Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll

This poll and its talk page are a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Please join the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion

Objection to poll ordering

Resolved

 – Poll addresses this concern. Remove this tag if it changes to no longer do so

I object to putting all of the "keep the merger" options first. Since the entire point of this poll is that the merger has been challenged by WikiMedia personnel, I think the order should be reversed. Instead of the struck-out idea they should be sorted by relevance. Current alleged status quo first, and the immediately preceding status second. WPians are smart enough that they don't need all of the merge options bunched together and all of the don't-merge options together before or after the merge options. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Updated 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And put the "I dunno" options at the end. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think the poll is structured backwards. Some version of "should ATT even exist" should come first in the poll, followed by what should be included *if* it exists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Objection to aggrandizing wording in poll

Resolved

 – Poll addresses this concern. Remove this tag if it changes to no longer do so

Re: "compromise reached by Jimbo and SlimVirgin" — Since when does one random admin have more authority, weight or importance than everyone else? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest replacing "SlimVirgin" with "merger proponents". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't carry more weight than anyone else. She just happened to be the person who Jimbo tried to work out a temporary solution with. Maybe I'd be listed there if I had managed to work out a temporary solution first. (Instead, I took to badgering him about various things, including the creation of this poll. ;D) Picaroon 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe true but does not resolve the objection. The level of control that that editor in particular has been trying to assert over the text is disturbing enough without the poll implying that that this is some kind of vote to go with Jimbo's ideas vs. SV's. The discussion is quite broader than that. I haven't yet made the suggested edit myself because I thought it deserved some further discussion, but I'm not very far off from making it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? SlimVirgin was a proponent of the merger and has been involved for some time now. However, I don't suspect anyone will mind if you remove the mention of her. Picaroon 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I think it just puts the wrong spin on things, and could lead to WP:OWN bickering later on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that SV has reverted this change to keep her/his/its name in position as it was. I don't think I need to comment further. I'm going to re-revert it because the user in question has a long history of not explaining edits and reverts and failing to address questions about edits/reverts, whether they appear in edit summaries, article talk pages, or user's own talk page. Come out, come out, where ever you are. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, please don't use this as an opportunity to cause trouble. There is simply no trouble to cause. Jimbo and I came up with a compromise position, which actually works pretty well, because there was never any intention to deprecate V and NOR; I was heavily involved in writing and maintaining those pages so I'd be one of the last people to want to see them forgotten. Please try to move forward in a constructive way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've written I think 5 responses to this in various tones, and just can't seem to get it where it will sound right. I'll just have to summarize. And I won't even wikilink to any guideline and policy pages. Just because you don't agree with my stance on the issue and aren't happy that I'm criticising what I see as patterns of behavior on your part does not mean that I am here to "cause trouble" or am in fact "causing trouble", nor that I am being anti-constructive, or deconstructive, or unconstructive, or destructive, or whatever you envisioned the opposite of "constructive" to be in the context in which you used that word. I didn't come here to fight with you. I did happen to notice very rapidly when I did come here that you are personally exerting an enormous amount of influence over this alleged policy and its better-accepted predecessors, and I object to that level of influence. If you'd care to address that, I'd be happy to continue the conversation. If you just care to charaterize me as a "trouble"-"causing" non-"constructive" pee-on, then we should probably take that to user pages to the extent it should be discussed further at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, just to be really clear on this, I'm not alleging bad faith on anyone's part. I just think there's a lack of balance. That a level of deference is being granted to people who have "worked for five months" on this merge, and that incoming opinions on the matter are being devalued. Please do note that I am not bringing up WP:OWN. While I said a while back that I could detect a whiff of it in the air, that's as far as I've ever gone with that line of reasoning. I think that WP:OWN accusations as such are accusations of bad faith. Having been subject to a BF accusation just now myself, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I'm not sure how to get this across in a nice, fuzzy-bunny way, is all. Some of us are not happy at all about WP:ATT's coming into being, others are not happy about its present wording, either because it does not accurately reflect the origin policies, or changes them too much in this way or that, and others are not happy about the fact that they're merged at all (process questions be damned). There are numerous viewpoints on this, probably 9 at least, just from the basic math and without accouting for minor variations. I don't think it is unnreasonable for some to have issues with the process and asking hard questions of those in effective control of the process. I think (to really to get to the point) that all parties involved are entitled to edit summaries that adequately explain their rationales, or which direct parties to an actually extant talk-page rationale that adequately addresses the issue. That largely has not been happening around here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, this tone is completely unacceptable. Slim has worked very hard on this policy, and worked out the compromise with Jimbo. I don't understand why you want to remove her name, but I oppose your doing so strongly. You must be aware that it will upset her, and I just don't understand why it's so important to you to do that. I know that policy discussions can get heated, and the policies concerned here have from time to time resembled battlefields, but it's not necessary. Deep breath, calm yourself, move on in a constructive fashion. Grace Note 08:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the note below, I see in retrospect how the "come out where ever you are" commentary may have sounded nasty. It was really meant to be silly, but, alas, what seems funny/goofy/harmless when written can seem otherwise when read by third parties. D'oh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. I'm transgressing AGF because I (and I'm not alone in this) am raising issues about over-control and lack of trasparency in this policy merge, meanwhile I get blatantly attacked as a "trouble maker" and un/not/anti-/something/de-"constructive"? I'm not implying any bad faith of SV's part. I objected (something like 2/3 of a day ago) against making the upcoming straw poll be about "SlimVirgin vs. Jimbo"; that's all. I got reverted in a manner that (habitually, in my view, though that is not the topic here) provided no justification for the revert, so I undid it, and explained the rationale for doing so. The AGF accusation here seems unwarranted and defensive. Not to mention completely missed the point. Instead of actually getting an explanation this time, I instead get told I'm an AGF transgressor. Am I expected to suddenly stop questioning anything or having an opinion at all from now on? Why is SV's cow so sacred? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean at all. There is no Jimbo v. SlimVirgin. Quite the opposite: we came up with the most recent position together. But it's really best to forget the personalities and focus on the issues, and I'll hope you'll do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Gahhh... That was the entire point of my edit. Remove the personalities and just make it be about the issues. Before I got jumped on, my next edit was going to be removal of Jimbo's name. (See the edit summary of that page today if you don't believe me. EVERYthing I've done with that page has been stepwise and in series. I just happened to have to go to a pool league match tonight, so I didn't get home until several hours later, only to find I'm being accused of AGF and maybe NPA violations. Great. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Just to be clear, if I get re-reverted on this, I won' t fight it. I'm just aiming for neutralty and balance here (see my edits to the poll page today). If no one but me sees a neutrality and balance problem with the wording I'm grumbling about then I am probably mis-grumbling, and will shut up about it. I'm tenacious, but I'm not stupid. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PPS: I went to do a self-revert on this with edit-summary of "Self-revert; while I don't agree with prefered text, majority if not full consensus seems to be for it", but got edit-conflicted as someone beat me to it. Anyway, "just for the record", I'm trying to play nicer here than I think I'm being credited for. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've handled yourself fine here. You've gone to great lengths to explain yourself in a reasonable and convincing manner, and that is good in my book. Don't agonise too much over this. Flare-ups happen. Carcharoth 14:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've slept on it and decided it's a tempest in a teacup. I was being a bit more sensitive than usual after some disputation, on the same day, over at WP:MOSNUM. Today is a new day, and I feel better already! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many options?

I'm confused. How many options are there to vote on? It's difficult to tell at the moment. And when voting and discussion opens, can we support more than one option? Carcharoth 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there are too many options. I say we should remove the various "I don't know/neutral" options seeing as they don't really serve to identify any trends or ideas among respondents. I'll trim them now. Picaroon 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. We could also simply remove the stuff about WP:RS and save that for another discussion/poll. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely too confusing. My proposed scheme would be a much simpler wording:

Option 1

Wikipedia:Attribution is the only policy, Wikipedia:Verification and Wikipedia:No original research are redirected to sections of it that discuss the concerns formerly considered by those pages

Option 2

Wikipedia:Attribution is the primary policy, with Wikipedia:Verification and Wikipedia:No original research as subsidiary policies that provide simplified explanations of the concepts involved, and refer readers to Wikipedia:Attribution for further information. This is the current status quo.

Option 3

Wikipedia:Attribution is marked as historical, Wikipedia:Verification and Wikipedia:No original research are restored to full policy status

The current scheme, with sections and subsections is way too hard to follow. I don't think the option of keeping WP:ATT but leaving WP:V and WP:NOR as the primary policies stands a chance of success, it being an extremely unwieldly option. Better just to mark ATT as historical and be done with. If absolutely necessary, it could be done as a sub-option of option 3 in my list, as it is a close variant, but I think it's better to avoid those nested choices. JulesH 08:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias removed

Resolved

 – Poll addresses this concern. Remove this tag if it changes to no longer do so

Just for the record, I removed a bunch of subtle (and surely unintentional) bias from the voting categories. I won't be watching this every minute of every day, so others please be alert for any additional skewing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to chill out a bit and remind yourself that everyone involved is trying to do their best for Wikipedia, even if they seem misguided to you. Grace Note 08:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to note that that wasn't a very graceful comment. ;-) I went out of my way to specifically imply that the bias was not intentional. I think we may be having a simple culture clash. There is nothing malevolent at all about pointing out bias in a survey; it's just part of making the survey more sound (in social science terms; in hard science terms they are all meaningless nonsense of course). Anyway, while I do have my irritable disagreements to air, this isn't one of them. Please do not overgeralize discomfiture with one or two or seventeen things I've said to blanket opposition to everthing I say. PS: I don't think anyone here is misguided. The full extent of my complaint is over-control by a limited number of parties, which is self-resolveable with more WPian involvement. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See #Yes vs. No below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Options

We have three fundamental, distinct, but related doctrines, or content policies: verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. The question is, do we need three pages (one for each doctrine), two (one page might cover two of them), one (consolidate the lot on one page called "fundamental content policies") or four (one for each plus a summary of the lot and explanation of how they interrelate, called "summary of fundamental content policies"). There is no doctrine of "attribution". Attributing is a practice that is often (but not always) helpful for avoiding breaches of the three doctrines. The options should reflect the possibilities of how many pages we might need. Metamagician3000 08:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your summary. We have two "doctrines," attribution and NPOV. If one violates attribution, this may be either because the work is original research or it may simply have the undesirable consequence that it becomes unverifiable (i.e., impossible to distinguish from original research). JulesH 08:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This implies that "no original research" and "verifiability" are the same thing, but they are not and never were. Even the existing attribution change does not claim they are (or I hope it doesn't - it talks about various key principles). This is the kind of confusion that happens when you try to merge what are really distinct ideas into one policy page. Metamagician3000 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not an implication at all. There is a requirement that content in wikipedia be based on the content of reliable sources; if you ignore this requirement by making up information then it's original research, if you ignore it by failing to list the sources you're using then it's a verifiability problem. They're two different possible outcomes of failing to follow the same general rule. JulesH 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution is not a "doctrine", "policy" or anything else. It is an idea (heading towards "if it is not attributed then delete it") which a small group of editors have developed and are trying to make policy but for good reasons have not achieved anything approaching consensus. --Henrygb 11:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a policy; it says so at the top of the page, and almost everyone -- including Jimbo, despite the fact he doesn't like how the policy was implemented -- seem to agree that it is now policy. JulesH 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Like the rest of Wikipedia, just because it says so doesn't make it accurate; it is not a policy because there was never a consensus and that is why we are having a debate about its status. --Henrygb 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually we have several other "doctrines", including the WP:GFDL, our policy against using copyrighted material, our habit of being ethical to living people, and ideas such as that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. >Radiant< 11:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, AGF as well. I wouldn't want to downplay fundamental ideas about user interaction or intellectual property, or anything else. But the three fundamental content doctrines are interrelated (yet doing distinct jobs) and very important. I guess BLP can now be thought of as the fourth, but it has application only to some articles. Metamagician3000 13:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There's no such thing as "three fundamental content doctrines". There's a bunch of policies, and a bunch of founding principles, several of either relating to content. There are no "layers" of importance among different policies. >Radiant< 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Is WP:TRIFECTA still around? That might be the reasoning for some people thinking of three core polices. I know that is where I got the idea from. As for founding principles. Do we have Wikipedia:Founding principles, or is that a meta page? Actually, looking at those pages, I see that the trifecta is something different again. I might have been thinking of Wikipedia:Five pillars. The trio mentioned here are at the top of Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset, while {{Wikipedia principles}} also includes links to meta:Foundation issues and Wikipedia:List of policies. Carcharoth 14:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, in looking at the various pages Carcharoth links... I note that neither ATT, V, nor NOR has been listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. No wonder people don't understand them. We really do need to advertise this policy/these policies no matter which way we end up going. Blueboar 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite, and the point isn't to quibble about whether something is else is also important. The point is that all three of these are and that they can't be reduced to each other. Metamagician3000 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Old status quo

I am a bit concerned there isn't an option which clearly equates to "put things back how things were a while ago before people started trying to do better". --BozMo talk 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, I think that is precisely what "No merger, WP:A tagged as historical" means. If it doesn't then it needs editing, because I'm absolutely certain this is what it was intended to mean. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Object to the poll period

How on earth is this going to help deciding anything? We've had lengthy and many discussions about ATT. And we've had Jimbo saying that those three pages should not be merged. To both points, a poll is irrelevant. >Radiant< 09:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree massively with first two sentences. As to the third, JW recommended the poll after the fact, so I'm not sure I see a way around that one. As to fourth sentence, I also concur, but I think the horse is already out of the gate, so the question is about to become forensic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could MfD the poll page, but that would be silly. Carcharoth 14:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A poll is a good way to begin a consensus-building process (or can happen in the middle of the process, too). It helps identify what the disagreements are and which people disagree with what. Then people can discuss things with those identified as disagreeing with them, with the goal of eventually compromising or finding a solution that satisfies all sides. What are other ways of carrying out a consensus-building process? --Coppertwig 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But that is not what Jimbo asked. He asked for a vigorous and wide debate first, followed by a poll, followed by a decision. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes vs. No

I removed (but was reverted) the words "Yes" and "No" from the options because I found them to be either confusing or biased... "Yes" and "No" are answers to a question... but there isn't a question stated above the options to which a yes/no answer should be given. Without such a question, prefacing the options with a positive or negative word gives a positive or negative bias to the option.

Turn it around and you will see what I mean. Since this poll is in response to Jimbo saying he does not like ATT, we just as easily could say:

• "No, the current version of ATT is acceptable, RS/NOR/V should be explanatory"
• "Yes, RS/NOR/V should remain separate, ATT isn't needed"

My point being that the choices end up being the same, but phrased from a different perspective (ie implicitly supportive of the idea of dumping ATT instead of keeping it). Why not just state the options in a neutral tone without the "Yes" or "No"? Blueboar 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because if you have a poll with more than two options, it becomes muddled which (if any) of those options have consensus support. Far better to have multiple yes/no questions, than one question with "yes, yes?, maybe, no, O RLY and Fnord" as options. Anyway, the more you ask, the less meaningful the answers become. >Radiant< 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I don't see how your comments relate to using the words "Yes" or "No"? We still have the same number of options being presented, whether we include the words or not. If the number of options is a problem... then why not just cut the choices to the core question, and have only two options: 1) "ATT enjoys consensus" and 2) "ATT does not enjoy consensus"

I just don't see how adding "Yes" and "No" clears up the muddle... but I do see how it adds an unintended bias spin to the poll. Again, you could swap them so they say "No, I like ATT" and "Yes, I hate ATT" and still have the same options being presented.

