Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Attribution

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drogheda (talk | contribs) at 00:36, 25 March 2007 (→surely someone would have done this if....). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Wikipedia:Attribution was worked on over 5 months (more than 2,000 edits to the page itself, and more than 5,000 edits to the talk page by more than 300 editors), and it was upgraded to policy on the 15 of February, 2007. The discussion was made public on various policy talk pages, on the wiki-EN-l mailing list, and was announced on the The Wikipedia Signpost.

Important aspects of Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS) were also merged into WP:ATT, with other information to be incorporated into the accompanying Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ (WP:ATTFAQ). The intention was to express present policy more clearly, concisely, and maintainable, not to change it.

Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo stated that despite the very good work done at by people laboring on ATT, he believed there wasn't wide consensus for such change in policy structure, that the merger was done out of process, and that there should be further attempts at consensus building prior to a final decision.

Jimbo requested:

  • "a broad community discussion on this issue", followed by
  • "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results."

A poll draft has been set up at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll.

This is not a place for recriminations about how we got here, justified or not; this is a discussion of where we are now.

There seem to be the following major questions:

Where has this been posted?

Could someone list where this discussion was posted to, so that we know we're generating the "broad community discussion" Jimbo has asked for? Marskell 08:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted at (please add links if you know of others):

This discussion is not sufficiently widely advertised. One thing that is needed and that is missing is prominent proposed-merge tags on WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, with links to this discussion. This discussion should continue at least until such merge tags have been in place for a good long time. --Coppertwig 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, do you really think an edit summary of "...he can't add merge tags because the pages are locked... so all he can do is (over) complain" is helpful? Maybe you might consider that a number of people here believe these merge tags should be installed, and that the fact that they are being resisted is really ironic, given that we are all here right now because they weren't used the first time around? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why merge tags are not being used. And there's still no link in the "page is protected" notice to the discussion. Xiner (talk, email) 00:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Should WP:V and WP:NOR have been merged at all?

The chief argument for this was that they had an extensive area of overlap. It is more efficient to state the same policy in the same place, once. When they diverged, as they did from time to time, the result was two somewhat different policies on the same issue, of equal authority.

As a lesser advantage, "verification" in WP:V was not the common meaning of "verify": confirming the truth of what Wikipedia asserted; but checking that Wikipedia's statement could be attributed to a reliable source, and was therefore not original research. The change of name may well mean that we don't have to explain this once or twice a month to some well-intentioned soul who has just encountered our policy pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • When I first heard of the proposal to merge V and NOR into one combined Policy my initial reaction was negative. Especially since part of the proposal involved also shifting RS (which I have been involved in heavily) to a FAQ page. I was sceptical, thinking that this might be an backhanded way to slip policy changes past the watchful eye of the community, under the guise of simplification. While I did not get heavily involved with the drafting, I did pay attention to the discussion about it. After a while I discovered that my fears had no basis. The folks who drafted this really did mean it when they said they did not intend to change anything. Before too long I found that I had changed my mind... this actually was a very good idea. While V, NOR and RS seem to be seperate concepts, they actually overlap in many areas... Perhaps not in wording, but in concept. Changes to one greatly affected the others. We even had times where they were in direct conflict - two policies saying opposite things about the same idea. It now makes sense to me to have them combined into one Policy to avoid such confusion. Not only was this merger good... it should have been done a while ago. Blueboar 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with the merger. The concepts expressed in the two policies are both part of the same basic idea that everything we report here be based in external confirmable reality. Simplifying redundant policies into cohesive single pages is an excellent idea and should be done often to avoid both inconsistency of policy and inadvertent WP:CREEP. If nothing else I hope we keep the rewording from "verifiability, not truth" to "attributability, not truth", because the first was oxymoronic and meant "truth, not truth". --tjstrf talk 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with merging these two. No original research, and no novel syntheses, is different form verifiability. Something can be verifiable from impeccable primary sources but still be original research because it is compiled entirely from primary sources, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. The value of WP:ATT is in taking the examples and putting them in context, showing how - well, attribution is necessary and how it should be done. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to see them remain separate. I feel they were more understandable when presented in discrete chunks: together, they are a bit too much to process at one time. It also is a bit too much to process on one talk page. That said, if condensed, it could be a good summary page. So, although I would like to see WP:V and WP:NOR remain as separate policies, WP:ATT, if condensed, would be a good guideline to show to people who would prefer to do less reading. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This is already a subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution and is slated for further investigation at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. I don't see the point of this thread existing here on this odd page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course. The policies are intimately related; after all, Original Research is essentially an argument or synthesis that cannot be Verified to a Reliable Source. Combining them clarifies the relationship between them, and helps avoid policy (and guideline) divergence. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • YES! Until now, it's been impossible to clearly articulate and enforce NOR or RS. People followed V, but almost never NOR, and rarely RS until now. The Wikipedia is getting way better in quality now.--Urthogie 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, indeed. People were always complaining about the policies being spread over two pages — three pages if you count RS — and in addition newbies got confused about how the word "verifiability" was being used. This is much clearer, and it was a very popular move. I've received more e-mails in the last few months saying this was a good move than over any other single issue since I've been at Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, but now that is has been done, I think the more important questions are should ATT totally subsume V and NOR (and possibly RS), should ATT just go away, or should ATT be a summary policy and the others more in-depth explorations? I lean toward the third option. I can't see a rationale for completely undoing ATT. A lot of good faith work has gone into it, and while some of us weren't entirely happy with the process, that's kind of water under the bridge at this point. The real challenge will be to have separate documents that actually agree with each other. I don't think this problem is insurmountable at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • YES. Think of the new editors coming to join the project. What better than having two simple and well presented policies WP:NPOV and WP:ATT? We need to think of the future of this project and embrace evolution. If you do not evolve, you die. A conservative move to keep a status quo that has created enormous problems for editors is not a good thing for this project is not a good thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. WP:V and WP:NOR should not have been merged. At one time Wikipedia:Verifiability had instructions for how Wikipedians should verify article content. The instructions for fact-checking by Wikipedians stressed the importance of multiple unimpeachable sources to support statements in encyclopedia articles. Of course, that was bad news for POV pushers, but WP:A now tells us that only for certain "exceptional claims" need editors think about comparing multiple reliable sources in order to check facts. This change does not help editors keep garbage out of articles and improve the encyclopedia. There was never any problem in having WP:V and WP:NOR discuss similar issues from different perspectives. WP:V should go back to its roots and serve as a resource for guiding Wikipedians in their fact checking work. WP:NOR is needed for examples that define the distinction between trying to slip unpublished research into Wikipedia and doing the kind of analysis of sources that Wikipedians must do in order to produce an encyclopedia. Merging the two pages only serves to weaken and dilute those important functions. --JWSchmidt 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What JWSchmidt has to say here makes a lot of sense to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • YES, there has not been a single refutation of my proof, so the merger is a good idea. More seriously, attribution doesn't mean you should not compare and contrast sources... but in any case, I'm very glad that this merger has highlighted (although it's irritating that it is being blamed for) the role of truth in more recent versions of WP:V than those cited above. Perhaps WP:V should go back to its roots, but it should definitely not go back to the "truth, not truth; but the first truth in this context means something other than truth" formulation. --Merzul 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me start from rephrasing my very first objection I ever made w.r.t. WP:A. I am afraid that this section title is a loaded question, and vaguely (I am sure, inadvertently) stated, too. Yes, the pages were merged. But the policies were not. The renaming them from "policies" to "key principles" is merely a bureaucratic trick. Of course, there was much trimming/cleanup done in the process, but if right now you cut WP:A into two pieces along the VPL (er..., "visible partition line") and rename "key principles" back into "policies", will it make any difference? IMO one of the core troubles is that the two WP:NOR & WP:V had their long lines of evolution, and significantly shifted in essence, so that their meanings and purposes are no longer immediately deduced from their titles, and this confuses new generations. This happens all the time with many technical terms in all natural languages (take the word "computer"). Their contents grew over time until it became evident that the two bushes turned into one thicket. Naturally, many felt that something should be done. But I have an impression that instead of thinking and deciding how to proceed, the merge itself and the discussion of what is to be done run in parallel (and the first draft of VP:A (whose structure I like more) differs from the result drastically).
After this long rant, let me answer to the "correct" question: Should the policies WP:V and WP:NOR be merged? — YES, but... (to be continued...) (and to the original one: yes, it was a useful and instructive exercise) `'mikka 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • YES - As a result of creating Wikipedia:Attribution, the debates at AfD began to move away from the subject test of whether a topic was important or famous enough to include in

