source]
Children
- No children recorded.