If having the words "Yes" and "No" is important, then we should at least have a question stated for which a yes or no answer is called for ... a heading... something like: "Does WP:ATT have community consensus?" Blueboar 15:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what we want to gauge.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Structure

Radiant does have a point... the more options you present, the more difficult it becomes to determine which option has consensus. So perhaps what we need to do is structure the questions a bit better ... I would suggest the following: Blueboar 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Is the current version of ATT acceptable?

• Yes, the current version of ATT is acceptable.
• No, the current version of ATT is not acceptable.

2)If you answered "Yes" to the primary question, what should be done with WP:V and WP:NOR?

• Redirect them to ATT.
• Keep them as subsidiary/explanatory pages under ATT.

3)If you answered "No" to the primary question, should we...

• Work on ATT some more with the idea of eventually effecting a merge?
• Keep WP:V and WP:NOR as seperate policies in their own right?

4)What should be done with WP:RS? (not a vote - please comment)

I would support that. Only problem I see is (4). RS had no support as a guideline before the merger. Let's keep it out. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed structure confuses shortcuts and policy pages. To everybody: from now on, please do not use shortcuts to refer to the actual policy pages, as the shortcuts are an issue in their own right. Picaroon 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

ONE question

While not claiming any spectacular expertise, I always find Wiki polls sooo funny given a few years of (low-to-middlish) market research management work. Wiki cannot properly construct the if-then/and/or structure of CATI surveys because a Wiki survey cannot create a "blind" environment: Q3 or Q14b are going to be viewable while an editor answers Q1 on a Wiki survey, and thus the survey wording itself biases any datum within it. Given that this poll is important (given Jimbo's intervention), we ought to do it right (if we are to do it) by starting with one question. We can only answer one properly, because we cannot be blind with more than one. For instance:

• Do you feel that WP:V and WP:NOR should be merged into a single policy page?

And that's it.

Perhaps other people have a different "basic question"? I think we can have a robust, unpolluted answer to one question. If we really wanted to be serious, we could disallow comments and only allow agree/disagree——leave an "open-end" section for comments. What we cannot do is create an if/then survey in the Wiki environment. Marskell 20:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the if/then statement should be avoided. Perhaps this alternate organization is a compromise:

• • Q: What, if anything should be done with the current Policies & Guidelines of Attribution, Verifiability, No Original Research, and Reliable Sources?

1. 1. 1. Option 1 All 4 ideas should be merged into a single page, "Attribution".
      2. Option 2 All 4 pages should be maintained as seperate policies and guidelines.

Then, once concensus is built on THAT point, a futher single question poll could be used to decide on more details, for example, if Option 1 reaches consensus, then we can ask:

• • Q: What should be done with the older policies and guidelines of Verfiability, No Original Research, and Reliable sources?

1. 1. 1. Verifiability: Redirect or maintain as seperate page for historical or clarification purposes?
      2. No Original Research: Redirect or maintain as separate page?
      3. Reliable sources: Redirect or maintain as separate page?

Alternately, if option 2 wins consensus, then we can ask:

• • Q: What should be done with these 4 policies and guidelines if they are all to be kept seperate?

1. 1. 1. Keep all 4 as valid policies and guidelines
      2. Eliminate Attribution and return to status quo before the merge attempt.

This creates a 2 round straw poll, and avoids the confusing nature of an if/then poll. The specifics of each question could be tailored to better capture the points of contention here. But it would seem to me that we need to soon establish where the community intends to go on this. While polling may be evil, it can be hard to slog through discussions where a very small number of passionate editors are debating an issue. It can be impossible to actually establish concensus from a discussion with only a handful of participants. Sometimes there is a genuine concern, and other times there is only one or two editors who are objecting over the silent voices of the vast majority of editors who support the opposite position. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayron, thanks for looking and partially agreeing, but perhaps I didn't explain properly: if we are to do this, we must start with one non-open-ended question (a category important for lawyers and market researchers alike...). "What, if anything should be done..." is an open-ended question. We should start with a "yes/no"—as clear as a yes/no as possible. Marskell 21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I'm afraid the issues are far to great to deal with with a single yes/no question. We need to decide between a number of possible outcomes -- at a minimum the possible outcomes must include "revert to just Verifiability, No original research and Reliable sources", "keep only Attribution and tag the rest as historical" and "keep Attribution, and make Verifiability, No original research and Reliable sources subsidiary to Attribution." JulesH 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, assuming I agree with you (I don't, because you're mis-reading the suggestion), what you suggest suggests to me closing down this page and, ultimately, the discussion in general. A good, thoughtful, dictatorial decision from Jimbo is preferable to this. The "outcomes" must include... what? A "yes/no" question dictates an outcome of yes or no, as just suggested. Marskell 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To add/rephrase (cause I'm thinking I'm being a bit belligerent), I was suggesting no outcomes. I was suggesting a single question, to start, because proper opinion research should be blind and a single question is the only way we can call ourselves blind. We can't talk about all possible outcomes, when discussing a first question. OK. Marskell 22:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempted to address your concern with my last few edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We now seem to be back to a multi-option question instead of a clear Yes or No on the primary issue, and then subsidiary questions following up on that key one. Why? Blueboar 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Marskell is correct: one question.

I object to Wikipedia polls and never vote; but it looks horribly as if I'm going to have to this time. In which case, I hope I am not presented with one of those rococo polls peculiar to Wikipedia. In my opinion, the result of such a poll would be inconclusive (or if conclusive, subject to carps that it was mis-structured). One question, please. qp10qp 04:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur that Marskell is correct on the one, fundamental question that should be asked, which amounts to, should ATT even exist. The version of the poll that I'm looking at is biased towards the fact that it should even exist as a merger of other policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of ATT ....

... was not to "remove the policy status of V and NOR". Reverted accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't? Then where's the policy tag on the revisions prior to Jimbo's revert? Last I checked, there had been consensus (or what we thought was consensus) to supersede them. It was only until the Jimbo-SlimVirgin deal that the idea of having all three as policy came up. Um. Picaroon 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The "superseded" tag on NOR and V was what started this all saga, and was done a month after ATT was upgraded to policy status. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If its the superseded tag which started this most recent debate, than I offer my hearty apologies, seeing as I suggested its creation - for that purpose precisely! But that wasn't what started the "'this was done wrong -Jimbo.'" It was Jimbo's rejection of the supposedly inadequate consensus which formed on WT:A that started this. Picaroon 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Jimbo's initial reaction, he has clarified his position, in talk page as well as in the mailing list. What is on the table now is a discussion about the merger, not about the content of ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I undid this merger of policy not because I think it is a bad idea but because there was not really a proper process. If ultimately approved, this is a MAJOR change of editorial policy structure (even if, at the outset, the policies are supposed to stay the same). I am happy to restore the policy if there is community consensus to do. I am encouraging the creation of at minimum a "vote" page to allow people to register their opinions more systematically. Jimmy Wales, March 20, 2007 1:46:39 PM PDT, WkieEN-l

What we are seeking to gauge is support for ATT as a merger of existing policies, not as deprecation or superseding of existing policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the questions I had in mind when I created this page, but I guess the initial purpose of the poll has been swept out from under me. Ah well, I won't resort to claims of ownership. Picaroon 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What was the question you had in mind, Picaroon? I may have missed something, sorry... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you missed nothing, but I've sure confused myself - this all only happened a day ago, but my chronology is already fuzzy. As I discussed with Jimbo on IRC, I had one idea and he had another. I think I created a version of the page in preview which was worded along the lines of finding out what people hoped to happen to the redirects and what the final status of Wikipedia:Verifiability should be. However, after IRC discussion, I modified them so as to be looking for what you mentioned above - opinions on whether the merger had (has) consensus. This seems to be the version I saved. Anyways, it's history and, as you say, the answers we're looking for have evolved. Picaroon 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between a merger of existing policies and a deprecation or superseding of existing policies. I don't see any difference. Each would mean putting "superceded" on the longstanding policy pages and/or freezing them, wouldn't it? --Coppertwig 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Scrap Wikipedia:Reliable sources entirely? When was this proposed?

Well, time for the next header. Anyways, is this option necessary? RS has been a guideline for a while, I believe, and I don't think anyone, throughout this whole discussion, has floated scrapping it entirely. Did I miss this proposal? Unless it happened, we don't have any reason to believe RS is going to be devaluated completely. And if we have no reason to believe that, then it's just clutter. Other thoughts? Picaroon 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved the question about RS to the "Yes" section, as it belongs there rather than on its own. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good point - it hinges on a yes vote, so it should be a subheading. What do you think about the additional comments section? There are already several talkpages this discussion is spread out over, so I don't think we need that section, either - as I've said several times, even more discussion fragmenting isn't desirable. Picaroon 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Still doesn't work

What if my opinion is "ATT needs more work, but when it's done, V and NOR should be redirected"? >Radiant< 07:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Brevity

I just posted a much shortened version. Not that it has to stay this way—just a simpler idea for people to think about. Marskell 09:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• You're begging the question. >Radiant< 12:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the current version is as confusing as it can be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? Marskell 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want it really simple, you would have two options Yes and No. Then you can have specifics about how these Yes or No would work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec)LOL. Well, OK. I thought the options were clear enough: back to the previous status quo, all four, some of the four, just ATT. Is that really confusing?

If you cut question two and three from this I could swallow it. But, I'm sorry, "Supposing that ATT is accepted, what should be done with V and NOR? As long as ATT is not accepted, this question and its answer are irrelevant" is not the proper way to collect useful data. Marskell 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sure it is. Surveys work like that all the time. It also allows for (surprisingly common) opinions like "oppose this, but IF it passes anyway, then do so-and-so". >Radiant< 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Radiant, but it's not unless you can properly program a "skip", which we can't do here. Marskell 14:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, yes, I did advocate a Yes/No above and its always the best way to proceed if it can be done. Latest change is better, but we need to make clear whether we mean acceptable as a replacement or acceptable in terms of it's wording. Marskell 13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To unpack last, I'm assuming the intent here is not to decide whether the words on ATT need to be tweaked, but whether the basic idea of ATT replacing RS, V, and NOR, is a good one... What redirects where, etc. is subsidary and can be worked out through further discussion if there is consensus for the main change. Marskell 14:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of having this poll is that Jimbo wants to know two things... 1) "Does the merger of V/NOR/RS into ATT have community consensus?" ? and 2) "If it does, what do we do with the old policies and guideline that got rolled into it?" These are two seperate questions. So shouldn't we ask them seperately? Blueboar 14:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, separate in both space and time :). Ask the first one as crisply as possible, and then turn to the second one. Marskell 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Or, reverse that. Do we need to roll several policies/guidelines into one, if so, does ATT have consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy Change or Change Policy

I read all of this here and see it bleeding over to things like WP:N and I ask myself is it the Policy Change that needs to be addressed or is it the way we Change Policy that needs to be addressed? I think it might be that the way we change policy that needs to be addressed first. Trying get up to speed on what is going on, and following the divergences, fragmentations and forks in the present format is nearly a full time job, and I already have one of those. Jeepday 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• We discuss neither here. WP:ATT is not a change in policy, merely a change in presenting it. The actual policies haven't changed much lately. If you wish to discuss the way of changing policy, the best spot would be either the village pump, or a new proposal for a viable way. Note that such proposals tend to backfire. >Radiant< 12:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep dropping RS?

I realize that RS was only a guideline while V and NOR were policies... but it is part of the equation here. It should be included. Blueboar 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This was already covered at a topic above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Where? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I give up

I do not see how this poll would work. We cannot even agree on its wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seconded. I said in advance that this poll was probably not a good idea. >Radiant< 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Now I feel guilty. I thought we'd just achieved something in the last hour... Marskell 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And to add, I'm not disagreeing with the latest wording at all, which is very straightforward. Two concerns:

• We need to allow people to vote yes even if they don't want to have all three merged; Jimbo seems to want to keep NOR as a separate concept, for instance.
• "Delete" and "detail pages" are not the exact options. Live pages, historical tags, etc. Rather than over-loading the initial question, we can defer that debate. Marskell 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you'll give up over my dead body. :) Jimbo has agreed that the Attribution policy be canonical, and so it is only the merger that's at stake and the poll is therefore not as crucial as it seems. I believe that the Attribution policy will go from strength to strength, even if the merger is voted down, because the other policies will be linked from it and it will centralise them. Discussion over the poll wording is necessarily knotty, because we're all acutely aware that dodgy wording would skew the result, as happens on so many Wikipedia polls. I hope you will somehow find the patience to deal with this wretched poll, because you've been one of the backbones of the Attribution policy all along. The FAQ in particular owes a lot you. qp10qp 14:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... Problem is that it is not up to anyone of us to dismiss the poll. If Jimbo has the power to single-handed challenge ATT as he did, and as he asked for a poll, looks like we shall have a poll regardless if it is a good idea or not. This may sound callous, but that is the reality of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so. And all the more reason not to give up now. If the poll supports the merger, Jimbo will accept it, and we're there. But even if the poll goes against the merge, it's not the end of the world because Jimbo has agreed to the Attribution page being canonical. So I see the glass as half full going on fully full. :) qp10qp 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This poll came about because Jimbo has some questions he needs answered... but I'm not even sure if we have agreement as to what those questions are. How can we agree on the options to be presented if we can't agree on the questions to be asked? Perhaps we need to ask Jimbo to get involved in setting up the poll, so that the questions asked reflect what he wants to know? Blueboar 15:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure he will want to get involved in the details. He asked "find out of there is consensus for the merge, and if there is I will not oppose this". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Then that is what we need to ask... "Is there consensus for the merge?" Blueboar 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really... the result of the poll is what will tell us if there is consensus for the merger.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What Jossi said. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Approval poll?