Wikipedia towards the objective test of whether there was sufficient source material to include a attributable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Instead of telling newcomers that Wikipedia doesn't want their article and thinks the topic is unimportant (which really gets newcomers upset), the AfD focus began to move towards yes, the topic is important, but there is not enough source material to include an attributable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Newcomers seem to have better acceptance of this reasoning. This seemed to work towards reducing hurt feelings at AfD. -- Jreferee 04:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    • That's very compelling if true (examples?), but even if there has been a general trend away from criteria of importance and fame at AfD, I suspect it has more to do with the recent changes and discussions regarding Wikipedia:Notability than the ATT merger.--ragesoss 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • yes - easy to understand policies are important - it means more people will follow them. if it is possible to merge these two into an new, easier to understand one (which, as far as i can tell, has been achieved with WP:ATT), then it should certainly be done. to be able to accurately summarize one's policies in as few sentences as possible seems to be a good goal for any policy maker. Mlm42 09:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm undecided. I agree with the valid point made above that "attribution" is a more accurate wording than "verifiability", as "verification" usually refers (outside Wikipedia) to determining the truth of an assertion, rather than attributing it to an external source. Therefore, the famous Wikipedia doctrine "Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion" makes little sense to many non-Wikipedians. However, it might have been better to simply rename WP:V to WP:ATT, and keep WP:NOR as a separate policy. Although they do refer to two sides of the same coin - original research is, by definition, the absence of attribution - it's sometimes clearer to refer to WP:NOR, especially when explaining things at AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, It was done with too much haste. Wikipedia has become a gargantuan project. Big changes at its core should only be made slowly and carefully. SmokeyJoe 09:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Is 5 months. 2,000 edits to ATT and 5,000 comments in talk haste? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No Verifiability was about increasing article accuracy through fact checking and providing sources to enable this. Attribution is turning into "if it is not attributed then delete it" and (using the NOR merger) "only worry about whether the attribution is accurate", both of which would damage Wikipedia --Henrygb 13:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    Can you repeat this below? This is an assertion that WP:ATT is a change in policy. I agree that any such change would be a bad thing, and have attempted to word ATT so as to preserve the present policy, which I like. What further changes does WP:ATT need? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I think it is better if they are combined. But several things have changed while the combining took place (see my comment below about a change in OR, there has also been a change in the wording in Primary sources etc) which I think should not have been made until after full discussion about such changes on the talk page of ATT, after ATT became active. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, Verifiability and NOR mean the same thing. One says, "articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources", the other says, "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis". Having two "different" policies which mean practically the same thing is pointless. --Xyzzyplugh 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. My initial reaction to the announcement of the merger was skepticism and a bit of dismay at not having known about it before. However, the more I thought about it (and looked at the result), the more I liked it. As long as reliable sources remains independent (as it really is an independent issue), I don't see any big problems with merging verifiability and no-original-research, except that it will take awhile for everyone to use the new jargon. Maybe that's a plus in and of itself, though.--ragesoss 05:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. I was also taken aback at discovering that there'd been a change, but once I'd realised that it was only a change in organisation, I thought that it was significantly better. In fact, I'd be dismayed if it changed back permanently. More than half my time is spent removing text that's simply placed in articles without explaantion o source (and often having to argue with people who don't have time for explaantions or source-finding, but have plenty for acrimonious protests); the simpler and clearer the policies and guidelines are, the better. (I find it difficult to understand the claim that policy is simpler to understand if it's split into different chunks on different pages.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. They made more sense to me as separate items. WP:NOR has an intuitive meaning to anyone who's ever had to deal with science cranks, which it loses once it's buried inside some other doctrine. Wasted Time R 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No. Each have a specific point, a specific and very different topic. Merging all does not make sense! And Wikipedia change is just too disturbing anyway. Reasons specified above also defend my point. Merging is efficient and organised, but the different points addressed lose its value, I believe. -- Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes If something is NOR, then it's verifiable. Xiner (talk, email) 23:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That sounds backwards to me. A person can cite an external source published by someone else, making it NOR, but that source could be completely bogus, meaning it's not V. On the other hand, original research is by definition not verifiable, so the statement should be that if something is verifiable, then it is not original research. --DachannienTalkContrib 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. On the question of merging the two concepts, I agree that they are intricately linked enough to make them one policy. As per my subcomment above, V is a subset of NOR that is necessary to the function of Wikipedia, so that subset should be emphasized, with NOR being used to reinforce it. --DachannienTalkContrib 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes the essential idea of NOR and V is identical in that both require information posted on Wikipedia to have reliable attribution instead of fancy theories. Wooyi 00:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes While the merger was disconcerting at first, the merged layout is clear and effective. It is appropriate for the more detailed clarifications such as WP:RS to be linked from this (merged) core policy. .. dave souza, talk 00:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If they remain merged, should WP:RS remain merged with them?

  • Keep WP:RS along with V and NOR as in-depth explorations of their subtopics, but make sure that ATT accounts for the basics of RS to the extent they are relevant to RS (and that NPOV do likewise to the extent that RS issues are relevant to NPOV; i.e., just make of these things agree with each other). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not think WP:RS should remain merged with them. WP:RS is sufficiently complex and controversial that it really should have its own page for us to try to improve it on.
That said, if WP:RS is to be merged with something, I think it should be merged with WP:NPOV, not WP:ATT. If well-rewritten, it could fill in a gap in WP:NPOV - figuring out what due weight is - as well as providing further clarification on the difference between facts and opinions.
— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
agreed RS needs to exist as a clear guideline. muddling it into ATT just prevents a clear policy. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is the correct place to hold Wikipedia's institutional memory of past debates and decisions about which sources are not reliable. We have a spam blacklist and we need a sources blacklist for unreliable sources that are frequently cited by Wikipedians. There are many sources that are biased and cannot be trusted and we need tools to blacklist them from use at Wikipedia. I'm skeptical of the idea that a few examples of unreliable sources as part of subpage (Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ) should replace a function that can be served by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rather than put discussion of reliable sources on the page of that name, we are told it is "better" to spread that discussion out over WP:A and a subpage. That only serves to dilute and hide the process by which Wikipedians battle POV pushers who continually cite unreliable sources. --JWSchmidt 02:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with JWSchmidt's points here as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. WP:RS must be related to whatever policy be via Wikipedia:Summary style, but rewritten: it has two distinct parts: policyish and guidelineish. This distinction must be drawn clearer, to decrease the amount of possible dispute. `'mikka 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, as they have different functions. WP:ATT (or alternatively WP:V and WP:NOR) are core content policies that must be followed in articles. WP:RS, on the other hand, is a guideline; it's helpful to users in understanding what kind of sources are appropriate, but it isn't necessarily as central to the running of Wikipedia. Also, WP:RS contains a lot of detail, that could potentially make WP:ATT excessively lengthy and confusing for readers. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • RS was not policy and was in a very poor state to say the least. The current verison of WP:RS is actually the result of the work done at WP:ATT. We took a totally messed up, verbose guideline and made it compatible with V and OR. Then we added all the details and examples and placed the in WP:ATTFAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to quibble with Jossi's statement a bit... I would say that the concept of having reliable sources is policy - as it is mentioned as being a key concept on all of the policy pages we are discussing. What isn't policy is the guideline page: "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" - that page is only a guideline ... this is an important distinction. One problem with V and NOR was that while they mention the need for reliable sources they don't really give an explanation of what that phrase means or how to determine what a reliable source is. The WP:RS guideline was created to fill in this omission. The ATT Policy, on the other hand, does give a clearer explanation of what we mean by Reliable Source(especially when you add in the attendant FAQ page). So... I would say that the CONCEPT of RS should indeed be part of ATT. The ATT/FAQ page should be worked on and eventually promoted to a guideline status firmly under the ATT banner. If we keep ATT, then I do not see the need for the WP:RS guideline... However, if we go back to V and NOR, then we should keep WP:RS as a guideline to explain the concept. Blueboar 13:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. If they remain merged, RS is quite a different topic. Merging that with this loses is value, I believe. And merging is a very drastic and sudden change of Wikipedia that is too disturbing. Oppose merge. -- Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably not. RS is sort of a HOWTO on the topic of fulfilling ATT / V+NOR. On the other hand, ATT should make more than a passing reference to the concepts of RS, and in fact, the idea of RS should be made plain in ATT as policy, while the execution of RS should be in the RS guideline. Merging the two promotes RS to policy status, and that promotion should have a discussion all to itself before such a merger takes place. --DachannienTalkContrib 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the present text of WP:ATT in general come close to representing present policy and practice without changing them?

