Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

This poll is now closed.

Background

Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT) is an attempt to unite Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V) and Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR). It was worked on for over five months by more than 300 editors, and was upgraded to policy on 15 February, 2007. The proposal was e-mailed to Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, made public on various policy talk pages, on the WikiEN-L mailing list, and was announced on The Wikipedia Signpost.

More recently, on the WikiEN-L mailing list, Jimbo Wales suggested:

• "A broad community discussion to shed light on the very good work done by a group of people laboring away on WP:ATT and related pages", (see: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion), and then,
• "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results."

References:

How to participate in this poll

• Please familiarize yourself with the debate:
  • Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion.
  • Arguments in support of the merge, an essay in support.
  • Arguments against the merge, an essay in opposition.
  • Questions suggested during poll design; some criticized as biased towards ATT, some as biased against it.

• Please do not directly respond on this page to opinions of other editors; discussion should take place on the designated talk page. Comments in the polling sections of this page should be limited to short statements (300 words or less ideally). Responses in the 'polling' section will be refactored and moved to the Talk page.

---

Notes

• This is a hybrid Requests for comment and straw poll, not a vote. As such, any numeric results may not be definitive. This is a means of gathering opinions on one page in an organized way.
• We are not polling on the name of Wikipedia:Attribution; when this poll is done and the page unfrozen, such requests will be welcome at Wikipedia:Requested Moves. We want to see what people think of the merger.

File:QuestionATTtoalleditors.gif Wikipedia:Attribution is a merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research into a single policy page.

Some aspects of Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS) were also merged into WP:ATT, with other material from RS to be incorporated into the accompanying Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ (WP:ATTFAQ).

The intention is not to change policy, but to express it more clearly and concisely, and to make it easier to follow and maintain by having it expressed on one policy page, and discussed on one talk page.

What do you think of this? Reply in the below comments section with your statement.

Your opinion here, please

NOTE: Please keep your statement short and to the point. You may change or edit your statement. One total entry per person, please; if you want to endorse someone else's, do so as part of your total entry. Please bold key words (I support all, oppose all, support A but not B etc.).

Do not reply HERE to others. All threaded replies to points will be refactored/placed onto the poll's Talk page. If you wish to reply, copy their statement to the Talk page, and reply there.

In support of WP:ATT

• I support all of Wikipedia:Attribution without prejudice against continued discussion to hammer out the details. Sourcing is one issue with many facets, and should therefore be covered in one policy page (Wikipedia:Attribution) with many sections. I think consensus was achieved in the several months worth of discussion which occurred on WT:A, that the merger should be remade, and that the other three should be superseded. Picaroon 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support ATT per Picaroon and per KISS. There is no change in policy — ATT is merely a relocation of the existing policies into dedicated sections in a unified page, where they can all be maintained coherently and efficiently. Crum375 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - ATT does not change policy, only merges the principles upon which the policies of V and NOR were created, into one, concise, simple to understand and refer page.
  • Think of the thousand + new editors that register each month... WP:ATT gives them a concise and accurate presentation of our core policies.
  • Think of experienced editors lending a hand in content disputes: A single destination to send people to (in addition to WP:NPOV)
  • Need examples, details, etc? Go to the WP:ATTFAQ. It still needs work but it has promise.
  • In summary: WP:ATT is good for the project, for both newbies and experienced editors alike. The shortcuts such as WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS can still be maintained by linking these to the appropriate subsection of ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support — most of my reasons have already been stated. ATT consolidates several policy pages and clarifies everything. Wikipedia stresses succinctness in its articles; it should also stress this in its procedures. — Deckiller 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support the general idea of a merger between WP:V and WP:NOR.
• I support WP:ATT although I really wish there was a better way to express it than to say that Wikipedia is not about recording the truth. That statement reads really badly. When I consult an encyclopedia it is because I want the truth - not because I want a list of attributed/attributable claims. Our goal is most certainly to express the truth - attribution is the way we find truth when many editors have differing opinions, when we have people trying to insert untruth, when a myriad of other bad things happen. Attribution is a test for truth - albeit a flawed one - it is merely that we agree that attributed statements are more likely to be true than those that are unattributable. SteveBaker 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support WP:ATT strongly, and have even though I never discussed it in process before. I was aware of the changes and feel that, while I didn't participate, I was kept well informed through the normal channels. I think this re-organization of policy is very helpful to newcomers and older editors also. The ideas are presented in a much simpler way, and is much more useful when explaining to people. - cohesion 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support WP:ATT fully. The merger will make life easier long-term for everyone. - Denny 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support the WP:ATT merger of WP:V and WP:NOR, although I would prefer that WP:RS remain as separate as possible. After a few weeks getting used to it, I think the idea of a single ATT policy rather than V and NOR separately is a definite improvement.--ragesoss 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support the WP:ATT merge, RS changes and all. The more simply and clearly we can state our policies, the more effective Wikipedians (especially the newer ones, who we need just as badly as experienced editors) can be, and the better chance we have of building a really good encyclopedia. Oh, and, any editor who speaks up now about Wikipedia's role in reporting "the truth" is encouraged to take the time read the Wikipedia article on truth, and it should become clear very quickly why pursuing "the truth" is far less likely to succeed than merely requiring attribution from reliable sources. -/- Warren 02:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The merge gives us V, NOR, and RS on one page, which makes it easy to find, easier to read, easier to maintain. There was no change of policy, hundreds of editors were involved in its development, and people liked it. It was a genuinely popular move. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - the merge did not change policy, and made the whole package easier to understand and to manage. Guettarda 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support ATT, because attribution is at its core what we do. Verifiability and No Original Research are reasons why to attribute, and as such may deserve an explanatory page more than a subsection. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter if we're providing ways to verify our content or whether we're trimming WP:MADEUP; we practice what we preach. Nifboy 04:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In opposition to WP:ATT