It is usual in complex decisions to have an approval poll. For example, I can see approving "retain WP:V and WP:NOR as historic" and "finish work on WP:ATT and redirect the other two when done" Thia has the advantage that we don't need to spend so much time on wording; anybody who disagrees with all the options can just add one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The disadvantage is that the divergence makes it next to impossible to determine (let alone agree upon) which options(s) have consensus. >Radiant< 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The solution has usually been to compile a count of all those !voting at all; usually compiled afterwards, but we could request that anyone !voting sign an overall list. If 80%, say, of those who have expressed any opinion approve "historic" or "redirect" then that's the consensus; if 80% approve both, it doesn't much matter which we do, but we can have a runoff if either of the 20% minorities feel strongly. (As I write, we have one Yes/No question, and one "If Yes, then..." question, so this is less of a problem.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And it's just gotten worse with forking of the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion, the justification for which is entirely unclear to me. 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions

I think these are more elegant, both versus the version of earlier today and my first clumsy change. Should we ask the first alone, wait to see if there is a Yes consensus, and then ask the second? Marskell 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with asking multiple questions at the same time... but I do like having them as separate questions. Your current version works for me. Blueboar 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Respond only if you voted YES" is problematic. People who vote NO to first are still entitled to an opinion on what will happen if they're voted down... I think we should space out the questioning. Marskell 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I said "this question is only relevant if the answer to the first is YES." By the way, people who agree with the merge in principle, but not the present wording of ATT, are going to vote no on #1. >Radiant< 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I do realize that; I suggested from my initial post that this may bias the answer to first and thus that the questions should be spaced 2. Not if we offer a proper instruction in that regard. Marskell 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But that would be fine. ATT is in its current stage a completed work (with the caveat that all policies need some tweaking). So those that believe that ATT as it stands is a no go, should vote No. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked Question 2 to make this clear; do we want to say "the merger implemented" in Question 1? Some people dispute the question of fact whether the merger has been implemented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as ATT has a policy tag on it now, I think it fine to say "merger implemented." Or at least I don't think anyone will be confused as to what they're voting on. In fact, I think Q1 is so simple and obvious we should go with it as soon as possible and leave Q2 pending results. Marskell 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if the change is reverted (others may); but I think we should go with both questions, in order to provoke discussion as to the next step if Q1 fails. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Continue to exist

I have tweaked this. I presume that, even if there is consensus against WP:ATT continuing to be policy, the page will continue to exist with a {{rejected}} tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A Yes/No vote cannot have caveats for those that voted Yes, or for those that voted No. We cannot ask for a Yes or a No, and then if you voted No, and the consensus was Yes, to minimize that consensus by placing caveats upon the consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this poll premature?

I have been re-reading Jimbo;'s comments in the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, and it is becoming obvious to me that this poll is not the next step in the process. What Jimbo asked:

1. A vigourous debate on the issues at hand
2. A poll to assess the level of support
3. A closing process and final determination (TBD)

The poll is the second step in the process he asked for, and not the next. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A straw poll may be in order anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that is the case, Pmanderson. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And isn't the five months of editing on ATT a large part of step 1? Marskell 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Jimbo, no. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And he's right; a wide, and widely publicized, debate on the result, is called for. Some editors missed the whole five months; most editors missed part of it. (We should, if possible, avoid retroactive complaints avout process; some of them are difficult to act on without a time machine.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? We post to the Village Pump and anywhere else we can think of? This has already been done. And the poll itself ought to initiate vigorous debate anyhow. Marskell 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's comments yesterday in the mailing list:

"A major policy restructuring took place in a way that a huge number of very active and high quality editors were not consulted."""

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

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is unavoidable... Not sure ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We could open a page at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion, advertise the page everywere we can think of, ask all these that were not consulted to comment, and then in 10-15 days open the poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm of two minds. For the last month WT:ATT has been hit by like five threads a day. It has been talked about. I don't know how much more useful information is going to be derived by (re-)posting to various locations. At the same time, we need to show due diligence to Jimbo. One thing we should not do is have this talk become another swamp—perhaps your Community discussion page is a better place to go. Marskell 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a discussion page is a great ides. Several main threads:

• Do we want a merger at all?
• Is the present text of WP:ATT such a merger? does it represent present policy and practice?
• Should present policy/practice be changed? (primarily a place for postponing such discussion; but if there is consensus for change, fair enough.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, Pmanderson. Be bold and start the page. I need to go now, and will come back later today. Advertise it in all talk pages of policies, the Village Pump and the Community noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done a draft. Others will have to go over it, and advertise it; I need to go myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Marksell, several editors in the mailing list have complained loudly that they did not know about ATT, despite all the activity that it generated. So, we need to afford them the possibility to engage in a discussion in which they can be afforded the possibility to understand the rationale behind the merger and comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly fair enough. Marskell 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking, Jossi. I like this idea. I think the merger will get more votes in favour after a thorough (energetically advertised) discussion than at present when people might just vote against it out of reactance. qp10qp 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So much for short and sweet

I guess I give up too. Marskell 22:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We've still got Q1 as short and sweet... Maybe... Marskell 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way, Marskell: we are wagging the dog with the tail. First, we need the "wide community debate" as per Jimbo's and only then, a poll. But it seems that we are more gang-ho to get the poll designed before the discussion. Let's change that and focus on promoting the debate. Shall we? Giving some attention to the discussion page at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion, would be best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. The wide community debate will be good. I suggest a pop culture exception be suggested off the top. More seriously, I'm just not getting it here—usually when you're a minority of one, you can deduce why you're wrong, but I can't. Given that Qs 2, 3, 4 depend on Q1, why don't we just ask Q1? It will be the community debate. It can be left up for a week, a month. Ask: "Do you agree with the merge?" and debate it. Marskell 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple is best. I would keep just the 1st question and everything else moved to the debate page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude! Yes. Marskell 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The simple first question to ask is "Should WP:V be merged with WP:NOR?" If we don't have consensus for that, we don't have consensus to do anything. If we do have consensus for that, the argument over whether the present WP:ATT is that merger is secondary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is oversimplifying the matter. (Also see m:Voting is evil#Polling_encourages_false_dichotomy.) If someone supports merging some policies/guidelines but not all of them, is that a yes or a no? There should be more options to avoid polarising the issue too much. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, someone might want all three to remain active, but only some to be considered official/canonical. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Canonical

Wow, there's already a talk page here.

I am concerned that canonical might not be a word everyone is familiar with, especially non-native speakers of English. I know we are not the Simple English Wikipedia, but is there a reason another word, like "primary policy", cannot be used?

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But please, note that we have been working all day so far in getting this poll worded accurately. Please discuss major changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We can link to canonical, if necessary; "primary policy" is not quite the same thing. Is it what we mean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "ruling policy"? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I started a suggestion on this topic lower down at canonical vs definitive. Signed Jeepday 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wording of first question

I changed the first question to be more practical and specific and less abstract and metaphysical: from

• "Do you agree in principle with the merger intended at Wikipedia:Attribution?" to
• "Do you agree with replacing some other policies with Wikipedia:Attribution?"

If the first version were to be used, the wording of the second question would have to be changed to refer properly to the result of the first question. --Coppertwig 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We are thinking of keeping just question 1, and the rest to be moved to the debate page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the current version of the question:

• "Should WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR be merged?"

It's short and to the point. (I think user Marskell put in this version of the question.) However, if there is consensus for "yes" for this, it is not to be interpreted as consensus that Wikipedia:Attribution is the merged version of those policies. A further process would have to establish how to carry out the merger. --Coppertwig 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And how do the people who want V and NOR merged, but RS kept separate, answer that question? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe that question is too simple. However, I object to the wording "agree in principle" and the wording "intended" -- intended by whom? What is actually intended? Much too vague. I'm waiting for user Jossi to explain the reason for the revert to this vague wording. This wording is now in the third question. Better than having it in the first question, but I still object. --Coppertwig 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coppertwig with respect to the vague wording. Different people might have very different interpretations of what it means. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How about: "Is WP:ATT (acceptable as) that merger?" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me (not as the first question, of course). --Coppertwig 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I regret to see that "Do you agree in principle with the merger intended at Wikipedia:Attribution?" keeps re-emerging. It is undefended here, and I agree that it is undesirably vague. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not enough options

Some of the options currently seem rather polarising. It is possible that some editors will want some pages to stay merged, but not all three.

There is also the question of what to do if there is not consensus for WP:ATT. I am not sure what options everyone would like to see there, but I think "remain active with primary policy at WP:V and WP:NOR" should be on the list.

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And now there are even less options.  : ( Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See m:Voting is evil#Polling_encourages_false_dichotomy. The question of whether or not the policies and guidelines should be merged really shouldn't be simplified to a yes/no. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No poll

There is no need or benefit to a poll on ATT. It is already policy. Keep it and V and NOR frozen and let people refer to these as they wish and discuss them as they wish while they are frozen. Let consensus emerge naturally through use and talk. WAS 4.250 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Either as a new question; Is ATT policy? or the second question: ATT is policy, and therefore is the merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe ATT has consensus; but if it doesn't, it isn't policy, no matter how many policy tags it bears. Either way, I see no harm in asking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of yet another page to discuss this stuff. Have proposed merging Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Attribution for simple sanity. The discussion has already forked way too much. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please use informative edit summaries. If your edit is a revert, please begin it with the word "revert" or an abbreviation of it. If you edit involves only a few words, please quote the words in your edit summary. Make your edit summaries as informative as possible about what kind of edit you're doing. Thanks. --Coppertwig 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to a number of users who are using more informative edit summaries. It's worth taking the time to do; it really helps when trying to sift through the page history. However, just now I did a revert and intended to begin it with the word "revert" but I think my edit summary was too long and the first part of it got cut off or something, so I wasn't taking my own advice.  :-) --Coppertwig 23:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re "Dummy edits": Please carry on discussion on the talk page; please do not clutter the edit history with "dummy edits" in order to carry on discussion in the page history. --Coppertwig 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was concerned that some people might not have read certain relevant parts of the talk page, and I hoped the dummy edits would attract them to those sections. I believe m:Help:Dummy edit approves of that use. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It does seem like a way of "almost" reverting without actually doing so. Can't say I object to it, esp. if meta sanctions it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sort of, I guess. All of the disapproval with none of the revert warring. Although, I did technically revert war with myself over the inclusion of an extra blank line that made absolutely no difference in the appearance of the page.  ; ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Do you agree in principle with the merger intended at Wikipedia:Attribution?"

Yes. Marskell 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong question to start with. There are too many different answers: "I agree with some merger, but not with this one"; "I agree with merging Verifiability and OR, but I do/don't want RS in the mix." and several others, including mikka's "This was done wrong, and the wording is flawed." I expect it to fail, and to leave no clear indcation of how consensus can be achieved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's all in the instructions. Again, you either do or do not agree with the merge in principle. We can say "Vote yes, if you agree to a merge of two of the three, and note which two", for instance. Marskell 23:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, Aye. Let's put the focus on the community discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion, and then come back here in a week or so to fine tune it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming back in eight or so hours. I will say that, despite some reverting, we've got precise questions on the table compared to 24 hrs ago. Marskell 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The current questions are not what this poll is about. The poll is about gauging consensus for an existing merged page called ATT. No more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And if that support fails to be consensus, then what do we do? What's plan B? At lease if we have consensus to merge, and not for ATT, we know we have to rewrite the merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The answers to that question could be much more complex than simple yes/no. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yikes

This is getting really complicated. I was thinking on a simple 3 options approach,

• Would you prefer that:
  • (a) WP:N & WP:OR were policies, but not WP:A,
  • (b) WP:V, WP:OR and WP:V all have policy status,
  • (c) WP:A is a policy, but not WP:V & WP:OR.

Addhoc 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider your redirects; my guess is you meant to say:

• Would you prefer that:
  • (a) WP:V & WP:NOR are policies, but not WP:A,
  • (b) WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:A all have policy status,
  • (c) WP:A is a policy, but not WP:V & WP:NOR.

--Audiovideo 15:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks Audiovideo! Addhoc 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Senseless

Question 1 now makes no sense whatsoever. What was the logic behind it? Marskell 08:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? How does it fail to make sense? —David Levy 08:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In mixes the outcomes with the principle, which we spent so much time separating yesterday. "Q. What is your opinion of the upcoming election? A: The conservatives should raise taxes if elected." See what I mean? And we do not need "Other (please elaborate)". The shooting gallery should be moved out of the questions entirely. Marskell 08:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy; WP:ATT already exists. We need to determine what should become of it, and that isn't as simple as asking a "yes" or "no" question (which oversimplifies the issue).

To ask people whether or not they support the merger is to present an all-or-nothing proposition. (Either replace the old pages with the new one or keep the old pages and reject the new one.) In fact, there are viable options in between, and it's important that they be conveyed to the community. Otherwise, people will be forced to adopt extreme positions contrary to the moderate positions that they actually hold. —David Levy 08:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But David, if you ask both whether people agree with the principle of the merge and what should become of the pages if they agree or disagree, you won't generate useful consensus. At best, this question is going to give us a dissatisfying plurality outcome. Marskell 08:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're attempting to oversimplify a complicated issue. We might not reach a clear consensus in one go, but that's vastly preferable to reaching a false consensus. —David Levy 08:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I for one would find it much more "dissatisfying" to end up with an honest plurality outcome that indicates the need for further consensus building, than a bogus but less messy result that doesn't actually reflect true consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Read up: I suggested we begin with the simple question, and move to possible outcomes if there is a Yes consensus. It won't be a false consensus in the slightest—it will be a clear one, which is exactly what we need. Marskell 11:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Marskell has been making this good argument since about day one here AND that its a good idea. How does the saying go; "every journey begins with single step"? Jeepday 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point. What we have right now are several options. To ask whether or not people agree with the merger in principle is to artificially limit them to the two extreme options (instead of permitting them to advocate compromise). Given the current wording, I'll have to vote "no" (despite the fact that I support WP:ATT's existence). If others act in kind, this could lead to a false consensus.

Here's what I want to ask:

Which of the potential outcomes (including two degrees of compromise) would be best?

Here's what you're asking:

Do you agree with a specific, extreme outcome (yes or no)?

By the time that we get to question two, people concerned that WP:ATT will completely replace the original pages may already have voted it down. Given the fact that both extreme outcomes represented in question 1a as "yes" and "no" are included as choices in question 2 (along with two compromises, both of which have been noted by Jimbo as feasible possibilities), I see absolutely no benefit to asking the needlessly constrictive question 1a at all. —David Levy 13:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What about this as a single question:

• Wikipedia:Attribution is an intended merger of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS. What is your opinion?
• Yes to merging all.
• No, merge none.
• Two of three (briefly describe) Marskell 08:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See above. As far as I'm concerned, we could drop question 2 entirely. —David Levy 08:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that discussion seems to have moved to the Community discussion page, perhaps we're twiddling our thumbs here at the moment. Marskell 08:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no longer a rush. But now there's a chance to take time and prepare the right question (s). qp10qp 13:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening?