  • I would say that it definitely does come close ... and may even improve understanding. One advantage of the merger was that extraneous verbage that had worked itself into the old policy pages could be made more concise and clearer in the new merged version. Blueboar 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, not only that, but work was done to fine-tune the wording so that the principles of V and NOR were better expressed. In addition, the mess at RS was resolved by making the principles behind RS compatible with policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, yes. I have not seen any complaints made about the actual policy contained in WP:A that was not simply a reiteration of an older complaint about WP:V or WP:NOR. I also gave all three a thorough readthrough when the merger was announced, and found no complaints to make but a couple swiftly-repaired typos. --tjstrf talk 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you have not seen the complaint I raised at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth and which has also been raised by others; I put a note on your talk page explaining it. --Coppertwig 22:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps it has been seen and, because you are being shrill and troll-like, your complaints are being ignored? Just a thought. Marskell 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This is already a subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution and is slated for further investigation at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. I don't see the point of this thread existing here on this odd page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a better place to discuss it than the dribs and drabs at WT:ATT, In particular, I hope Mikkalai will be clear in distinguishing between where he disagrees with existing policy (below); and where he agrees with existing policy but thinks WP:ATT is changing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Mikkalai will only be clear in his effort of picking at defects in any text at hand, but I see it pointless to do a "vdiff" of two imperfect texts. Besides, I do not express any disagreement with any of the policies. So far I expressed disagreements with language and structuring of them. `'mikka 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any compelling reason not to do that at WP:ATT's talk page, where these issues have already been open and discussed, and remain unresolved. Forking a new thread on another page is "better" how, exactly? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. The discussion at WT:ATT is already fragmented, and will be continually further divided by discussions of subway stations, and wording changes for ATT which have nothing to do with the questions raised here. Does any else agree with S McCandlish's merge proposal? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and, in fact, is in some ways even more clear than the original. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The current version of ATT is clear, concise, easier to understand that the previous text spread over three pages on V, NOR, and RS, and yet is entirely consistent with them, both in letter and spirit. It's a vast improvement, and people are happily linking to it and quoting it in support of their edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Close, yes. I think Wikipedia talk:Attribution already identifies issues, and I see that below one of the disagreements has already been re-raised here. I don't have any fear that the issues will not be dealt with in usual WP fashion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this means not much positive besides that some people did a good job. The questions remain whether this job was useful, whether the job of restructuring may be done even better, whether the job decreased the uncertainties of the original policies, and whether this version is mature enough to be declared a new/replacement/whatever policy `'mikka 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. The current text of ATT represents current practise and policy extremely well, and is much clearer than having text spread across three pages (V, NOR, and RS) that were time-consuming to maintain, and confusing for editors, particularly new ones. In addition, the titles of NOR and V caused confusion. Some people thought that "no original research" meant no research at all, which of course is absurd, and others thought "verify" meant they were expected to find out whether particular claims were true, rather than simply attributed. It was for both those reasons — ease of access on one page and clarity of title — that the move to Wikipedia:Attribution was made and it turned out to be very popular. As I've said elsewhere, I've had more e-mails (positive ones) about this issue than about any other single issue since I joined Wikipedia nearly two and a half years ago. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, on the whole. In fundamental content there is little difference between this and the earlier policies. However, I think that WP:RS should be separated, for the sake of clarity, concise expressionm and separation of policy and guideline. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. This is my answer to the question above, because this seems to be set up like a poll. Any discussion of this topic is supposed to take place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth at least for now unless the discussion is moved elsewhere. (I am relatively neutral about where the discussion takes place; I said it would be on this page; someone else moved it there.) However, I feel my answer to the above question belongs here. My answer is: No, it is not a fair representation of the policies; it contains a very basic, fundamental flaw: the new proposed wording at WP:ATT says "not whether it is true" without balancing this with a word such as "verifiability", thus it invites editors to knowingly insert false (but attributable) statements -- something the longstanding policies did not do. I have a strong objection about this. --Coppertwig 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig: Please do not delete or move material from this page. It is disruptive and uncalled for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
User User:Jossi, will you please demonstrate impartiality by giving the same message to the other user who moved material from this page? I was only moving material that would have been moved together with the rest if it hadn't been accidentally posted in the wrong section. I apologize for accidentally posting my message to the wrong section -- I don't know how that happened. If anyone moves the discussion back here, (preferably moving all the comments back here that were posted here,) I would welcome that. I've been advised not to make edits without clear consensus first or I'd move it back myself. --Coppertwig 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment: The fact that multiple editors do believe it has made fundamental changes to policy indicates that WP:ATT's language does not have consensus yet, and these concerns should be addressed with discussion and resolution (and, this is not the same concern as to whether the merger of multiple policies into ATT is a good idea). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The new text is clearer than the old, and the fact that some editors think that it's changed the policy says more about them than it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is not attributed, delete it

  • Although there is agreement to the principles, there is no agreement really on the detailed proper meaning of OR, or the definition of how much N needs to be sourced to justify a stub, or many other matters. The debates at AfD make this evident. There is therefore probably something to be gained by separating the principles from the details; just as the various subpages of N had the details, and just as the RS page can be seen as a more specifically detailed discussion. I think keeping the basic material together at one place will probably facilitate it. The literal following of JW's advice would delete half the encyclopedia. The use of it as a general principle is however very valuable. DGG 03:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

In reply to tjstrf: No, that wording has essentially the same problem. The problem is that "not truth" implies two things: (1) true but unattributable material is unacceptable and (2) false but attributable material is acceptable. The second of these is undesirable. As far as the second item is concerned, it would be best to say nothing about truth, and let people use common sense and the status quo in trying to decide whether a Wikipedian writing a Wikipedia article means what that one says.
The word "verifiability" contains the idea of "truth" in its definition, so it negates the second item. If "verifiability" is taken away, something else needs to replace it; unless there is a consensus that when someone knowingly writes false statements into a Wikipedia article, as plain statements without prose attribution, they are actually helping to write the encyclopedia; is anyone willing to admit that they support that? And if so, what do you think the ultimate purpose of Wikipedia is? I mean, if you think the purpose of Wikipedia is to write a summary of what's in the literature regardless of whether it conforms to reality, then what is the purpose of writing such a summary? To complete homework assignments with the purpose of getting good marks regardless of whether one learns anything useful? To leave a record, after our civilization falls, of the falsehoods we believed so that some later civilization can learn from our mistakes? Or what?
I think the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information that conforms to reality a large proportion of the time, and that requiring attribution is merely a method of trying to achieve that goal. --Coppertwig 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I deny that Wikipedia's sense of verifiability ever implied "truth"; it implies that the sourcing of our assertions was verifiable. WP:V did, and does, say so at some length. Our only hope to conform to reality is the faith that our sources conform to reality; if they err, we must. (To some extent, this can be avoided by choosing better sources; by acknowledging, exempli gratia, that a newspaper, however reliable on other days of the year, is not a reliable source when it prints flying reindeer stories; but this is a minor point.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ever? Try [1] when WP:V became policy. It said "accuracy" and I can live with that, but verifiability was all about being able to check facts. --Henrygb 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree that the wording does leave the idea that: "(2) false but attributable material is acceptable." and this has bothered me, so I will speak out now that it has been brought up in this context. I understand that you can't claim truth without references, but you can't claim something you believe to be false is really true, just because you have references. And if you have a reference you believe is wrong, you don't have to include it (although I have seen arguments to the contrary). I think the concept of "verifiability, not truth" needs to be reworked. Dhaluza 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiable" is a bad word