• No on WP:ATT. No on any merger idea at this time. Verifiability, ReliableSource, and No personal research are very independent components of high quality Wikipedia pages such as gravity and truth. That is, without a standard for "Verifiability" that is far higher than what mere Attributability requires, editors could not trim the gravity and truth pages to follow faithfully just the facts, not the mere attributions, as established by ReliableSources. Similarly, without a standard for "Verifiability" that is far higher than mere "Attributability," editors cannot trim pages on living persons to exclude fully attributable personal attacks that are baseless, false, and unfair. --Rednblu 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I oppose the proposed merging of pages, because I believe it's important to keep policy pages separate, in order to prevent the creation of one excessively large (and thus probably ignored) page. I believe it is best to keep the policies on their own separate pages. Philippe 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I oppose WP:ATT as it exists. I oppose the changes that have been made to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS by people who use the argument "we aren't changing things, we are only clarifying things" while making major changes to the spirit of our policies. I oppose the promotion of WP:RS from a (very good) guideline to a policy. - O^O 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• While I appreciate the hard work and well-intentioned effort put into this proposal by many editors whose work I respect, I oppose every aspect of this ATT proposal and discussion.
  • I don't believe that enough broad-based and open-minded dicussion occurred before the poll was launched; the shouting hasn't yet died down.
  • I don't support the idea that there was ever consensus for ATT. I was aware of ATT because I work closely with and follow the talk pages of a number of the main "architects" of the proposed policy. I weighed in several times (hence was one of those "300 editors"), but was under the impression that a revamping of fundamental Wiki policies would never happen without broader community input. I didn't see that broad consensus, and was quite surprised when ATT was enacted and core policies disappeared into redirects.
  • I don't agree that ATT merges existing policies, rather that existing policies were molded to ATT before work on them was somewhat abandoned.
  • I strongly agree with Jimbo's statements [1] [2] that each policy expresses a significantly different idea and am opposed to any merger of the core policies. I don't agree that one policy is either clearer or streamlined; I believe it obfuscates important aspects of our policies and weakens each of them.
  • I oppose having ATT as the overarching policy, while still maintaining links to the original three pages, as that creates a maintenance/syncing nightmare. I see no need for any merger.
  • I strongly disagree that ATT did not or will not change in practice our policies, and believe it will and already has weakened our core policies.
    • I am most opposed to the way interpretation of ATT interacts with the "experts" (think, Essjay controversy) scenario. Attributable but not necessarily attributed can be a means of avoiding providing sources for material, while verifiability supports that notion that Wiki's credibility depends upon the ability of our readers to verify that our information comes from reliable sources. Attributable but not attributed opens the door to "experts" to challenge the need to cite information. ATT falls into the "expert" problem by the subtle switch from verifiable to Wiki's readers to attributable to someone, somewhere, sometime, but unless you're an expert on the topic, you don't have the right to ask exactly where it's attributed.
  • My largest concern is that the approach to changing core policy wasn't optimal; while respecting the emotions and hard work invested in this process, I believe the shouting should die down and more voices should be heard before any core policies are changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose ATT, because it denigrates factuality and accuracy (i.e. truth). Attribution is very important, but not more important than accuracy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral/qualified/compromise

• Qualified general support of ATT: I support ATT being a canonical Policy page that merges V and NOR and to an extent RS as is thought necessary by consensus, with the V, NOR and RS pages living on as FAQs, explanatory Guidelines or other non-Policy documents. If after much more time has passed the V, NOR and RS pages are determined to no longer need to exist, I can live with that, but I do not believe they should be done away with (or designated Historical/Superseded/Inactive/Rejected) any time soon, simply clarified as to their non-canonical relationship to ATT. This could be done by reworking the material at WP:ATTFAQ into those three pages and making them exploratory rather than defining. Cf. WP:CIVIL, WP:MASTODON, WP:TEA, WP:DICK, etc., etc., in relation to WP:NPA which is a Policy. Oppose merger if this means doing away with V, NOR and RS totally other than as shortcuts to ATT or as historcal. I join Septentrionalis in deprecating this poll has having been started against growing agreement to wait, and without consensus as to wording/form. I also agree with later respondents about the problems raised by the verifiability/truth/experts issue, but believe they can be hammered out in the text. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I deprecate this poll, as started by suprise, without consensus on the wording. The one thing on which there was consensus was that this was going to start, if possible, on 00:00 April 2. See here
  • I came to this poll intending to support WP:ATT; nevertheless
  • I strongly oppose the notion that WP:ATT has, or has ever had, consensus; any appearances to the contrary are probably the result of the same bullying and reversion which has resulted in this pseudo-poll.
  • I strongly reject WP:ATT as the merger; it will have to be thoroughly considered to be acceptable as such.
  • I recommend that if there is no consensus to merge to WP:ATT, that its separate paragraphs, which do have considerable value, be considered for inclusion in WP:V and WP:NOR. By the time that is over, we will see what is generally acceptable, and they will have the necessary common language so that a merge, if approved, will be a largely mechanical process, not involving significant rewriting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)