When is the poll going to open? I recently voted because there was no date and I was linked from the Community Portal. I see no date anywhere, so I'm a little confused as to how this is going to run. Someone should state when the poll will open. (And, interestingly, keeping a poll only open in a certain time is more of a democracy than allowing people to vote when they want to. Chances are that I won't vote on this because I'm too busy.) _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  11:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"with the merger(s) intended"

Should this be "consolidation intended" given that some have argued for ATT as a supplement, with the three originals remaining live? Or perhaps we should just ask "Do you agree in principle with Wikipedia:Attribution." Thus, whatever your feelings about how all the pages should settle, you can still vote yes. Marskell 12:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's looking good, Marskell. Has anyone actually argued for ATT as a supplement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was Jimbo's original response (before his consultation with you). It's my preference and Jared's. —David Levy 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What would be the point of having it as a supplement, David? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Supplement" isn't the best word. It would be a condensed summary. —David Levy 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I can't see where Jimbo said that was his preference at any point, and he didn't mention it when we spoke. Do you have a diff? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I'm not aware of Jimbo expressing any long-term preference, but his initial response was to restore the old pages' policy/guideline status while leaving Wikipedia:Attribution active (but removing claims that it had superseded the other pages). After your consultation, he announced that for the time being, "WP:ATT is canonical, and WP:V and WP:NOR exist as separate pages to more fully describe those." (This is the other compromise listed in the poll, and I would be fine with that too.) —David Levy 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you prefer to emphasise the God-King's uninformed behavior rather than his informed behavior after he had time to gather data and reflect? WAS 4.250 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcastic characterization of Jimbo aside, I'm not implying that either decision should be held sacrosanct. I'm merely noting that both arose as potential compromises. Again, I'd be fine with either. —David Levy 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

David, he didn't, even at the very start, say he preferred ATT as a supplement. That would be senseless. I think we should remove that option, because clearly if NOR and V were restored as the main policies, there would be no need for ATT (as supplement, summary, or anything). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Again, "summary" is a better description.

2. Again, I'm not claiming that Jimbo expressed a preference for such a solution. (I'm merely describing the situation that initially existed when Jimbo restored the old pages' policy/guideline status.) But that's irrelevant to the fact that several users have expressed a preference for this outcome. Your belief that it's a bad idea is a reason to vote against it, not valid justification for removing the option. If the community agrees with you, they'll vote against it too. —David Levy 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But using that reasoning, we could add any number of questions. The point is that we need to keep the poll as simple and meaningful as possible. If NOR and V are restored as policy pages, the last thing we want is to retain ATT with any kind of formal status, because it simply adds to the number of policy pages to be maintained, so we'd be in an even worse situation than we were before the merge. ATT could easily be retained as an essay anyway if the other two were retained as policy, so it's pointless including that as an option in this poll. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you quite understand the proposal. No one is arguing that all of the pages should retain "policy" status. Either compromise would result in exactly the same content appearing on the various pages. The only distinction lies in how to tag the pages and which one(s) to edit on a primary basis (as opposed to mirroring some or all of the content in modified form). One proposal would mean that the old pages would serve as expanded versions of the policy, while the other would mean that WP:ATT would serve as a condensed version of policies/guideline (and not be a policy in and of itself).

In any case, I've merged two options into one (with the specifics to be addressed later). Hopefully, this is an acceptable solution. —David Levy 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Attribution should stay active as a summary page. It is possible that some newbies will prefer reading it over Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. It could be sort of like WP:5P, only longer and more focused.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the symbols

These symbols are not just "decorations". These are widely used and understood. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which way I go on this; the symbols are widely used and understood, but I'm not sure they add much. It may be a reasonable compromise to move them out of the actual headers. Can we please, however, discuss the question here, instead of revert warring? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Not worth spending tooo much time on this. I guess that my training on usability and information design forces me to look at these things somewhat differently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you say that. I was concerned about where you were coming from with all that eye candy. Big letters in color and such are often an indication of ego issues. As for style choices, some of us hark back to the days of inteacting with a distant computer using a teletype for I/O and punched paper for data storage. WAS 4.250 16:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have computer usability training, and I work with elderly (including visually impaired) computer users on a voluntary basis. —David Levy 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Not only are they mere decorations, but I believe that they actually clutter the page and make the poll more difficult to read (in addition to breaking the section links). I've left the ones that serve to visually demarcate the individual sections. —David Levy 16:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with David Levy. They're silly and distracting and were making the headings weird. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We already agreed to remove them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But agreed to keep the numbering, as we have a __NOTOC__, the headings are not mangled by adding the number pics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

They still do undesirable things in edit summaries. It's much simply to just, um, use numbers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And who on earth is "we"? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We? as you, me and the others? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Main question

The main question as posed now: " Do you agree in principle with the existence of the Wikipedia:Attribution page in some form?" is "leading". That is not the question that is being asked. The correct question should be neutral. I have revereted once more to the formulation that was worked out yesterday. If there is disagreement, let's discuss. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree... this must be neutral, and Jossi's verison of the question is that. Blueboar 17:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's an assumptive, all-or-nothing proposition. (Should we merge the pages and deprecate them or throw out WP:ATT completely?). As I commented earlier, given the fact that both extreme outcomes represented as "yes" and "no" are included as choices in question 3 (along with two potential compromises), I see absolutely no benefit to including this question at all. —David Levy 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The benefit is to find out what the bottom line is — do people support the merge in principle, or do they not? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How does question 3 fail to establish this? —David Levy 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it doesn't ask it straight out. Remember that it's not just gathering input, but sorting it afterwards. Q1 as it stands is going to give us a straight, identifiable majority opinion—the very thing that Wiki polls always fail to do. I'm worried about Q3 and think it should be put on hold until we get an answer to Q1. Q3 may well produce only a plurality and thus indecision. Let's get the Yes/No done, and input on which of the three should be merged first. Marskell 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, it does ask it straight out. Two of the options are essentially identical to the "yes"/"no" responses of question 1. The only difference is the inclusion of two compromise options (which allow respondents to express their actual viewpoints instead of forcing them to select an extreme scenario that they don't necessarily advocate).

2. This is not a majority vote. It's a straw poll, and we don't base policy decisions directly on straw polls. (By definition, they're non-binding.) This is merely an attempt to gauge the community's opinions (whatever they may be) for the purpose of furthering discussion, not an attempt to lump everyone together in one of two groups for the sake of expedience.

I did, however, attempt to eliminate unnecessary fragmentation by combining the two compromise options (leaving the specifics to be addressed down the road), but SlimVirgin reverted this change. —David Levy 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because you changed it and made it unclear. If you think the first question is just repetitive, why not leave it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, you believe that my wording made the question unclear (and I respect your opinion). I'm merely pointing out that I've made a good-faith effort to address these concerns via compromise.

2. I don't "think the first question is just repetitive." I also feel that it polarizes the issue and discourages compromise. —David Levy 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec. to your first 1, 2)

1. "Essentially identical," except for the fact that they're (possibly confusing) phrases; "yes" and "no" are unambiguous. "The only difference is the inclusion of two compromise options"—right, you're not asking it straight out, and as I say you risk only deriving a plurality.

2. Of course. This is still all subject to Jimbo's discretion and 50+1 isn't something we can rush to the bank with. I only meant that we'll derive data that's unambiguous, one way or the other. Marskell 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1. If you feel that the wording is confusing, why don't you help to revise it? You say that we "risk only deriving a plurality," as though that would be terrible thing. If no majority opinion exists, why do you seek to artificially create one by limiting people's choices? We can easily apply common sense to any plurality outcome or even a tie. (If each option were selected by 1/4 of respondents, that would mean that 3/4 of them favored the continued existence of WP:ATT in some form.)

2. The derivation of ambiguous data is precisely my concern. By forcing respondents to adopt an extreme position, we won't know how many of them would have preferred a compromise. As I said earlier, given question 1's current wording, I'll have to vote "no" (despite the fact that I support WP:ATT's creation). —David Levy 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good surveys "artificially create" majorities all the time; if you're designing a survey, you often set out to do just that on particular questions. But it's not actually artificial, when you think about it more closely. Putting people on-the-spot is what elections do, for instance, and people applaud that idea—it's what any poll ought to do when it wants a useful result. People either do or do not agree with the mergers at WP:ATT. Let's find out. Marskell 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it simply isn't true that "people either do or do not agree with the mergers at WP:ATT." People agree to varying extents, and you're forcing them to declare that they support or oppose it 100%. I see nothing "useful" about deliberately soliciting inaccurate responses for the sake of convenience. —David Levy 19:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Soliciting inaccurate responses" is an entrenchment and an exaggeration, so I don't see any point in further replies. Amongst the small group here now I see consensus for the simple question. We can wait for further commentary. Marskell 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that "an entrenchment and an exaggeration"? You just explained that you want to force people with moderate positions to adopt one extreme position or the other (purely for the sake of ensuring that one option receives a majority). How could this result in anything other than inaccurate responses from the individuals in question? —David Levy 19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; Marskell, I think your plan here is very off-base. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

<<< (outdent). This all process was initiated by Jimbo, upon a request to gauge the level of consensus for ATT which he believes was not wide enough. I personally thing that all this process is not useful and that his proposal for discussion and poll was based on lack of detailed information about the aims of WP ATT and resulting work done by the 300 editors that participated in its development. Nonetheless, I want to pursue this process because we need to get an unambiguous response from the community: Do you agree with ATT, or not, based on the facts described at the top of the poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing ambiguous about accurate responses. I do, however, see a great deal of ambiguity in responses derived by forcing people to adopt one of two extreme positions instead of considering compromise. —David Levy 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right! The very fact that compromise positions exist is why I've already decided to change my positition away from relegating WP:ATT to the {{Historical}} dustbin. If the compromise positions are removed, then so is my ability to come to a compromise vote such as I'm contemplating. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The wording must be unambiguous. There's no use having people vote that "yes, I agree that the pages be merged" and later have their vote interpreted as consensus for "Let's accept WP:ATT as it stands as the final version of the merge". It must be clear which one of these (or some other question) is really being asked. Words such as "agree in principle with" and "as intended at" must be avoided because they are ambiguous. One option for a clear question is "Do you agree with merging two or more of the policy pages listed below?" Another option is "Do you agree to accept WP:ATT as a merger of two or more of the policy pages listed below?"

If anyone prefers to include the words "agree in principle with" or "as intended at", please explain your rationale. I think those words need to be deleted. --Coppertwig 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wishywashy language like that will produce misleading results. Any number of people might theoretically agree with the basic idea, but disagree with the current version/process in 50 different ways. Questions 2 and 3 make sense; question 1 doesn't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The compromise can be extrapolated from the answers given to questions 2 and 3, David. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the poll's entire outcome can be extrapolated from the answers given to questions 2 and 3! Unfortunately, question 1 will dissuade some respondents from even considering compromise. —David Levy 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, people voting will understand the implications of not considering the compromise possible by answering 2 and 3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

On this, you and I agree. —David Levy 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to user Pmanderson for coming up with a wording of the first question which is short, clear, to the point, and a nice complement to the other questions:

• Should Wikipedia:Attribution be policy?

Question 2 needs to be clearer, though: "Which pages, if any, should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution?" Someone might vote "yes" meaning "yes, please move the contents of page X into page WP:ATT", and then be surprised to have their "yes" interpreted as "yes, please consider WP:ATT as it stands to represent fairly the contents of page X, which can now simply be demoted." Before the poll, perhaps we need to lay out what process will be followed afterwards. At the moment, the question looks quite ambiguous to me.

If question 3 accurately reflects what's going to happen, then a more accurate version of question 2 might be: "Which pages, if any, should be considered as having been merged into Wikipedia:Attribution?" However, a better way would be to make it clear that there will be reasonable time for moving material from the original pages to the merge page before the merges are considered complete. This would require rewriting question 3, which doesn't seem to allow that possibility. --Coppertwig 22:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But. .. that is not the question that need to be asked, as that was not what was challenged. What was challenged was the merger of NOR and V into ATT. ATT became policy on Jan 2007. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your second comment, what Q2 and Q3 seek to cvlarify is the consensus about how the merger (if at all) should be implemented. If you want nothing to do with ATT, vote NO to all these as per the explanation in that section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm being dense, as it's always difficult to join a conversation in the middle, but I'm having trouble understanding this revert. WP:ATT is policy. Surely the question is whether or not we agree with the merge? The edit summary said (among other things) "see talk", so here I am. Are we trying to change it to vote on whether or not it should be policy? ElinorD (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not being dense. Coppertwig doesn't understand the situation or is pretending not to. ATT is policy, and that's not going to change. V and NOR are policy, and that's not going to change. The only question is: how many pages of policy do we need, and what should the title or titles be? In other words, do you agree with the merge? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Slim. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I've read the arguments here, and it seems quite clear that the poll is not on whether or not WP:ATT is policy. The heat over the last few days seems to have been over whether or not the merge was a good idea. I have reverted back to Jossi's version, which I agree with, but I am open to arguments on the other side. I just didn't find the arguments in Coppertwig's edit summary to be compelling. A "clear, unambiguous, short" phrase can still have the wrong meaning. Coppertwig, instead of reverting again, could you explain on this talk page what the poll is actually about? ElinorD (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be clear to some people that WP:ATT is now policy, but it is not clear to everyone. There are discussions on its talk page that there should be a "disputedpolicy" or similar tag on it to demonstrate its currently uncertain status. I consider its status uncertain, not currently clearly policy. And I don't think any one of us can predict the future.

Even if WP:ATT is now policy, that doesn't logically prevent us from writing the poll to ask whether it should be policy or not; if is now policy and if the poll says it should not be policy, then it can stop being policy.

It's my understanding that the purpose of "merging" policy pages was to reduce the number of policy pages. Having WP:ATT become policy while the others remain policy would be going in completely the opposite direction as far as that goes.

There was no merge tag on the policies to be merged during the long process of writing WP:ATT, and there is no merge tag on them now. If they are to be merged, they need merge tags for a good long time so that people who like those policies and don't want them merged (if there are any such people) have a good opportunity to notice the merge tags and participate in discussion. Policy pages should have merge tags for much longer than what is usually done for mere article pages (where I think two weeks is standard.)

My understanding of the situation is this: There was a proposal to merge pages and to present WP:ATT as the merged page, demoting the other pages and reducing the number of policy pages. Some people agreed to that; some opposed the specific wording of WP:ATT and were ignored; and some were not made aware of the debate due to lack of prominent merge tags on the pages to be merged. Nowhere was a wide consensus developed for increasing the number of policy pages by making WP:ATT policy. This poll can present two options: (1) use WP:ATT as a merge and demote the original pages or (2) demote WP:ATT, i.e. turn down the proposal to merge the pages. Or, the poll can present a larger number of options. It seems a good idea to present a larger number of options, including having WP:ATT as policy while the other pages remain policy. If this larger number of options is presented, then having the first question be about whether WP:ATT seems to me a good way to organize the whole thing -- it seems to fit in well with the other questions and make everything clear. Other versions of the first question that have been presented are too ambiguous.