As far as I can tell, the word "verifiable" in Wikipedia has come to imply the word "attributable". I believe here people began using "verifiable" to mean "verifiable by a google search", and then this evolved into "verifiable using reliable sources," and finally this was shortened to "verifiable".
Unfortunately, whether Wikipedia says so or not, I can verify that I have ten fingers, I can verify that the sun rose today, and I can also verify that paper cuts often hurt. To people in the real world, these are easily "verifiable" facts. But they are not so easy to attribute to a published source, though; and crucially, one would not so easily claim these points to be "attributable".
If there is a conceptual difference between "attributable to a reliable source" and "verifiable using a reliable source", it seems small. The important point I am trying to make, though, is that when you shorten the phrase "attributable to a reliable source" to a single word: "attributable", you get much closer to the implied meaning.
Anyway, i think wikipedians use the word "verifiable" a lot, and i think it would make things much clearer if they used "attributable" instead. Mlm42 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It has too many letters to be a bad word. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the present text of WP:ATT have flaws of detail?

  • Probably (although I could not give you an example off the top of my head) ... but so do all of our policies and guidelines, including those that were merged into ATT. That's why we don't slap a big DONE sign on them and close them to further editing. At least with the merger the flaws and debates about them are in one central place instead three or four... we won't have to have the same debate on three or four different pages. Blueboar 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of the question? That flaws have been identified is already evident from Wikipedia talk:Attribution. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus there on which are actually flaws, and there is no consensus there on which are merely flaws (as opposed to changes in policy, as per the section above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. An assertion is not the same as a proof. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
So those issues should be discussed there. If they are not resolved there yet, they won't be resolved here magically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tools needed

If that is the case, then you need to go back and re-write WP:V and WP:NOR as this new page is just a merge of these policies. This discussion is not not be about re-defining policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You've got a sincere, fair, and actionable answer to the posted question. No need to go boldface, but next time just to think carefully how to ask the question about what you really really want to know. `'mikka 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There are. I think, two questions here:

  • Does JWSchmidt assert that these tools exist in WP:V and WP:NOR? (I read him as not claiming this; but it would clear the air to say so.)
  • If not, what would these tools be?

Personally, blacklisting of unreliable sources (short of extreme cases, like the National Enquirer or The Onion) is insufficiently subtle. Often a source is reliable for one purpose and unreliable for another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed, I suggest that JWSchmidt's argument shows a certain bias.There is no source that is automatically reliable above all other possible sources in general. Any source can be challenged by one of equal or greater authority. And I do not think there is consensus that there are no purposes whatever where the NEnq could be used--it does document the existence of absurd beliefs. (I remain amused by its use in Men in Black).DGG 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes These are conceptually different ideas. All are corollaries of one another, but they complement each other, and if you can remove the duplicate statements from each document, you'll find a very agreeable collection of Wikipedia principles. Xiner (talk, email) 23:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to make any changes to present policy or practice, while we have this opportunity?

  • Emphatically no. I think it would be a major error to commingle trying to sort out merge consensus on the one hand and introduce new substantive policy changes on the other. I am not opposed to change, I just think that the changes are separate issues and their own discussions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Widespread community involvement is always a good thing when it comes to changing policies. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What opportunity? Besides all pages being protected I see no difference one day or another. `'mikka 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My general opinion is that we do not need to make any changes; but several of the objections to WP:ATT appear to me to be objections to wording which is present policy, and which derives unchanged from WP:V or WP:NPOV. Such proposals deserve a place for discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We emphatically do not need to make any changes whatsoever to existing core content policies. The rules on sourcing and attribution are absolutely essential, and work better than any other alternative method. This discussion should concern only the possibilities of merging and renaming, not any changes to the existing processes of Wikipedia. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "changes"? If we want to bring policies in line with practice, is that a "change in policy" since it changes the in-writing policy, or is it "not a change in policy" since it doesn't change the policy as practiced? For that matter, is clarifying an ambiguous part of policy a "change in policy"? Ken Arromdee 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a discussion of whether we should make changes to this policy/these policies is a prerequisite to merging the policy documents. There are two reasons for this: one, pure efficiency, as it seems silly to me to merge portions of policies that are going to be changed immediately afterwards; and two, it seems to me that it would be easier to change the policies while they're in the form most people are familiar with, i.e., separate. --DachannienTalkContrib 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarify NOR

I think we need to clarify what OR is and that it is not the same as, or reducible to, verifiability or some broader concept of attribution.

Here's one example: I have no difficulty with the idea that the material Jimbo recently removed from the Langan article was original research, but I see others objecting both on-site and on the mailing list. IMO, the policy pages need to be clear enough that good users can see that this material was within the concept of OR.

For starters, why don't you follow the existing policies and provide a "reliable reference" to the thing you are talking about. The "Langan" article has a single edit, and it was not Jimbo. `'mikka 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this. Jimbo ripped out a large chunk out of Christopher Michael Langan in the form it was in the other day, and various people on the mailing list (and there were also some comments on the talk page) objected that he was adopting a novel and expansive interpretation of OR (which it was not in my view). That's the incident I'm referring to. I assumed this was well known, Sorry if I confused you. Metamagician3000 07:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Her blessed transparent hooves! Is that article still causing trouble? Anville 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example. In my opinion, this List of FRSs with public religious stances is an exercise in original research - taking statements from here and there as a research project to try to demonstrate a point that is (apparently) made in no existing secondary source: that few Fellows of the Royal Society have expressed views about religion and few of those have been critical of it. On the talk page, the creator of the article/list seems fairly open that it is intended to demonstrate something. To me, that is an exercise in OR, even if each constituent fact can be sourced somewhere (which is why it is not good to think that the OR concept is subsumed under something called "attribution").

I think there's been a tendency for us to adopt an overly lenient interpretation of the NOR principle. That overly lenient approach is being applied widely, and the written policies are not doing enough to dissuade people from it. The emphasis on verifiability and attribution tends to encourage it. I see a helluva lot of OR pervading Wikipedia, though it is not necessarily urgent to deal with it all except where there are also BLP issues involved. Metamagician3000 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this covered by WP:ATT#Unpublished synthesis of published material? If not, why not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is ... and quite well, at that. And yet, and yet, I also think that it needs to be given more emphasis and maybe additional examples, because it's a point that a lot of valued, sincere and productive editors either find difficult or apparently just plain disagree with. I see many people, even during the current debate, give definitions of the NOR concept that are not consistent with WP:ATT#Unpublished synthesis of published material.
What do you think, Septentrionalis? Were you just asking a question, or implying that it's already covered adequately? Note that I'm not really advocating a change of policy, assuming that my understanding of policy is more or less correct, but I'm advocating that a widely misunderstood and ignored aspect of policy be emphasised and explained more. Metamagician3000 07:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Asking a question; I thank you for clarifying. You think then that we need more explanation and emphasis than ATT gives, which is (in my judgment) more than WP:NOR gave. You may be right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this sort of thing happen fairly often in the AfDs which show up at WikiProject Physics. In the extreme case, we get articles claiming that (for example) aliens from Europa rigged the 2004 presidential elections, then citing a NASA website for Europa's mass, composition and distance from Earth. The article is then called "well-referenced to reliable sources". OK, this is a caricature I just made up, but I think it's pretty clear how this can confuse people trying to decide the fate of some "theory of everything" physics article (the type of "original research" which was a big motivator behind WP:NOR in the first place). All things considered, I think the "Unpublished synthesis" section of WP:ATT should be expanded with a couple more examples, drawn from different fields. At the moment, its only example is a case of purported plagiarism; I think we'd benefit if it also included a case of history-related OR-by-synthesis and a case drawn from the sciences. Anville 16:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A good idea. Why not add the examples to WP:ATTFAQ, which is not protected? We can discuss moving them to WP:ATT when we see what they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for this useful discussion. Are we going to drop Anville in the soup and ask him to do the work on this that Septentrionalis suggests? I'd be interested to see the examples that Anville had in mind, which would have to be tricky ones to make the exercise worthwhile. The actual example I gave is a slightly controversial one, as it is being discussed at AfD right now, and I'll be interested to see how the community views it. Metamagician3000 07:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Original research" in Wikipedia-policy-talk is indistinguishable from nonattributability. "Original research" in common everyday speech includes the act of googling to find sources to use to attribute claims. 4.250.138.205 04:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially keeping in mind that non-native English speakers may think that "original research" means "search of originals" :-) "Nonattributability" ... mmm. yummy word. `'mikka 06:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Wrong venue. A random talk sub-page that hardly anyone knows exists is not the proper place to determine how policy is made. That's what WP:PUMP is for. Also, I object to the suggestion that this is some kind of special "opportunity". WP is a Wiki. Every minute of every day is an opportunity, and an equal one. Just the mere idea that that we should take the "opportunity" to change policy for some reason, off in this Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion hinterland is kind of grotesque and scary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As Steve Block says below, that's why there's a link from WP:PUMP, ain't it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Noted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What process should be used to change policy structure or policy in the future?

  • Jimbo suggested that for these type of changes, the process should be one that includes a checkpoint in which we seek Jimbo's input, followed by a poll to assess support, and followed by a "closing process" (to be defined) in which the changes are certified. I have tonnes of questions about this, though... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think many people agree that it would be much less annoying that along with relaying Jimbo's words you provide a reference to the source. I fully understand and have nothing against the fact that it is easier for Jimbo to communicate with a smaller circle of people, but the feeling that you are a second-class citizen is really devastating at times. `'mikka 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume that we are talking about how entire policies get approved, challenged/demoted, merged, etc. and not about how the wording of an individual policy or guideline gets changed? If so, I agree that a clear process is needed, and can see that Jimbo should be involved at some stage. Perhaps this discussion could be a template... A dedicated page for discussion and comment (to be closed after a given duration, at least full week, probably longer) followed by a straw poll (both well anounced on any related talk pages, at the pump, on the mailing list, etc), then an application to Jimbo summarizing the results of the poll... and finally the certification of approval or notice of rejection. Blueboar 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm floored by all this. "Jimbo suggested that for these type of changes, the process should be one that includes a checkpoint in which we seek Jimbo's input." I dunno. I'm as unclear on the structure of Wikipedia as I ever was, but that's no suggestion, that's a statement of intent. I feel like that bit in Star Wars when Solo says "That's no moon." I think I'm going to take time away. There's a lot been happening around here lately that has given me pause for thought. This is an admirable project, and it has been a pleasure to add what little I could, but ... thanks for all the fish. See you all sooner rather than later, I hope. Steve block Talk 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think Jimbo/the Foundation need to be clearer about what they want here. We're basically just left guessing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    The Foundations has nothing to do with this, as it does not concern itself with policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'll spell it out better: If Jimbo is speaking as The Jimbo, in his official role here, then he needs to be clearer about what he wants. If he's just speaking as Jimmy Wales, another Wikipedian, which he sometimes does, he should make that clearer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    The real problem is that we don't really know this, because we don't follow WP:A here, see my very first remark to Jossi at the top of this page. We don't even know what actually Jimbo said. We even don't know whether Jimbo said this to Jossi or Jimbo said it to Bimbo and Bimbo said it to Jossi. We even don't know what Jimbo meant in what was relayed in the words "these type of changes", hence, e.g., the Blueboar's and yours and mine confusion. `'mikka 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever process be, it must definitely include a moderator (per discussion or per 2 days or flexible, whatever), whose only role would be to keep the discussion it tracks. I keep wondering why for, like, 5 years this well-known idea was not implemented in wikipedia policymaking. Did I miss a discussion where the idea was rejected? `'mikka 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The Mediation Committee does not accept policy disputes. See Wikipedia:Mediation#What_is_mediation.3F.

    • "Mediation is not a forum for policy decisions. If the locus of the dispute is not covered by current policy, the matter must be referred to the Wikipedia community as a whole. Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building."

    • Even if the Mediation Committee did take policy disputes, I am not sure if you could find a mediator who could be neutral about this, but maybe I am wrong.
    • — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Although the words "mediator" and "moderator" begin with "m" and end in "or", they have different meanings. May I remind you the history of soviet (council)s, which have the same noble idea to give power to people, but only gave power to those whore "more equal than others". OK, may be the term "moderator" is too strong. What I meant is a role of a clerk in discussions, who keeps track of the suggestions and helps to stay on topic. In case you didn't notice, this de facto is already happening: someone refactors discussions, redirects them into subpages, arranges polls, archives subpages, etc. It is done on a volunteer basis, and may well be a "ritual" of assignment of a "clerk" is simply unnecessary. In case you didn't notice, I ended my suggestin with a question,let me restate it here: was the idea of explicitely assigned clerks discussed and rejected? My idea was to increase the productivity and decrease chaos in discussions. I may be wrong, but again, was this discussed? `'mikka 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I know mediators and moderators are different, but as far as I know, none of the dispute resolution steps currently involve moderators, so the Mediation Committee would be the closest.
        • We do have clerks, although not for the purpose you describe. Perhaps you could propose this somewhere?
        • — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          I believe 'mikka has just proposed it here. It sounds like probably a good idea to me. Maybe there needs to be an impeachment process or something in case the moderator is overly biassed. --Coppertwig 22:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The existing process is fine. Jimbo emphatically does not have the authority to demand consultation and/or approval during the policymaking process. Policy should be determined by a consensus of the community. If there is a consensus for change, then change should be made. Jimbo should, of course, be invited to participate in discussion and notified of any policy changes. But his opinions should carry no more weight than those of any other editor. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Does not have the authority? If anyone else but Jimbo would have undone the redirects, do you think we will be discussing this issue now? Of course not. The fact is that Jimbo has the respect of the community to afford him such interventions. Not only that, but now is is most definitively asking to be the the sounding board for all major policy changes, and be consulted to ensure that he agrees with the proposed changes. That is not a bad thing, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I am part of the community, and I am challenging his authority to make such interventions. He should be consulted in the same way that other active users should be consulted, but I have a serious problem with the idea that he has any authority to unilaterally change Wikipedia policy. Don't get me wrong; I have great respect for Jimbo as an individual, and would treat his views on Wikipedia issues with the attention they deserve. However, to draw an RL parallel, I respect George W. Bush as an individual and as a great leader, but would still not be happy if he decided to unilaterally dissolve Congress and pass all laws by presidential decree. In RL we have liberal democracy; on Wikipedia, we have WP:CONSENSUS, which should not be circumvented. Even though I agree with some of Jimbo's criticisms of WP:ATT, he was wrong to reverse the community's decision. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Jimbo has the power and prestige to act as God-King. He did so in requiring this discussion, and that probably was wise. But that's his personal variant of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules; it shouldn't be written into the rules. For one thing, Wikipedia should be structured so that it can continue if he loses all interest in us. (A requirement that proposed changes in policy have a discussion and poll announced in Signpost would be a good idea, and would in fact tell him.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked Jimbo these same questions, and his response was that (a) he wants to be involved and consulted in any major policy change or re-structuring of policy; (b) he believes that many editors did not know about ATT, despite the announcements and the 5 month of discussions, and asserted that there was no wide consensus for ATT; (c) He requested a wide discussion and a vigorous debate on the virtues of ATT; (d) he also requested a poll and a defined mechanism to close the poll and "certify the decision", and (d) He very clearly stated that he will abide by the consensus of the community after that process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What should be required is adequate notice in particular places. And all required places should be on Wikipedia. Discussion off Wikipedia may be useful to some, but on Wikipedia discussion is primary, so notice off wikipedia should be at most suggested, not required. Consensus should always be measured on Wikipedia, without regard to off Wikipedia discussion. Jimbo's participation should explicitly not be required; if he wants to participate he can watch the same forums that any other editor watches. The wikipedia community will have greatly matured the day that something is made policy when he is in opposition to the consensus of the community. GRBerry 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?