I oppose vague wording. I oppose the wording "agree in principle with" and the wording "intended" as being too vague. --Coppertwig 00:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I see you've reinserted the words "in principle". I oppose these words because they're vague. Maybe you could help me understand why you want these words there. If the question is "Do you agree in principle with the merger(s) implemented at Wikipedia:Attribution?" and a consensus is formed around "yes", then what exactly would happen? And if a consensus is formed around "no" for that question, then what exactly would happen? Please reply with your understanding of what would happen. I think the questions need to be clear in terms of what would happen. --Coppertwig 01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What would happen would depend on the results of Q3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, we may end up with strong consensus on the merge, and strong consensus on option 3 of Q3, or any other combination. And in any case, a process will need to be define for closing the poll, as per Jimbo's request. That process is not clear at this stage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If what happens depends only on the results of Q3, then we can just delete Q1. If it depends on Q1 too, then please give at least a couple of examples of what would happen depending on the results of Q1. I.e. pick a particular result of Q3, and describe what would happen in the two cases Q1YES and Q1NO. The "in principle" wording is vague and doesn't make it at all clear what would happen. --Coppertwig 01:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am getting really tired, sorry... Maybe someone else would respond to your questions, or better, take sometime to read the discussions in this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I've been saying! Question 1 is redundant and counterproductive. It should simply be removed (with question 3 becoming the new question 1). —David Levy 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I don't see that the current Question 1 serves any actual purpose at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ATT is policy, and that's not going to change. V and NOR are policy, and that's not going to change. My understanding was that Jimbo had called for wider discussion of the entire issue; statements like these seem premature. V and NOR were gone from the map last week, so anything can change. Hopefully broader discussion with more varied input will be encouraged this time 'round. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 1 should be removed or reworded. "In principle" looks like weasel wording to me, and I don't see the point of such vague formulation, expect for creating an appearance of community support for the ATT. Question with real substance would be: "Do you support existence of ATT, as it stands now?". -- Vision Thing -- 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Inactive"?

What's this about options to have pages become "inactive"? Isn't that against the usual wiki way of doing things? Where are the options to have pages become guidelines? I think demoting one or the other set of pages to guideline status would probably be better than making them "inactive". Another way to word it is "inactive or guideline", i.e. not policy but actual fate to be determined later. --Coppertwig 20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Inactive, means just that. It does not imply demotion to a lesser level. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean they would still be policy, but nobody would edit them? That seems like a bad idea to me. If that's what it really means, I think that should be explained better on the poll page.

If the word "inactive" is used in the questions, then a clear definition of "inactive" should be given, perhaps at the top or bottom of the page. However, I think the option of keeping some of the pages as active guideline pages should be allowed as an option to vote for. I favour "inactive or guideline" as wording rather than "inactive". --Coppertwig 22:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please provide a definition of "inactive"? How about an example of another policy page that's "inactive" -- or is it a new thing? How can it continue to be policy if it's "inactive" -- what if it needs to be changed to respond to changing circumstances? If the word "inactive" is in the questions, then a definition of "inactive" needs to be provided to the voters. --Coppertwig 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Inactive" means {{Historical}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Or several other possibilities, including being made redirects to ATT, but {{historical}} is probably best. In general, "not active; not actionable as a policy or guideline." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot for the clarification. So "inactive" means "not policy". --Coppertwig 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we freeze the design?

We have spent quite a bit on this and maybe it is time to freeze the design? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

God, jossi, that makes sense. But can we freeze the Wiki process? Marskell 21:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Q1, should be worded according to the request made: to assess the level of support for the merger of V and NOR into ATT, not about if ATT should be policy or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The set of questions as a whole assess that level of support. They're designed to complement each other. When you say "freeze the design", do you mean keep changing the words but leave all the little symbols the way they are? Or do you mean stop changing the words? No, we need to keep working on this. We're doing well. It's improving. This is wiki collaboration at its best. --Coppertwig 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not address your spurious 3RR report at this time, but will do after this process of ATT is completed. As for the request to freeze, I did that as we have spent already a good portion of two days working at it. There should be a point in which new editors coming to look at the poll should read ALL the discussions rather than insert new ideas without discussing first. Otherwise this poll will never see the light of day. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is collaboration at its very worst, and your interventions here (Coppertwig) are incredibly unhelpful. As for your suggestion above, none of these pages can be demoted to a guideline, because all are an expression of policy. For the last time, we're deciding only which page we want the policies on; the other pages will either become inactive or will remain as explanatory pages, but they certainly won't become guidelines. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. One of the options is to make WP:ATT canonical policy and have the others still active, but defer to it. At that point, we either have a three level tree: canonical policy/policy/guideline, or the others (in effect) become guidelines to the meaning of WP:ATT.

I do not support that choice myself; but we should be prepared for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the current policy pages can be demoted to guideline, because they all say the same thing! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The option is there, though, in question 3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with SlimVirgin again, for two reasons: first of all, the pages do not say the same thing. You admit this whenever you refuse to revert back to the original wording. Secondly, two pages can say the same thing and one can be marked as policy and one not. For example, I could create a user page with an exact copy of one of the policy pages except for the policy tag. There is nothing logically impossible in doing so. It may even be useful, since one of the pages may later change so they are no longer saying the same thing. --Coppertwig 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please provide a definition of "freeze"? I think we need to keep editing the words. --Coppertwig 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it actually quite likely that if WP:ATT were made "canonical policy" (which sounds redundant to me) that the others would in fact become guidelines, since they will "will remain as explanatory pages", which by definition means they won't be saying the same things as WP:ATT, or they wouldn't actually be explanatory. The pages must all certainly agree, but not conflicting isn't the same thing as "all saying the same thing". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree in principle with the merger(s) implemented at Wikipedia:Attribution?

Let me explain my position.

• I support WP:ATT as it stands.
• I believe, but do not know, that it has the wide acceptance among editors of which {{policy}} speaks.
• If I am wrong, and it is not widely accepted, it is not policy, no matter how many tags it bears.
• I support merger of at least [[WP:V|| and WP:NOR into ATT, and their being marked historic.
• Nevertheless, the question above is weaselworded: unacceptably vague, to the point of meaninglessness.
  • If I am ever polled on it, I will strongly oppose it on those grounds alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the question be more clear. What is the principle? Why not just ask if people, (a) agree with the idea of merging WP:V, WP:OR, and maybe WP:RS, and (b) approve of how this was done at WP:ATT? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure... Give it a go to find a better wording. So far we have not been able to come up with something that stays on for more than 15 minutes before somebody comes and changes it.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Continual change is a good thing, provided the changes are all new; they will eventually converge to something stable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I continue to deplore reversion to this ill-formed question without discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

???? Should some older policies be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution?

That has already happened. WP:V and WP:NOR have been merged into ATT, so this question is meaningless. What we are trying to assess is the level of support for the merger that has been in place since Feb 2007. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

...which is accomplished via question 3 (without forcing respondents to adopt either of the extreme positions). —David Levy 03:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to taking question 1 out entirely, in any form; it is others who consider it the meat of the poll. The reason we are asking any question in this area at all is that Jimbo doubts that what happened had consensus. We must therefore ask, in some way, whether what did happen should have happened. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The beauty of question 3 is that it asks exactly the same thing without demanding 100% agreement or 100% disagreement with what has occurred. It might be true that there was/is consensus for some (but not all) of the changes. —David Levy 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be right on this. I will sleep on it and see if still resonates with me in the morning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution is a merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Do you agree with this merger?

This is one question we could be asking; it is not the only question of interest. That's why we have question 2: to see what older policies should be folded into WP:ATT. I'm getting tired of this; I am tempted to support having Jossi poll his original vague question, watch it get shot down, and see what he does then. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me, Pmanderson, or about what I will do "then". Seems that we have a stalemate on what the poll should be asking. My point is that I did not ask for this poll, Jimbo did. And he asked to gauge the level of consensus for the merger performed at ATT. Should we ask something else than that? Q2 and Q3 gives people the chance to vote for compromises about the future of ATT. Killing ATT outright will mean that 2,000 edits and 5 months of discussions by 300 editors count for nothing in Wikipedia. If that is the case, I want to know it, and I am sure others that invested all that time and effort will want to know as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true, you know. If the drafting of ATT is really superior to that of the other policy pages in their current form, it can be used, even if the decision is not to have the ATT page. I don't think people should be deciding how many pages we have on the basis of "all that good work will be lost if we don't decide in such and such a way". It need not be if the work is really that good. Good drafting work need never go to waste. Metamagician3000 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a poll on whether we should merge or not. If the answer yes, let's have another poll. Polls are cheap compared to policies. - Peregrine Fisher 07:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just OR and V--RS too. And given that we have 2 asking about the three, what's wrong with 1? Marskell 07:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's redundant. If there is consensus for that position, 2 and 3 (1 and 2 as I write) will display it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I approve the disappearance of this redundant question. There is no rational ground to worry about the "disappearance of this good work". The worst that can conceivably happen is that WP:ATT will be marked {{rejected}} - at which point those parts that do have consensus can be added toWP:V and WP:NPOV. Personally, I don't believe that any such rejection will happen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. Hopefully we are getting there. Now, do we need so many options on Q2? Can we make this simpler? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Jossi's changed his mind then I've become a minority and won't revert. Supposing you have three political parties and a survey asks whether you'd prefer a majority or minority for one of them (six options). You wouldn't actually need to ask prior to that "which party do you favour"—but you would ask. You want the simple data first. The questions overlap but aren't redundant. And save the silliness about forcing people to extremes; it's a matter of deriving general level data before moving to more complex responses. As with 3, there's a possibility that 2 will give us indecisive information and we'll have missed the chance to ask 1. Marskell 15:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, I was of the same opinion, but then I realized that the current version will actually give us that same info than the previous version with the Y/N question. This version makes it simpler, and less polarizing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But, I think for the third time now, it's not just gathering data but how it's interpreted afterwards. My guess at this moment is that all will receive consensus (unless Jimbo makes a pronouncement that tilts toward No on one of them and people flock to his position). But suppose, for instance, that all deviate from 50-50 by +/- 2%. Someone could well argue that "I take this as a lack of consensus for ATT itself." But it might not actually be reflective of that. It might reflect people who do favour ATT in principle but are saying no to one or two of the originals being merged, or reflect those who favour ATT as a condensed summary (a terrible idea IMO, but it has been raised). We won't know. Marskell 15:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The closing of the poll will need to be done on a separate process, yet to be defined. Jimbo spoke of a "poll certification" process but did not elaborate. It will be probably something along the lines of an AfD close, in which not only votes will count. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't speak to the concern. Marskell 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you're treating this as a majority vote to determine which single option is the most popular and immediately act on it. It isn't. It's a non-binding poll to gauge the community's opinions. If 28% of people vote to deactivate WP:ATT and the remaining 72% are divided evenly between the other three options (24% each), that doesn't mean that the deactivation option "wins" and WP:ATT is rejected. It means that most of the community supports its existence in some form (and we continue discussing the best way to implement it). Of course, with the approval voting setup in place, people can select multiple options and rank them in order of preference. —David Levy 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is why I've been trying to ask some variant of "Should WP:ATT be policy?" I think it should; and I think ATT has the wide support that policy needs. If we confirm that, no closure will result in its becoming inactive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Attribution is a merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research" is a matter of opinion (unless you stress "a"). A better question would be "Do you agree that Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution?" --Henrygb 16:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that V and NOR have been already merged and made policy last mohth. The question is what should be kept merged, if at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And the key word there is "What should be done." I see no value in insisting on what has been done: if the community agrees it should have been done, the action is ratified henceforward. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I have contributed to this as much as I could. Maybe others can weigh in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm satisfied with the current setup. It solicits the desired information in a simple, concise and neutral manner. —David Levy 17:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying "to determine which single option is the most popular and immediately act on it"? Where did I say we should act on any result immediately? Rather than repeating what I think of possible problems of a plurality result, see here. Didn't mean to split the discussion—often easier to get a direct answer on User talk. Marskell 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Semantics aside, you clearly wish to obtain an immediate majority opinion, even if none actually exists. Again, your fear of "plurality outcomes" is unfounded. This is not an election in which the option with the most votes "wins" and all others "lose." This is a non-binding poll to gauge the community's opinions. If most users support WP:ATT's existence in some form, it won't be deactivated simply because they don't yet agree on one form in particular. Discussion will continue, and we'll work toward consensus. There is no valid reason to polarize the community by forcing everyone to adopt an extreme position. —David Levy 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Polarizing the community" and "extreme positions." I don't understand it—not yesterday, not now. You keep saying "extreme" and I'm truly baffled. Either/or clarifies—it need not polarize. What is extreme about saying you agree or disagree with ATT in principle?

"You clearly wish to obtain an immediate majority opinion"—on the basic question of whether ATT should exist, yes, I do. So what? I particularly want to be able to present a clear majority opinion to Jimbo on whether people find utility in ATT. It's not a position I need to apologize for. I know it's not an election. Jimbo could well ignore everything we come up with. Marskell 19:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing the question in "yes" or "no" form would force respondents to either support or oppose the merger in its entirety. Those are the "extreme positions" to which I'm referring. Many users may prefer one of the compromises, so this would not generate an outcome representative of their actual preferences. —David Levy 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No! That's what "in principle" is for; that's what the plural bracket (merger(s)) is for; that's what the instructions we could easily write could be used for. We can explicitly state "you do not have to support the merger in its entirety." Do you believe ATT should exist? or something like it. There's nothing extreme about it. Are you going to vote for the Liberals or Conservatives? ("Surely an extreme question! Let's not ask"). I'm still baffled.

1. You're still missing the point. (By "in its entirety," I'm not referring to the question of which pages to include.) "Yes" means "Wikipedia:Attribution should replace the merged pages." No means "Wikipedia:Attribution should be rejected." There's no valid reason to withhold the options that fall in between.