Mind you, I'm not directly objecting to the existence of this page, I just don't understand what the point is, and have concerns that between Wikipedia talk:Attribution, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/FAQ, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll and Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll that the discussion is going to become too fragmented to follow. Yes, I realize I'm the one that undid the redir from Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll that was going to Wikipedia talk:Attribution (and if you look at how much discussion about the poll and its details there are this was a good idea, I maintain). But I can't discern at all any purpose difference between Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion and Wikipedia talk:Attribution, that isn't already intended to be covered at the poll. Indeed, this new page appears to be phrased as a poll asking roughly the same questions as the poll (I say "roughly" because the questions keep changing). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading all of this, and seeing that it is simply repeating debates already covered elsewhere, I do directly object to the existence of this page. I propose merging this immediately into Wikipedia talk:Attribution. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This page exists to consolidate discussions being conducted elsewhere. I oppose merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I do directly object to such a proposal and solemnly declare opposition to any merge. Steve block Talk 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth would that not take place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth would it? We're discussing four, maybe five pages here. Steve block Talk 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is "Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion", not "Wikipedia talk:Community discussion of Attribution, Verifiability, Reliable Sources and No Original Research", so your response doesn't seem to address anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else support this objection? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No, this is a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I don't see the point and it seems likely to cause rehashing of contentious arguments and their linked inter-personal disputes, but whatever... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Up until this page appeared, there was a lot of useful discussion on Wikipedia talk:Attribution. If the effect of this page is to dissipate the discussion of the very real policy issues, then I think this page is a bad move. --Rednblu 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Read the request by Jimbo at the top of this page. Jimbo undid the merger; Jimbo requested this discussion as a prelude to a poll, and thus we are having it. If you do not want to discuss it, you do not have to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a blatant straw man argument; no one here has suggested that the discussion should not take place, some of us simply don't think that forking it onto a new page is a good idea. Given that someone just went and archived over half of the still-active discussions at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, including all but the most recent disputes (and see comment above by Rednblu), I think this concern is a genuine one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, relax, SMcCandlish. What is the reason for such intensity? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I am relaxed. I'm not trying to come off as any more intense that usual. If anything, I've been pretty chill all day long. My observation above is pretty simple, and doesn't make any new arguments, just reminds that some concerns have been raised and what they are. Not everyone thinks the discussion should be happening here instead of at the main talk page, and given that disputes are being shuffled off into the archives before being resolved, these concerns may have some merits. What's intense about that? I don't think the honest concerns raised should be dismissed as allegedly counter-communicative. They aren't. That's all. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that it is a bit too late to beat the drum of "not here". The discussion has been advertised widely and it is happening here, while the talk page of ATT is used to address editors' questions as usual. 30 odd comments in a short period of time in this page, and the use of "blatant", is what made me make that comment. If that is not the case, and indeed you feel cool and collected, please accept my apologies for that comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that the horse is already out of the barn, but I don't think that that erases the concerns; rather they simply shift, e.g. to something like "let's not forget that these issues have in some cases already been discussed at great length on WP:ATT's talk page, and that those conversations haven't simply gone away or become moot because this new page exists, not even after they've been archived for some reason." I'll "counter apologize", if "blatant" seemed mean or something; I meant it the sense of "obviously", not "unforgivably".  ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case, try "flagrant."  :-) —David Levy 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The question in the section title is because of the poor title of the page. When a thread of the discussion is forked out into a separate page, its title must clearly indicate the topic of the thread. Now, someone say it again, what is the topic of this thread here? `'mikka 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have advertised it in WP:VPP, in all the talk pages of related policies and guidelines, and the Wiki-EN-l mailing list. Do you have any suggestions on how to advertise this better? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The page is an excellent idea, in my opinion. It will take time to become known and for people who don't usually edit policy pages to join in. We need to be able to evaluate this discussion as the step before the poll, and that will be easier to do when the merger alone is being discussed rather than other things to do with the policy pages. Otherwise Jimbo would have to pick through threads to find out which bits were a specific attampt at consulting with the community on the merger. SMcCandlish is welcome to disagree with that, but I am surprised that he wishes to repeat the same opinion so often. qp10qp 13:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

This is the question that keeps nagging at me. Not the discussion, but Wikipedia:Attribution. This is not a fundamental change, this doesn't affect policy, so what's the point in a) fixing something that isn't broke, and b) creating enough confusion that people think something new is happening? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The need for merging V and NOR was assessed necessary by those that worked in the proposal. This, in addition to attempting to fix RS, that five months ago, was most definitively broken to a point in which its value as a guideline and consensus about it was strongly challenged. WP:ATT simplifies the understanding of our policies to those thousands of contributors that join the project every month, and assist more experienced editors in content disputes by being able to point people to a well-written, and concise page that explains the principles upon which this encyclopedia is being developed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A valid question that should not be discounted. Perhaps there are other editors—like myself—who didn't get highly involved in the ATT writing because we didn't realize Wiki's most fundamental policies would be replaced/merged/changed/whatever without a much broader discussion and consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine editors who do not edit policy pages

How do we get more of the above to join in the discussion? One of the things Jimbo said somewhere was that many fine and talented editors weren't consulted or did not know about the merger. I wonder if those of us who enjoy thinking and talking about policy (I do because it constantly refreshes and develops my editing ability) might consider contacting the various excellent editors we each know from article pages and asking them to come and check out this discussion. As things stand, this discussion might end up largely involving the usual interested parties and therefore not be seen as capable of achieving the broader consensus that Jimbo wants. qp10qp 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea... so long as we don't try to pre-influence their opinions and comments in our invitation... saying something like "There are some questions about policy being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion, and we would value your oppinion" would be fine... saying something like: "Help me save/delete this wonderful/awful policy ... go to Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion" would not. Blueboar 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I love this idea. Especially since it would make such an excellent fundraiser for the Wikimedia Foundation. Even if we only fined each person who didn't edit a policy page 10 cents, that would still equal out to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the end. Even more if we counted IP editors. And if we counted sockpuppets as individual people we could get revenge on guys like Cplot simultaneously because they would suddenly owe us forty or eighty bucks. Maybe we could even make it an annual thing, where everyone who hadn't made a projectspace edit in the last 12 months was fined. Or maybe you meant to say finD them, not finE them? --tjstrf talk 17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think he did mean finE... as in wonderful editors, excellent editors, good editors, etc... "fine" used as an adjective, not a verb. But I like your idea too (especially as it relates to sock puppets) Blueboar 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, we should never canvass (to be honest, I've almost forgotten what I think myself now). However, I feel tjsrf is taking my suggestion too lightly: we will only really ensure consensus here if we make the fines quite stiff. qp10qp 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind making our fine editors stiff... as long as they return the favor and buy the following round. Make mine a double!... no ice. Blueboar 18:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A template to place on user pages. "There is a proposal to merge... Jimbo has requested...Please pass this invitation on to other good editors."? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting a bad proposal, but still good poll: Do we need different thresholds for different fields?

I know this is a bad proposal, but I'm still curious about one thing: is there any correlation between what area editors are focused on, and their opinion on the merger, especially the diminishing role of truth that the name change seem to imply. Try to pick one term that broadly defines your area, such as "humanities" or "sciences", or "pop-culture", or just "everything" or "gnoming"...

PRO merger

CONTRA merger

faulty premise

I disagree with the premise of this mini-poll. There has been no diminishment of the "role of truth". The WP:ATT policy says the same things that WP:V and WP:NOR say. Blueboar 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that no change was made, but if there is a perceived change, even if that perception is faulty, it will still effect opinions. --tjstrf talk 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes totally agree! As I said above on the first poll, I think the merger has brought attention to the long-standing wording in WP:V, which in fact says verifiability has nothing to do with truth and has everything to do with checking whether the attribution is correct. Having said that, there is an ongoing debate about the role of truth, and it is related to the discussion because people do confuse the two matters. I didn't want to make the introduction to biased, but I am making it clear here: the rule of truth has not diminished. --Merzul 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Role of truth

I strongly object to putting the role of truth section on the main talk page. Since this, not the regular talk page, is the page people have to follow to participate, putting it there has the effect of burying it.

I also don't think the question has been given a fair shake, either there or here. There *have* been examples where information that is attributable is (by any non-Wikipedia definition) provably false. The majority of the argument seemed to either assume that those examples don't happen, or assume that they happen very differently from how they really did. It's absurd to say "well, you can quote the debate, if it's disputed" or "well, surely the false information has got to be a minority opinion", when it wasn't disputed and wasn't a minority opinion and still false. Ken Arromdee 19:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this current debate... The policy statements dealing with "roll of truth" as you call it have been long standing ones on Wikipedia. This discussion page is about whether V, RS and NOR should be merged into ATT... and if so, how... not about what those policy pages say. The merge does not change policy at all. It simply moves them to a new location. Once we know which policy will be in effect... then we can argue about changing what they say about the roll of truth. Blueboar 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
One of the questions above is "Do we need to make any changes to present policy or practice, while we have this opportunity?" So even though it says that the merger doesn't change policy, that clearly is not a settled issue.
I'm not convinced this is a change in policy anyway. It's clarifying areas that are vague, and may in fact be necessary anyway simply to keep the policy interpreted the same way the old policy has been interpreted. Ken Arromdee 19:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Blueboar. The proposed merge page, WP:ATT, contains different wording with different meaning than the original pages it's supposed to be merging. This discussion focusses on that change in meaning that happens when going from "verifiability, not truth" to "attributable ... not whether it is true". This is a discussion that relates directly to the wording of the proposed merge page; my part of it at least is not about any issues that existed before the new wording was proposed. Perhaps someone could post clear instructions at the top of each talk page about which kind of discussion is supposed to go on which talk page?
Meanwhile, the discussion of the "Role of truth" issue is continuing at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth where it was moved by user SlimVirgin. Please discuss in only one place (i.e. there, unless a clear decision is made to move it elsewhere.) --Coppertwig 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You are asserting The proposed merge page, WP:ATT, contains different wording with different meaning than the original pages it's supposed to be merging as if it was a fact. But that is only an ungrounded opinion. If you could be more specific about these purported differences, you may give editors a chance to comment on these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Several users seem to think the "Role of truth" discussion should be on this page, not on Wikipedia talk:Attribution. I agree; I prefer that it be here. Would someone please advise what is required in order to put it back? Also, would users please comment with agreement or disagreement about the idea of moving it back here?
The situation is: A long thread exists at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 12#Role of truth and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 13#Role of truth and Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. Some related comments were also posted on this page. A user moved the comments from this page to that page. Right around the time that the user moved the comments, I was posting a comment. Therefore, my comment (a reply to tjstrf) got posted here out-of-context, which I didn't notice until later. Two more people replied here to my out-of-context post. Later I moved my post and the two replies to the same place the other related material had been moved to. Still later, someone moved my post and the two replies back here, for the second time separating my reply to tjstrf from the comment I was replying to; it's still separated and I would like it put back into context.
As a solution to all this, I propose that the entire thread Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth including everything currently in it and everything added from now on, but not the parts currently in Archive 12 and Archive 13, be moved here. Alternatively, someone could figure out which parts were originally posted on this page and move only them (and the replies to them?) here. Note that there is also a proposal to have one of the poll questions ask about the "verifiability, not truth" wording; see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll#Verifiability, not truth. --Coppertwig 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree... this page is for discussing the merger... was it a good idea? was it a bad idea?... what should happen with NOR, V and RS? You are talking about the wording of ATT (and in many ways talking about changing WP:V and WP:NOR in the process). Wording discussions should take place on the talk page of the policy. Blueboar 22:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Redrafting, yes? Merger, bad?

At the moment I have an open mind, but it occurs to me that I might end up thinking that the merger was not a good idea but that some or all of the redrafting is an improvement. Is there a way to handle that position? It might be too complicated, but it seems to me that there could be reasons not to merge while at the same time there are reasons not to throw away good drafting work. Or at least, those who are latecomers to the debate (like me) might be tempted to see it like that. Metamagician3000 08:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an acute point. The period leading up to the decision to propose a new page (nothing to with me, I might say) was in my opinion one of dark days for the NOR and RS pages in particular. The pages were palpably badly written and RS had accumulated verbal and semantic débris to the point where it was actually contradicting and obfuscating NOR and V in places: yet it was no longer easy to improve these pages because custodial editors were assuming that each individual page was more or less untouchable. The result, in the opinion of some people trying to edit the pages at the time, was a horrible mess: here we had three pages that had become soggier and soggier, and even to attempt improving the wording of one of them required balancing the wording in the other two, leading to inconsistent discussions and (frustratingly) inconsistent and contradictory reversions on three different pages at once. Matters had sunk to the level where actual grammatical errors and punctuation mistakes were being restored to the pages (I could give plenty of diffs for that happening).
Although it wasn't my idea to propose a combined, shorter page to solve these problems (I don't have ideas like that, unfortunately), I immediately saw the advantage; and now I find it very helpful in article disputes to be able to refer to the Attribution page rather than taking a pick'n'mix of three different pages: the wording really does work, and I advise anyone who hasn't done so to try referring to the Attribution page during disputes. The page's superior usefulness as a policy tool in practice is for me the clincher in the present discussion—the proof of the pudding.
Should it be voted to keep all the pages as they were, I agree with you that it might be necessary to propose that some of the Attribution wording replace some of old wording in V, OR, and RS. No doubt that would be a laborious and piecemeal enterprise (but I would be depressed if a consensus defeat of the merger were to be interpreted as a dismissal of all wording on the Attribution page in favour of the older wordings}. qp10qp 13:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"The page's superior usefulness as a policy tool in practice is for me the clincher in the present discussion." Yes. The previous practice of having V rely on RS for its explanations was sloppy in the extreme. Marskell 14:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a line to the poll for the position Metamagician suggests; the wording could be sharpened. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

General en.wikipedia header?

Silly question: As this is such a massively HUGE thing changing (four core policies), shouldn't this be posted on the general header for all of Wikipedia to get attention to it? If not all of en.wikipedia, then at least... the Wikipedia: name space...? - Denny 09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not silly; it was done for the fundraising drives, and this is comparably important. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea to me.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not so sure. Only a very small subset of editors are involved in policy discussions, and this is not such a huge thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
isn't it good to get more people involved...? - Denny 18:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the proposal, either way. I think Jossi's concern is resolved by limiting it to the Wikipedia namespace, but I don't think the concern is a huge one to begin with: People regularly ignore that which they are not interested in (like, um, WP fundraising drives), so it won't hurt anyone. If the fundrasing banner code were recycled, it is even dismissable after it has been seen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What would be required to make this happen? Where does it get requested/done? - Denny 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that WP:PUMP in the tech section is probably the right place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur that something on that scale should happen; I posted a few times and then largely ignored the first discussions of ATT, as I (apparently, mistakenly) didn't realize fundamental Wiki policy could be changed without a wide-ranging and extensive discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a message to MediaWiki:Watchdetails. A message is visible on everybody's watchlist. —Ruud 23:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! It works! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

An option to hide that thing once I'm aware of this would be very nice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That would likely require some scripting and using a cookie. For now you can add #watchlist-message { display: none; } to your monobook.css. —Ruud 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on finding a good way to notify an appropriate section of the user community. (Obviously ;-) the people you want to reach are people who are addicted to checking their watchlists! Sdsds 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A look at WP:RS and how it fits

Also posted at the main talk page... I notice that there is a lot of confusion and disagreement about how RS fits into all of this... some people think that RS has been merged into ATT, some people think it hasn't. Some think that ATT elevates RS to Policy, others ardently deny this. I thought I would comment -

The problem is that RS has always been a unique case... falling into a grey zone between policy and guideline status. Both WP:V and WP:NOR discuss the need for reliable sources to back our edits... so, to some degree, the concept of RS has always been a Policy statement. Saddly, neither WP:V and WP:NOR explained what was meant by the term "reliable sources", or how to determine if a source was reliable or not - so a guideline page, "WP:RS", was created take care of this. Unfortunately, the creation of that guideline page put RS into a half in / half out status... on one hand editors could say "RS is Policy" since it is prominently mentioned in several Policy page... but on the other hand, editors could say "no-RS is only a Guideline. See, it says 'Guideline' at the top of the page". Those who wanted to inforce the concept as expressed on the Policy pages, edited the Guideline to emphisize its "these are the rules" nature, those who disagreed with this enforcement edited the guideline to stress it's "this is just guidance" nature. And so we ended up with a Guideline page that stated both "guidance" and "rules" ... Neither betwixt or between.