2. I don't understand your analogy. I've responded to many political surveys, and I've never been asked such a blanket question. When I vote in elections, I'm not required to select "liberals" or "conservatives." I can mix and match, voting for whichever candidate I prefer for each office (including political centrists). —David Levy 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, question 2 will fully establish "whether people find utility in ATT." —David Levy 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It may well (not) establish it partially and arguably, as noted in the link to Jossi's talk. There is a very good chance that there will be strong consensus on all three, but there is a not insignificant chance that a super-majority approving of ATT in principle will appear as small majorities or even minorities on individual parts of the current Q1. If I were confident aggregates would be properly worked out I would be less concerned. But this is Wikipedia. There is no polling department; there are no market research professionals who parse our polls. And none of our damn polls ever achieve anything because too much is asked in poorly conceived questions. If the three options on the current Q1 come in at 60, 50, and 40% we'll be right back where we started. Nothing achieved; nothing decided. Marskell 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your desire to limit people's options in the hope of creating the appearance of agreement is illogical. Again, this is a non-binding, common-sense exercise, not a majority vote. —David Levy 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Should WP:ATT be policy?" A very good question and possibly one to lead with, in place of yesterday's Q1. Marskell 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Should WP:ATT be policy?" is unacceptably vague. (Does it refer to the page itself or to the concepts expressed therein? Does it refer to the page as currently written or would substantial changes be possible? Would the other pages remain policy, or would they be superseded?) There's no valid reason to ask this question. —David Levy 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"I've responded to many political surveys, and I've never been asked such a blanket question." I've written political surveys, and posed just such questions. As per last night, I don't see our talking is achieving much. Marskell 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• David Levy: I mean, to be more precise, "Should the present text of WP:ATT be policy"/"Is the present text of WP:ATT widely accepted" or any of several other equivalent questions. If that view is consensus, of course substantial changes would be possible, as they are on any policy page - they would, as elsewhere, themselves require substantial consensus. The other pages are covered in the final question, which covers them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The new version of question 1 is partisan and leading

"Which pages, if any, should Wikipedia:Attribution comprise?" is blatantly poll skewing. If any language like this is retained it should become question #2, and be preceded with "If you think WP:ATT should not be made inactive..." since it logically follows from the answers to the present #2, not the other way around. Whether the merge is a good idea at all remains the core question ("This radical change was made without any consensus at all. If people really want this, then they need to make a serious effort to get consensus, not just declare victory and make the changes. --Jimbo Wales 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)"), but has essentially been all but removed from the poll. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The "if any" wording clearly conveys that it's reasonable to oppose the idea completely (and vote "no" across the board). —David Levy 18:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I can see that, sorta, but it has to comprise something; deletion doesn't appear to be an option on the table. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In question 2, deactivating the page (in which case it would become {{historical}}) is listed as an option. —David Levy 18:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it would still have to consist of something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If the page becomes inactive, its specific contents will serve as historical documentation. From a policy standpoint, this would be tantamount to eliminating the entire page. —David Levy 18:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current version of the poll is leading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply putting question 2 before question one would effective solve that problem from my point of view. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Any proposals that have not been explored yet? The previous version was also leading inasmuch as stated that ATT is non-existent, which is incorrect. ATT has been policy for more than one month and its status as policy has not been challenged by Jimbo. What has been challenged is the merger of existing policies into it.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? —David Levy 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Jimbo challenged the change in policy structure, not ATT itself, as it contains within it existing policies of V and NOR whose status as policies are not in dispute (thank god). In his compromise, he agreed that ATT remain "canonical," and V and NOR are "explanatory". Then he suggested to open a wide discussion on the merits of ATT, followed by this poll. What is happening is that a drama has unfortunately unfolded with some people actually challenging V and NOR in the confusion (!!!). A nightmare, or close to it, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much support a straw poll. In the meantime, after an excellent discussion with SlimVirgin, we hammered out a compromise until we can have a fuller discussion. What the pages say now is that WP:ATT is canonical, and WP:V and WP:NOR exist as separate pages to more fully describe those. My big beef with this merger is that we often need to send people to a page like WP:NOR which explains in a rich and persuasive way what the policy is about and why it is a good idea. This involves sometimes saying things which overlap with parts of WP:V. (They are not the same idea!) The combined page provides a handy way to keep policy consistent and have a tight presentation of what policy actually is. The separate pages can be more detailed and understandable.--Jimbo Wales 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jossi and go further: Taking this as an "opportunity" to challenge WP:V or WP:NOR (or WP:RS for that matter) is completely absurd. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with SMcCandlish here. I like the wording "Which pages, if any, should Wikipedia:Attribution comprise?" I have just reverted to it; Jossi had changed it to contain a statement which not everyone agrees with (I don't) and which made it considerably longer; maybe I missed it but I didn't see discussion on this page of that new wording. The "if any" part, plus the options currently given in question 2, allow the option of demoting WP:ATT, so I don't understand SMcCandlish's objection. I'm very happy to come back to look at this poll after being away about 24 hours and seeing it improved even further from yesterday. Short, clear, concise and to the point. Good work, everybody! --Coppertwig 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I think we are talking past each other here. I wasn't objecting to your revert (I do think it keeps things simpler and more open). Was simply commenting that actually attempting to challenge the validity or wording of WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:RS in the course of figuring out what to do with WP:ATT would be entirely out-of-band (other than there is a poll option to completely merge them with WP:ATT, which isn't the same thing as saying aren't policy or shouldn't be policy, they are and will be, either separately or melded into WP:ATT). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to elaborate, Jossi. I was responding to SandyGeorgia. (Note the indentation.)  :-) —David Levy 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As said below and as said by Jimbo, and as stated in the headers of WP:V and WP:NOR, WP:ATT is currently canonical policy. The poll question needs to acknowledge that fact, and not describe ATT as a future merger. The merger is done. What this poll should gauge is the level of support for the merger as implemented, or variations of it as per the question details. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think that question one should go back to asking if "Which pages, if any, should Wikipedia:Attribution comprise" As I recall Jimbo said "Quite the opposite of "so much for consensus". This radical change was made without any consensus at all. If people really want this, then they need to make a serious effort to get consensus, not just declare victory and make the changes. --Jimbo Wales 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)" so as I see it you still have to get consensus for the move. Jeepday 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert, Panderson. I tweaked the question and discussed it in talk. You reverted, though. Diifs: [1], [2], [3], [4] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue which you are not addressing is that fact that WP:ATT already comprises V and NOR and partially RS, and that ATT is as of now canonical policy. That is a fact. Asking the question as if that is not the case is leading and misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi's edit summary belies him. It is true that I reverted, once; but I never promised not to do so. Jossi's other examples are two novel pieces of text, a partial self-reversion, and a compound diff of which the key diff is a move of text from one place to another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that both of us are in the same boat, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait! Something is missing! Possibly this is what SMcCandlish was getting at. We need to allow the option that certain pages will be merged, but that the current version of WP:ATT is not the merged version of them, but something else is.

If there is a convention that changes to policy can't be made without consensus, then the original policies should be the starting point -- not the current wording of WP:ATT, which was made without consultation from those who would participate if merge tags were to be displayed on the policy pages for a reasonable length of time. --Coppertwig 00:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" has been changed to "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." This was apparently to remove an ambiguity. But I feel many editors take the other interpretation of "verifiability, not truth", i.e. that the aim is to make Wikipedia accurate and reliable sources enable fact-checking. They should be asked about it in the poll. --Henrygb 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I am not allowed to raise this question.[5] Since nobody is allowed to label WP:A as disputed[6] even though it is and has been even before I personally raised the issue some weeks ago,[7] and a poll looking at creating consensus on a policy page is not allowed to ask policy questions, I give up. As far as I am concerned, whatever the result of the poll, there will not be a wikipedia:consensus on this policy because policy questions will not be asked and so there is no point discussing this poll any more. I can be contacted at my talk page if necessary. --Henrygb 21:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You certainly are allowed to raise the question, but this poll is not the correct forum. —David Levy 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Support such a poll question. This change in wording is of fundamental importance to the meaning and purpose of Wikipedia in my opinion. It has generated a large amount of debate but much more debate is needed in order to make progress in gaining understanding, persuasion or compromise, and consensus. A poll question on this part of the wording would be helpful. At the moment, if anyone wants to comment on the issue itself, please keep the debate in one place; I believe currently it's at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. Comments specifically about whether to have such a poll question are appropriate here, I believe. In my opinion, this poll is indeed the correct forum. The poll is about whether WP:ATT is to be accepted as a merger of WP:V and other pages. This change in policy wording is part of what might be accepted as part of the result of this poll; for example, if WP:ATT is accepted as it now stands as a merged version of the other pages, then in effect that wording change would be being accepted. --Coppertwig 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Change in policy is not conducted in polls. Once the ATT tempest is over, you are welcome to pursue a discussion in whichever policy page it is pertinent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note that this is a straw poll, and not a vote. A straw poll is an informal type of voting where the results of the poll have little or no direct results, other than to gauge opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe policy is not changed "in" polls, but the whole purpose of this poll is to help find out what people do or do not want to be policy. So, the question is perfectly relevant. Is there any other reason to exclude it? --Coppertwig 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The change in wording coincided with the merger, but it was not a part of the merger. It could just as easily have been carried out independently (and still could). People might wish to change any of the wording contained within any of these pages, but that isn't the straw poll's purpose. If it were, we might have dozens of questions. —David Levy 23:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

<<<(outdent) The merge, if it occurs, will necessarily involve a change in wording, unless the merge is done by copying two pages verbatim onto one and then letting wiki editors go at the result. Any particular implementation of the merge will involve a particular implementation of wording. That's why there are questions on the community discussion like whether the current WP:ATT is an accurate summary of the other pages. This particular bit of wording has generated a lot of discussion and objection; is there any other bit of wording as contentious as it at the moment? Not all bits of wording need questions. --Coppertwig 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Support such a poll question. The proposed merger is in truth an enormous change in Wikipedia policy formulation. And User:Henrygb's and others' insightful formulation of the needed fix to Wikipedia policy formulation is as much a part of the four month work effort as is the current incoherent merger of traditional formulations onto the highly controversial and divisive Attribution page text. Since our goal here should be to develop a broad consensus on what the Wikipedia policy formulation should be, User:Henrygb's question should be on the straw poll if the straw poll is to mean anything legitimate. --Rednblu 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagee. The qustion isn't particularly relevant in this context, and is a matter for resolution at the talk page of whatever emerges as the controlling policypage. This is not denigrating the importance of the question in any way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this question not crucially relevant to the actual wording of the text that should appear in the final Wikipedia policy formulation? Apparently from the justifications used to defend the wording on the Attribution page, the meaning of Verifiability has been inverted in regard to verifying truth by the text on the Attribution page. --Rednblu 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is crucially important, but as to what the policy says, whatever page it lives at. It is not important at all for deciding what page the policy will live at. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. It has no bearing on the merger itself. —David Levy 00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the question should be asked. Without the question, we will not know whether there is consensus for WP:ATT. From the history and the archives it looks to me as if it the the prime motivation for those editors promoting the merger and claiming "attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" is policy despite the debates. Note that nobody can change WP:V or WP:ATT because they are protected. --Audiovideo 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT is currently canonical policy

As such, question 1 should state the current state of affairs, and not mislead poll participants as is that is not the case. What this poll seeks to gauge is the level of support for the current WP:ATT or optional variations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The current state of affairs is that WP:ATT says it is canonical policy, whatever that means. That is open to dispute; I believe Jimbo doubts it. {{Policy}} states that policy is something which is widely agreed upon.

Personally, I believe WP:ATT has that wide agreement; but I do consider that I may be mistaken. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Jossi can have one, I want one too! Heh. So, here's my personal interpretation of Jimbo's compromise: He has agreed to permit the proponents of WP:ATT to continue to assert (i.e. let WP:ATT say) that it is policy, while he also ensured that the competing documents have been restored to the state in which they also make a (much longer-standing) assertion, and expects that at least for now WP:ATT will be an attempt to be a centralized place for these policy matters with the individual pages remaining more in-depth explorations of them. I find it exceedingly unlikely that the withering criticism he's personally directed at WP:ATT (in his official role, not just as a random Wikipedian) to have dissipated; he's simply leaving it up to the community to sort it out. He directly stated that WP:ATT does not have consensus (direct quote is "made without any consensus at all"), and never retracted that summation (cf. also this poll to determine what consensus actually is).

By definition, it can't really be policy without either consensus or Jimbo's official seal of approval. Given that Jimbo labeled WP:ATT "a really bad idea", "a big mistake", "needs to be reverted immdiately because it is just wrong", "bad policy all around", "not the right way to make policy", "confusion", not "logical" not "sensibl[e], a usurper of the other policypages' "rightful place", a "radical change", "a monumentally bad idea", and not "coherent", the Jimbo seal of approval is obviously absent. All Jimbo has compromised on is permitting the label (for reasons he has not elucidated; I have my theories about what those might be), and Jossi and others have completely mistaken this temporary permissiveness for the seal of approval they are seeking, and have used this interpretation to mold the debate and the language of the poll.

I doubt I'm alone in this interpretation. I think what Jossi and a few others are missing is that absent a direct confirmation from Jimbo personally that The Jossi Interpretation is correct, it is not any more authoritative than anyone else's, and that strident insistence upon any particular interpretation being what the poll text represents is inappropriate. I notice, below, that Jossi's taking a few days off, so this is really directed to the rest of the "ATT Cabal" ;-) who've been using the same interpretation, just much less vociferously.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not alone in this interpretation. Jimbo has made it clear 1. he no longer thinks WP:ATT is a good idea, and 2. he has also (but separately) concluded that it lacks consensus. Yet people here keep claiming that it remains policy just because Jimbo has said he won't declare it dead if, after broad discussion which is to include a poll, it can demonstrate that it has built consensus. Since several of those who have been working most diligently on it believed that it was policy until Jimbo declared that it is missing some essential elements of a WP policy, clearly he and they not only disagree on the value of WP:ATT, but also on what would constitute a consensus for it. If "consensus" meant no more to Jimbo than establishing that those who have put thought and sweat into it for months believe that it is good as is, he would have accepted that verdict already. Clearly, consensus means fresh eyes need to be drawn to the project and they must give it a thumbs up for him to be convinced. All of that has to be straightened out and, I believe, can be -- but not as long as people find it too hard to accept that (WP:ATT as written, and the consensus claimed for it, have been rejected. I understand their frustration and resistance, but we can't move very far forward until it is understood that the task is once again developing a policy rather than protecting one. Lethiere 11:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least {{proposed}} it.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what {{Proposed}} is for; since this has already become [labeled] policy, the template you are thinking of is {{Disputedtag}} (and yes, David Levy disagrees strongly that even that template could apply; we needn't rehash that here.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ATT was policy for a full month before Jimbo's intervention, that concluded on the current status quo of ATT being canonical. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, we replace the policy template with proposed until consensus is reached. There really wasn't much consensus to merge, so?  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 02:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what is disputed, Vishwin60. And that is what this straw poll will try to gauge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And it will be policy in the future (let alone have the undefined status of "canonical" policy) if and only if it continues to have widespread approval. WP:Consensus can change; and asserting that it must always be policy because the minority of users who worked on it say so is one of the easiest methods of losing that consensus. As one of those who both worked on WP:ATT and supports it, I ask you to think again before you keep on with this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just stating a fact, PMAnderson. Until such time when there is no consensus for a policy, it remains so. That is all what I am saying. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is getting to be a bit brow-beating (I won't use the "T" word, yet). I think you are overrelying on a personal interpretation of Jimbo's wording, and you've already made the point about 50 times. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me why the version you reverted from is "leading". I am open to be convinced that I am off. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can reply on my talk page. I am taking this page off my watchlist until Monday. One should know when to disengage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The question is, and has been since I came to this poll, which pages is there agreement to subsume into WP:ATT? It is true, and the intro to this poll says, that WP:ATT was designed to subsume two pages and much of a third; but when asking what pages there is agreement to subsume, the pages should be treated equally. That is a clean and fair question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Should WP:ATT exist?

I think this is another wrong question.