Now let's look at what happened with the creation of ATT ... some people have complained that ATT "elevated" WP:RS to Policy... others have complained that it "demoted" WP:RS to little more than an essay. But in reality it did neither. The conceptual, "these are the rules" side of RS was re-incorporated into the Policy discussion and made clearer, while the "this is guidance" side of WP:RS was shifted into the FAQ page, to be worked on and eventually made back into a guideline (I would recommend renaming it to something like "Determining reliability". This was not an "elevation" of WP:RS to Policy status... nor was it a demotion of WP:RS to something less than Guideline status ... it was a needed breaking up of something that had alway been a little bit of both.

That's how I see it, in any case... comments? Blueboar 15:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up here as well, as requested. I think it will be more productive here. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say that moving it into a policy and a FAQ made it harder to change, which is bad because the details are highly contentious. It is easier to work towards a consensus when it is in a separate guideline, not too strongly tied to a policy.
Also, the merge into Attribution neglects that WP:RS is at least as related to WP:NPOV as it is to WP:V/WP:ATT, if not more so. I am not neutral on this: those who see reliability as binary, the source is reliable or it isn't, would probably see WP:RS as being more related to WP:V/WP:ATT.
I, on the other hand, see reliability as a matter of degrees, which leads me to see WP:RS as more related to WP:NPOV. Reliability can help distinguish between facts and opinions. (If a source is quite reliable and not contradicted by any sources of comparable or greater reliability, the statement can be reasonably stated as a fact.) Reliability is also a good way of gauging proper weight and under weight. Although still susceptible to systemic bias, reliability is most likely our best way of determining the proper weight an opinion should receive. Reliability, as a way of measuring due weight, must necessarily be a matter of degrees, not binary on/off. WP:NPOV currently discusses reliability as a matter of degrees, where you should look for the most reliable/reputable sources. If well-rewritten, WP:RS could provide very good guidance on determining due weight.
— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Invitation template

I've drafted an invitation template at {{ATTCD}}. Invitations should be neutral, and it might be just as well if we agreed on wording. The indirect compliment to recipients at the end may help spread goodwill towards this project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral? I don't think so. The wording in that ATTCD template indicates very clearly to anyone understanding English who is right and who is wrong. Can't you see it? Maybe it is the glare from the angle of the lighting. --Rednblu 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this old version was fine.... — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see the resemblance to neutrality, yes, in that version. Good eye! But wouldn't it be a good idea to give just a taste of the widely varied opinions among editors that have already looked at this merger in detail? --Rednblu 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that was the version I originally looked at. The problem with giving editors a taste of the widely varied opinions is doing so neutrally. We are having enough trouble writing something neutral without getting into that.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:) --Rednblu 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Current version is not neutral; it's loaded. I agree with that version. I encourage involved editors to embrace NPOV, erase history, and really encourage and allow broader discussion this time through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version is a verbatim copy of the headers at this page and the poll page. It simply states facts. In any case, if you do not like it, you should not use it. Create your own message instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What about process questions?

What about other, side questions, such as about the process that was (or wasn't) followed, what process should have been, whether process should be clarified, etc.? I think there are probably a lot of opinions on this. Even the very first reactions to Jimbo's stepping raised such questions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Just to be clear, I don't mean adding more questions to Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll, I mean rather that the questions are floating around, and I wonder whether they should be raised as separate topics here or what. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How do we get rid of the banner?

on My Watchlist. Where was the decision to put the banner up discussed? :) Seriously though, it is a very bad precedent not to mention annoying and I want it to go away. This whole merger thing sounds like a desire to change policy pages without actually changing policy and as such seems to be a large waste of time that I don't want to be reminded is actually going on. --Tbeatty 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been downgraded from the in your face blue to a simple message. I agree, though; there's a lot of people (myself included) who don't know/care about this, and it's just a nuisance on what is likely your most visited page. DoomsDay349 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The new box is more annoying. DoomsDay349 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Several of us have recently made it less in-your-face. It can be commented out in your skin sheets with div id "watchlist-message". — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for my first design. The current version (although is seems to change every minute) is better. To hide this thing add #watchlist-message { display: none; } to your stylesheet. —Ruud 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To hide this message (but not future messages), use the ID "attdiscussion" instead. —David Levy 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree a link to remove the message would be appreciated. —Ocatecir Talk 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not make it part of MediaWiki:Sitenotice? For one, everybody logged in will see it, and it will include a link to disable it. I would, but messing with Wikipedia's interface is something nobody should do unilaterally. --wL<speak·check> 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Casual reader are likely not very interested in this discussion. —Ruud 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Casual readers are likely not willing to login. --wL<speak·check> 00:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Your point being? —David Levy 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on experience, usually when most people come to Wikipedia to learn something, they usually go to the site and get what they need. They usually have no desire to edit the article. Also not everybody uses a watchlist. Being such a large policy change, I feel it should be shown to all who decide to edit (those who login). The Anonnotice will still show "", so those who get info will not notice it. Or in other words, those who login are more likely to edit than those who don't. --wL<speak·check> 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I.e., casual readers won't see it, of course. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is for editors, not casual readers. —David Levy 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, where was this discussed before it was put into place? Announcements like this are good enough for the community portal. It is not imperative that every person see this discussion. I think this is getting ridiculous and it should be taken down from the watchlist pages. └Jared┘┌talk┐  00:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't read community portal, and I'm an admin. --wL<speak·check> 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware of the history, the pages were merged, a lot of people got upset about not being properly informed, Jimbo interfered, unmerged the pages and called for a big community discussion. I don't think the watchlist message is that big of an annoyance (I don't think most people even noticed the Commons Picture of the Year Election spam there that was there a few weeks ago.) —Ruud 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I just think including it warrants other discussions to randomly be placed on MediaWiki:Watchdetails. And we wouldn't want that, so I say don't set a precedent of including discussions on the talk page. While semi-important, this shouldn't be blown out of proportion and including it on the watch page setup makes this seem like it's a huge problem and important crisis when it really isn't. Less drastic and invasive ideas may be including something more bold on the comm. portal, writing an article for the signpost, etc. There are alternative solutions that have yet to be implimented. └Jared┘┌talk┐  00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

surely someone would have done this if....

Errm. This may seem a bit off topic, but I think it lies at the heart of some positions in this debate...

I've been involved in several arguments about WP:V. Some influential editors decry the "fetish-like attachment" to citing many facts. They say that cites do not prevent bogus info from being introduced, etc. They often say "Why should Wikipedia articles look like freshman research papers?" End of story: They want references at the bottom of the page, and as few cites as is reasonably possible in the article text.

I on the other hand think that cites make it physically possible for me to actually verify any one of the many assertions that have been made in the text; I can't do so without knowing which assertions come from which source, and from which page in that source.

Errm, isn't there any way to make an option at the top of a page to toggle on/off any and all citation templates? That means all cites would have to be done via template rather than via simple text, but that may be a smallish price to pay for an everyone-gets-what-they-want solution...

Surely there must be technical probs, or this would have been done, I think...

Thanks! --Ling.Nut 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that many people are not used to citing sources in their normal life and it becomes something threatening to them because of that. If wiki ever wanto become credible then there is only one way to go and this is taking things seriously and strive for acedemic quality. Otherwise we might just all move along to uncyclopedia.

About your technical suggestion, while probably possible, it should not take more than a few minutes to get used to reading artikelns that are cited, and it will be for the benefit of the reader. Drogheda 00:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion&oldid=117642927"