Is anybody actually proposing that Wikipedia:Attribution be deleted? If so, I will support the page being unfrozen long enough to make a WP:MfD nomination; but I am certain what will happen to it: Even the people who disagree with the page will wind up saying, "Don't delete it, mark it {{rejected}}." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many cooks, if it actually says something like that. Last I looked, it said "inactive" not "deleted". As for what "inactive" means it could mean either {{Rejected}} or {{Historical}} depending on the overall results of the poll, I would imagine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it actually made it into the poll for very long, but it is certainly being discussed above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This poll has no validity

This poll has no validity. I suggest you take a poll to establish its validity. WAS 4.250 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And then another poll to establish the validity of the poll that will establish the validity of this poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop right there! How could you even think of doing that without voting about the validity of that poll? Picaroon 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, polls called by Jimbo have no validity? That's a new one. Picaroon 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that WAS was just injecting a bit of humor.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

: ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If this poll does not ask about the change to the policy meaning of "verifiability not truth" that is part of the merge then it has no validity or usefulness. If this poll is simply about the principle of merger and not about policy itself then WP:ATT needs as {{disputedpolicy}} because the policy itself is in dispute. Audiovideo 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

<< If this poll does not ask about the change to the policy meaning of "verifiability not truth" that is part of the merge then it has no validity or usefulness. >> (attributed to User:Audiovideo)

Over 50% of Wikipedia editors reject the current Attribution policy page as being an 1) incoherent statement of Wikipedia policy and a 2) huge change from the previous policies of Verifiability to a ReliableSource with NoOriginalResearch. In that, our current situation, the first simple step is to decide whether or not to give the participants in this straw poll a chance to identify clearly what it is in the current Attribution policy page that is 1) incoherent or a 2) huge change from the previous policies of Verifiability to a ReliableSource with NoOriginalResearch. Wouldn't the simplest approach to this straw poll be to formulate say three clear statements of what it is about the current Attribution policy page that is an 1) incoherent statement of Wikipedia policy or a 2) huge change from the previous policies of Verifiability to a ReliableSource with NoOriginalResearch? The above quote of Audiovideo's observation is merely one example. --Rednblu 17:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it simple

Would people please stop trying to screw up the questions? It begs the question to ask "should ATT replace x, y or z," because it didn't really "replace" anything; it's just another way of writing NOR and V, and so yes there's a sense in which it replaced them, but to use that word suggests it's a different thing. And the question "which of the following should it comprise," apart from being poor English, misses the point about it being V and NOR, and replacing RS, which is too complex to explain in one question.

Can we please keep it simple? Question 1: do you agree with the merge in principle? Question 2: if you agree with the merge, which of the following pages would you like to see kept as inactive for historical purposes? V, NOR, RS. Question 3: if you agree with the merge, which of the following would you like to see kept as active as explanatory additions to WP:ATT?

That's all you need. If the answer to Question 1 is mostly No, the main polices are V and NOR again, and we simply take the policy tag off ATT. End of story. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 1 is ill-formed, and unacceptably vague. It will, judging from the community discussion, not even register the support for WP:ATT, since it will be opposed from several different positions; some of them will take it as endorsement of the process that got us here. I don't really mind that process; others do. If it's still around when I return to this, I will attempt to refine it. I regret reversion to it, as uncollegial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What I think SlimVirgin means to ask by Question 1 is equivalent to a Yes vote on WP:NPOV and WP:V is Question 2, and a vote for either of the first two alternatives in Question 3. Question 1 is unnecessary, and will only confuse matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think question 1 is simple and clear. This is getting way, way too complicated. Also, whoever added the "verifiability not truth" question should leave it out, please. This isn't about what should be in the policy. It's about whether it should be on one or three pages, and what the title(s) should be, no more. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on this page; this text of question 1 is discussed, at length, twice. (As for "verifiability, not truth". thaat question is also ill-posed, and is not the sort of thing q large poll can answer.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. By restoring this question, SlimVirgin, you just unilaterally bypassed a great deal of discussion in which you didn't participate (and evidently haven't read). As noted above, it's redundant and polarizing.

2. Please explain how "Which pages, if any, should Wikipedia:Attribution comprise?" is poor English. The only poor English that I see is your continual use of the word "merge" as a noun. —David Levy 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, why did you revert to older wording for the last question (without acknowledgment or explanation)? —David Levy 03:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And further I note the the "new" version doesn't even provide some options that used to be available. It reduces the possibilities to "no merge, death of ATT" (I think), "merge and death of the others", and "merge and keep but relegate to FAQs the others". That eliminated at least the "merge and keep the others as primary, relegate ATT to something like a FAQ" (maybe others; I haven't been tracking every edit). I think this would be a really radical change to the direction the poll's been going for a few days now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Side note: 'whoever added the "verifiability not truth" question should leave it out' - YES. That was discussed elsewhere and unless something changed radically while I was eating dinner there was certainly nothing like a consensus to add that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The "in principle" question is quite clear, and the rest of the changes were what was making the poll too complex. Let's keep it simple folks, and more on from the constant nit-picking. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's reached the stage where no one can be expected to plough through this talk page. The only thing that matters is that the questions be simple and clear, and that first question is something we need an answer to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

By "plough through this talk page," do you mean "read the discussions through which collaborative changes were made before deciding that I don't like them and unilaterally undoing them without discussion"?

Again, the last question asks exactly the same thing without forcing respondents to adopt an extreme position. We do need an answer, but there are more choices than "yes" and "no." —David Levy 06:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the discussions on which the revisions were based? We're trying to keep the poll simple, and you're complicating it by restoring a 100% redundant (and polarizing) question. —David Levy 06:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The basic question needs to be asked first, before any other questions are bothered with. It's hard to see why this question would be any more "polarizing" than any other, but it's easy to see why it is the fundamental issue that needs to be resolved first and foremost. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the last question asks exactly the same thing. One answer is identical in meaning to "yes," and another is identical in meaning to "no." The only functional difference is the inclusion of two additional options that enable compromise (instead of demanding that respondents adopt one of the two extreme positions or no position at all). —David Levy 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur stronglly with David Levy. I think the simplest thing to do is revert to back to before Slimvirgin belatedly wandered in - not because I think every single edit made since then is bad, but just to get back to what consensus was before the fight broke out, and then start from there again. I've seen this done several times with articles, and it has generally been pretty productive (though a few edits unrelated to the disputed stuff can get lost for a while in the shuffle). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I copied and pasted the unrelated edits before reverting. —David Levy 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Let's go back to this version from three days ago. Oh! Wait a minute! That version has the same opening question as well, "Do you agree in principle etc."! Go figure. I guess you can now "wander" away, the problem has been solved. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to be testy or resort to reductio ad absurdum. I'm not the first to point out that this wanton editing spree has undone a whole day's worth of consensus-building. I'm sorry you came in late, but re-read what I just wrote: I didn't say "editwar because all the new edits are bad", I simply suggested going back a little bit to common ground. Pretty simple really. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Three editors patting each other on the back isn't "consensus building". I've given a link to the common ground. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion's been pretty contentious, actually, and it has of course been consensus-building; I didn't say it was a consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How about addressing the actual arguments instead of continually proclaiming the equivalent of "you people are wrong!"? —David Levy 06:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, that would be far too conductive to cooperation, though, wouldn't it? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop these comments. If you have a succinct argument (stress on succinct), please say. If not, please don't comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. You don't get to determine what I say or how I say it. I was making a succing argument (I don't know what could be more succint than a very short sentence), that could have been expressed in much longer way with a lot more complaint about civility, consensus, battleground and other key words we're all familiar with. I'm not sure why you feel the need to tell other participants here what to do. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Because this page is a disgrace, that's why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that being an opinion others self-evidently disagree with, that hardly seems like a sensible justification for telling others to shut up. <puzzled> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the arguments? We need a simple yes or no to the question whether people support the merge in principle, even if they disagree as to what should happen to the other pages. Native English speakers know what the words "in principle" mean, so what is the problem? You're turning this into an absolute bloody nightmare of pointless, never-ending arguments about nothing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Saying "I find basic English confusing" is hardly an argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is insane. It isn't rational, and everyone has had enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

What are you talking about?! —David Levy 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that. We're saying that the question is redundant (because the last question asks exactly the same thing) and polarizing (because it forces everyone to adopt one of the two extreme positions instead of considering compromise). —David Levy 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what we need to begin with -- a simple yes or no!! Then ask them about options. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it beneficial to force respondents to select an extreme position in lieu of the compromise that they actually advocate? —David Levy 07:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And notably even the very first version of the poll presented three options. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Because we did a merge which was very popular, and we asked for feedback and we got feedback, and it was uniformly positive, overwhelmingly so in fact. I got more e-mails about that than about any other single issue since I arrived at Wikipedia. Therefore, we need to know "did we get that wrong?" We want people to answer that one question: do you agree with the merge in principle? People do know what that phrase means. You are trying to stop it because you don't want there to be a resounding yes, because you oppose the merge. And it's getting very tiresome that you're trying to stop people from answering one very simple question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite: Why does Jimbo now consider 1. that the merger is "not the right way to make policy", and is a "radical change", and that "many editors did not know about ATT", after he has been supporting WP:ATT "in principle" for months? 2. that in order to survive ATT needs first, broader and more vigorous discussion, and second, a wider consensus? Lethiere 12:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. No, I seek to remove the question because it's 100% redundant and needlessly forces people to adopt an extreme position contrary to their actual opinions.

2. I don't oppose the merger. I support a compromise, and I'm actually worried that others who wish to compromise will be compelled to vote "no."

3. I'm acting in good faith (as I'm sure that you are), and your failure to assume this (with the accusation that people with whom you disagree are "trying to screw up the questions") is quite disheartening. —David Levy 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't need a simple yes or no. "Yes" means "Wikipedia:Attribution should supersede the merged pages." No means "Wikipedia:Attribution should be retired." In addition to these possible outcomes, two compromises have been proposed. The last question asks exactly the same thing and allows respondents to select any of these four options. The current question 1 needlessly complicates the poll and discourages compromise. —David Levy 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; we're existing under just such a compromise per Jimbo-in-official-role right now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. That is YOUR interpretation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what's yours? Through discussion, perhaps we can come up with new wording on which all of us can agree. Simply telling people that they're wrong (and undoing all of their work) is far less helpful. —David Levy 07:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's what you're doing! Is it only wrong when others do it, but fine when you do? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

David Levy appears to be making a point of logic ("The last question asks exactly the same thing and allows respondents to select any of these four options") while you appear to be making an assertion of faith in what is best for people, from my POV, as one difference. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? I discussed the changes on the talk page and arrived at agreement with my fellow editors. You simply reverted and proclaimed that we were wrong.

In the spirit of cooperation, I once again invite you to discuss this matter and work toward consensus. —David Levy 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of your interpretation of question 1, please explain what ground it covers that question 3 doesn't. —David Levy 07:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've explained. We want to hear whether people agree with the merge in principle. If you see it as merely repetitive, why not leave us poor fools with our silly repetitive question? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't see it as merely repetitive. I see it as polarizing and counterproductive. —David Levy 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to explain how "Which pages, if any, should Wikipedia:Attribution comprise?" is poor English. Again, the only poor English that I see is your continual use of the word "merge" as a noun (no offense intended). —David Levy 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary merge, n.: An act or instance of merging; a merger. ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's poor writing. I can't explain why, it just is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See, this is an example of what I mean. What does it matter what I think of the word "comprise"? We can find another word that means the same thing. Why ask three times about it? These endless questions are driving people nuts, and people are staying away from this page because of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Who's being driven nuts? I thought this topic was quite productive until all sorts of hyperbole about insanity, stupidity and tiresomeness started being thrown around. PS: By "this topic" I mean "the subject of the wording of the poll" not "the material under this topic heading", about which I have a radically different opinion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Updated 07:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask three times. I asked twice. You ignored the first instance and replied twice to the second. —David Levy 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You described my English as "poor," and I merely want an explanation of how this is so. In what way is the sentence linguistically incorrect? For example, your sentence "I can't explain why, it just is." includes a comma in place of a semicolon. As another example, you wrote "we did a merge which was very popular." Correct English would have been "we did a merger that was very popular." ("Merge" is a verb, and this is a restrictive relative clause.) I take grammar very seriously, so the claim that I've erred (when I see nothing wrong) is troublesome. —David Levy 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better in general to confine discussions of grammar to problems with the wording on an article or project page, and not to contributions of editors on talk pages. However, it's worth pointing out that "which" is perfectly correct as a restrictive relative pronoun in British English. I'm not so familiar with American English. Fowler wrote that "it would be idle to pretend that" keeping "which" for non-restrictive rel. clauses and "that" for non-restrictive rel. clauses was "the practice either of most or of the best writers." And, as I mentioned above, "merger" is listed in the OED as a noun, although it's certainly more common as a verb. In any case, saying that a particular wording is "poor English" doesn't necessarily mean there's a grammatical error. It could be a question of style. Is it elegant? Squabbles like this one are making the whole page unreadable. It's almost impossible to get involved in the discussion now. I wouldn't even know where to begin. ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I for one will certainly be put in a vote-No position if the compromise options are eliminated or skewed against. SV, please consider that any number of parties initially opposed to ATT based on the same kinds of concerns Jimbo has expressed might be transitioning to a compromise position. If they don't have faith that their position is being represented properly, or that people are being led away from it by the poll itself, they will almost all simply revert back to "no merge". I know you don't like the compromise positions as much but either would be leverage to do what you actually want to after more consensus later. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The compromise options still exist in 2 and 3. Marskell 09:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't say they didn't exist (in this version); the balance has been lost by restoration of leading questions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just re-read this after a break of about an hour not looking at it at all. The current question #1 really is pointless. Question 2 asks precisely the same question, simply in better detail. This is just silly. Pretending I'm someone who has never seen the poll before, like my grandmother or the guy at the 7-11, I think "argh, why the @#$% are they asking me the same thing twice? Who the hell wrote this? I'm going somewhere else, or maybe I'll leave a smartass answer to express my derision." — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The only "arghh" question that I see at present is Q3. While I understand the options, the less informed may find it confusing. It will take people all of three seconds to understand the purpose of Q1. Marskell 11:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to give WPians a whole lot of intelligence credit; I don't think many would be confused by Q3, but a great many would be really irritated by Q1. Just my take on it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Above, someone writes about the first Q, "Again, I don't see it as merely repetitive. I see it as polarizing and counterproductive." As I seeit, the first question is the question in that one cannot know how to vote on any of the following questions unless one has first made a decision about this. I frankly am not sure what the word "polarizing" means in this context. Several months ago people worked on merging severalpolicies into ATT, and Jimbo has recently called this whole endeavor into question. There are - ultimately - only two positions possible: we do creat a new policy page that incorporates without changing existing policies, or we do not. Finding out whether people are evenly split on this, closely divided, or that there is an overwhelming majority one way or the other seems very practical. I certainly do not see howasking the question could increase any strife about the matter. I just donotsee howit can becounterproductive. On the contrary, we need to make a decision on this question before we can proceed to the rest.Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Marskell 13:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just see any number of David Levy's responses to SV on topic. I would add that the "polarizing" issue is potentially worse than even D.L. says: it not only shunts everyone into either an all-yes or all-no position right at the outset (which could easily skew their more detailed votes later, as in "well, I've already said 'no', so I'd better go for 'no' on everything to agree with myself"), when a large number, quite possibly a majority, will actually hold a compromise position. WP:ATT proponents will likely get a higher-than-realistic "yes" count from Q1, giving them a misleading statistic they can quote out-of-context. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Some editors, including (I believe) some editors who support Q1, see it as endorsing the process by which the merger was originally done. I don't; I'm not sure what it means. My best guess would that it was intended to mean: WP:V and WP:NPOV should be merged into WP:ATT and either become inactive or subordinate to it. But SlimVirgin disagrees. Although I agree with that position, I intend to strongly oppose Q1; I don't like blank checks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Another good way of putting it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there are not only two positions possible; that's precisely the false message that question 1 sends. Two compromises have been proposed. Question 3 asks exactly the same thing, but it allows respondents to select any of the four options (and even to select more than one and rate them in order of preference). "The original pages become inactive. Wikipedia:Attribution serves as a unified policy on their subjects." means exactly the same thing as "yes." "Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive. (Parts of it that reflect consensus are integrated into the original pages.)" means exactly the same thing as "no." The only difference is that two compromise options (reflecting real positions that some users hold) are available.

Question 1 needlessly forces people to adopt an all-or-nothing position (thereby precluding compromise). It distorts the data (perhaps creating the appearance of agreement) by pushing everyone with moderate viewpoints into one of two extreme camps. There might be consensus for a middle-of-the-road compromise, and question 1 serves only to discourage such thinking and obfuscate potentially viable solutions.

People need to understand that this is not a majority vote. It's a non-binding poll created to gauge the community's opinions (whatever they may be) for the purpose of furthering discussion, not an attempt to lump everyone together in one of two groups for the sake of expedience. If 28% of people vote to deactivate WP:ATT and the remaining 72% are divided evenly between the other three options (24% each), that doesn't mean that the deactivation option "wins" and WP:ATT is rejected. It means that most of the community supports its existence in some form (and we continue discussing the best way to implement it). Question 1's inclusion will result in the collection of less useful data, not more. —David Levy 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And as I note above, provide misleading statistics than can be abused out-of-context. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Marskell...you believe that it's a good idea to make it easier for "less informed" users to cast votes without taking the time to read about and fully understand the situation? —David Levy 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• The present wording of Question 1 is hopelessly vague; this point has been made in #Wording of the first question, and elsewhere. It is fairly common to view one's own writing with "Of course it's clear; I know exactly what I mean"; but this is one of the things the Wiki process exists to correct.
  • If this wording has been defended, by anyone, with more than WP:ILIKEIT, I do not see the post; a diff would be welcome.
• I deprecate any discussion of the process before Jimbo reverted the redirects. I think more highly of it than Jimbo appears to; but any question which can be read as endorsing or deprecating that process should be avoided. It is enough to note that it provoked several respectable complaints, and could stand improvement next time. (Does any one disagree?)
• Some editors may be too busy to read the discussion here; but it is undesirable for such editors to begin with a massive reversion, with massive collateral damage. Reinsertion of Question 1 (no matter which form) would have been far less disruptive.
• I deplore the personal attacks on David Levy in this section. I am willing to endorse an RfC on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson, you got like 1,286 characters in this comment, but you didn't make a suggestion. I think what you are trying to say is "you don't like question 1, but you don't have a better idea. Let me propose a change.

* Current "Do you agree in principle with the merger(s) implemented at Wikipedia:Attribution?"

* New? Do you agree in principle with the merging Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources at Wikipedia:Attribution?

signed Jeepday 14:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be clearer, and I've put it in. How does it differ from three yes votes in Q2? (It will also get oppose votes from those who support WP:ATT, but want to keep WP:RS.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Because if you get 70% yes votes on question one, it gives consensus for the move, which meets one of Jimbo's issues. Then it is clearly just a question of how and what parts to incluce in WP:ATT. The reverse would also be true. Jeepday 15:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

NB: 70% yes votes does not automatically equate to consensus. This is a straw poll, not a referendum. If most of the votes have the character of "Yes, Slimvirgin has put a lot of work into this" or "Yes, I'm really tired of this debate" or other nonsubstantive gibberish, and the majority of "no" votes raise substantive issues, one would actually come to the opposite conclusion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Respondents can express exactly the same opinions by answering question 3. —David Levy 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to add my two pence, I agree that the earlier phraseology of the question, "Do you agree in principle with the merger(s) implemented at Wikipedia:Attribution?" [8] was overly vague, since there were a variety of principles involved. The current phraseology, "Do you agree in principle with the merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into Wikipedia:Attribution?" [9] is more specific, but still overly polarising. Questions 2 and 3 address the question while allowing more options. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I added more options to make the question less polarising. [10] — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your efforts, but these new options are extremely vague and would mean different things to different people. As you noted above, questions 2 and 3 already cover the same ground (with far greater clarity and specificity), so why not eliminate question 1 entirely? —David Levy 18:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support removing the question entirely.  : ) However, it would probably be added again, and I feel adding more options is a compromise. Yes, the options I added are vague, but at least they aren't polarising. I would expect that anyone who chose one of them would explain their opinion in their vote (or !vote). — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Preamble

It seems to me that the preamble needs a good weeding. How much of this background detail do we really need? semper fictilis 03:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This is turning into a bit of a farce. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs weeding in part because SlimVirgin wiped out 24 hours of progress with wording it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Rv is easy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How did I do that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See #Keep it simple. NB: I'm not advocating a total revert, I'm just saying we don't need to have the same issue discussed in two threads. Whether to keep your major changes was already being discussed (mostly in the negative at that time, haven't looked lately) at #Keep it simple already. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanatory page

I would like to put a link to a page where I wrote up the rationale for the new policy page. Does anyone mind if I do that? It's at User:SlimVirgin/Attribution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim, could you move that page to a subpage here? And name it some like "Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Basic comparison" -- tying it to your name may make some people bring up WP:OWN, and then just do a basic-- say 5-10 sentences of what each version has to offer? Like how election ballots do? I think that would be awesome for people who will be coming in droves here to poll. Sort of a nutshell of a nutshell page for all of the polices. - Denny 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I could try that, but the difficulty is that they really are the same. :-) V and NOR jointly say the same thing as ATT. RS was a mess and said a different thing every week. So I'm not sure how I could do a comparison apart from what I wrote there already about the various problems the pages had. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I guess the perceived differences, if that makes sense? It probably doesn't... - Denny 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what they are, that's the thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll come out of the woodwork soon enough. Those convinced that there are differences have been pretty vocal (unfortunately I've haven't been paying attention to their details, because the issue wasn't on my radar, so I can't answer the question myself, other than the "truth" issue, which has been coming up again and again). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vocal but talking nonsense, which I can't even paraphrase because it was incoherent. They can write their own page if they want to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why characterize them personally this way? Anyway, given "And name it some like "Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Basic comparison" -- tying it to your name may make some people bring up WP:OWN", my assuption just above was that you would move the document to such a location, at which point the people with these issues would probably make them clear at it (and perhaps they cannot make them clear, as you suggest; I offer no opinion on that matter). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything that simplifies this mess is good. Jeepday 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

POV thoughts here, you asked to put a link to "rationale for the new policy page" but you called it "Summary of the objectives of the merger: User:SlimVirgin/Attribution" and then neglected to mention in the objections "Jimbo said "Quite the opposite of "so much for consensus". This radical change was made without any consensus at all. If people really want this, then they need to make a serious effort to get consensus, not just declare victory and make the changes. --Jimbo Wales 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)" so as I see it you still have to get consensus for the move" and you started with a clearly POV statement "Wikipedia needs one policy page that explains the need to use sources, with one key concept that editors will easily understand — that of attribution." assuming that POV of those in favor of the move is correct. I realize I am mixing both the rationale for the move and the need for a reattempt for consensus or here. But if you are going to give a rational please try and give both sides. Jeepday 14:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See section below (here)! The slot is there, waiting for the other view. Johnbod 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements from all sides needed

To make sense of the issues for those coming late to the debate there should be a small number (2 is I suppose too small a number to hope for) of reasonably short statements by proponents of the different positions, linked to from the poll page. Trying to pick up the issues here or on the Attribution talk page etc is now hopeless. Johnbod 07:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Two is definitely too small a number. I'm aware of something like nine already. That said, it's not a bad idea, though I wonder how one would ensure that one side didn't editwar to make another side's position sound stupid. Slimvirgin is working on a related-ish document, but at this point I don't even know if it will even leave her userspace. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine to link to the document at her user-space, assuming proponents of the merger will endorse the summary. I will add this to the instructions, with a place-holder for the people who object to put one user-space summary too. I would encourage Coppertwig to be the one who does this. If you guys can't agree, then you could fork it, but it would really be good, if you could create one summary document. The benefit of keeping the summary in user space is precisely that it can't be deliberately weakened by someone else. --Merzul 09:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks Johnbod 09:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, but would suggest that (should Coppertwig accept the responsibility) he/she also directly invite other editors with oppose rationales expressed around here to edit it; I do not believe that Coppertwig's counter-issues are the full gamut of the counter-issues. This would prevent the feared forking. There could be additional ones anyway, since there are more than the two bare "yes!" and "no!" positions, such as two basic compromise positions as well (see #Keep it simple for discussion of how they will be represented in the poll), and differences of opinion on whether to include WP:RS in the merge, and so on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Let us have a little organizational strategy meeting here. Our opportunity is to construct a very clear and concise page that summarizes why the current Attribution policy page is a really bad idea. First, our authority structure matters greatly. That is, we would not be here doing this very important work if our Great Man did not tell us that we had to do this work. I certainly would not be here doing this work because I saw no opportunity for having any positive effect; I would be observing the Wikipedia that I care much about go down the very wrong policy path with the current Attribution policy page. So, for this segment of the work, we need a neutral admin as our authority structure to host our page on which we summarize the fundamental flaws of the current Attribution policy page, where the fatal flaws seem to be 1) incoherent statement of Wikipedia policy and a 2) huge change from the previous policies of Verifiability to a ReliableSource with NoOriginalResearch. You may have other ideas of what the fatal flaws are in the current Attribution policy page. The point of such a summary page would be to get your ideas stated clearly, but it might be best to narrow the items to three or four key and clear points. Is there a neutral admin who would volunteer to merely host and administer in UserSpace a page on which we could construct several clear statements of the fatal flaws in the current Attribution policy page. Any admin that is on the line about the so-called "merger" would be ideal, in my opinion. But maybe someone has a better idea. What is next? --Rednblu 22:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm honoured by Merzul's nomination and by Rednblu's kind words in another section. Other users may wish to nominate other possible moderators at this point. I'm willing to act as moderator if that is desired and if I'm satisfied with the arrangements. I would try to set aside my personal bias to help produce a document that sets out the anti-merge positions in a balanced and concise way. --Coppertwig 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No. If you want someone to moderate, it should be one that is not involved in the crafting of this poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the idea of a moderator is strange. To moderate what? SlimVirgin did not ask any moderation to write her summary of the ATT rationale. Nobody is stopping you from writing an essay about your views. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Throughout these proceedings, let us please allow all of our dear friends, particularly Jossi, express exactly their feelings, judgments, and emotions. And let us realize please that Jossi's expressions are merely Jossi's feelings, judgements, and emotions. Let us consider them exactly in all of their entirety. And then let us proceed with our work. What is next? --Rednblu 22:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and write up your "feelings, judgements (sic), and emotions" as it pertains to ATT, and let the community judge these on their merits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "(sic)" notation is unwarranted; "judgements" is a correct spelling (particularly in Commonwealth English). —David Levy 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chairman Coppertwig? --Rednblu 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with jossi on this. Coppertwig is an involved party, and hence not eligible to moderate or mediate on this. Also note that the Mediation Committee does not believe that mediation is appropriate for policy discussions, see WP:M#What_is_mediation.3F. (Yes, I know mediation and moderation are different, but we don't have a Moderation Committee.) — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chairman Coppertwig? --Rednblu 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm genuinely interested in a summary of your case, but instead of more discussion here, I would really like to see one succinct and coherent document, like the one produced by SlimVirgin. If you guys could handle this in Coppertwig's userspace, e.g. User:Coppertwig/Attribution, then I'm sure Jossi will accept linking to it. I'm not saying you are forbidden from discussing things here, but everyone has stated their arguments at so many places so many times, it would be so much more helpful if you guys focused on producing one document that we could link to, and then I would finally understand your objections. --Merzul 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

canonical vs definitive

Just a thought but I had to go look up the meaning of canonical maybe definitive would be a better word? It seems to me that canonical might be a theological word that not all Wikipedians are familiar with. Jeepday 12:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was also worried that not all Wikipedians might understand canonical.  : ) See Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Canonical. (Yes, I know you already saw that. The link is for others who haven't.) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we want to imply that other policies are not definitive? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If we made WP:V and WP:NOR definitive, but not WP:ATT, then WP:V and WP:NOR would be normal core policies, with WP:ATT having a status similar to WP:5P - something which explains policies, but is not policy itself.

If, on the other hand, we made WP:ATT the definitive policies, then WP:V and WP:NOR would probably be guidelines, further explaining WP:ATT but also subordinate to it. This could cause some confusion in building consensus, as people might build consensus on the guideline pages only to be ignored because they didn't do so on the ATT talk page, but that could probably be figured out. (Why not just move the conversations, for example?)

So no, it doesn't mean that things like WP:NPOV aren't policy, it just refers to which pages would be subordinate to which other pages in this grouping, if we kept all of them.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... if WP:ATT is kept as the definitive policy, with WP:V and WP:NOR as more in-depth explanations subordinate to it, perhaps WT:V and WT:NOR should be substed into WT:ATT, to prevent the problem of people being ignored because they suggested something on the wrong talk page, and also as a way to break up discussion. (WT:ATT is very hi-traffic, so it might be good to break it up.) — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, the use of "canonical" here is a bit arch; it is imported from fandom. I don't care either way, but no one is seriously implying any religious overtones. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. [11] — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT says canonical, as do the cross-references. We can agree to change that, but I think this poll is stuck with it., unless we {{editprotected}} the change. (I would prefer to remove it; we have policy and guidelines; we don't need "canonical" or "definitive" policies. If something is policy, it is policy; it not, not.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe that Jimbo used or was quoted as using the word, but it doesn't mean it is a designation like "Policy", "Guideline", "Essay", "Rejected" or "Historical". The wording already installed on all these pages makes it clear that ATT (for now) has canonicity per the Jimbo compromise, so the word itself needn't be bandied about. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggested changing the word at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Canonical_vs._definitive_.28or_another_word.29. You all are encouraged to express your own opinions. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think cannonical is actually more correct than definitive... definitive has connotations of being "complete", "done". Cannonical on the other hand implies "approved" and the policy that is in place.Blueboar 01:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 3

In my view, main question here is Question 3, and we should give it its due weight by placing it first. However, I don't understand this formulation from it: "Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive. (Elements that reflect consensus are integrated into the original pages.)" There shouldn't be anything in ATT which isn't already in the original pages. Wasn't that the stated purpose of ATT - to combine original pages without changing anything? -- Vision Thing -- 14:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are changes (I believe improvements) in phrasing, and discussions which are (I believe) statements of present practice not explicitly stated in the source pages. Which of these have consensus support would require more discussion if 3d passes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe that your explanation will be helpful to others too. -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Jimbo Wales

Looking at Jimbo Wales's comments on Wikipedia_talk:Attribution I can't find where he commended "very good work done by people laboring on ATT". Also, why there is no mention of his opinion that "Verifiability and No Original Research are conceptually distinct", "very different concepts" and that "radical reductionists who see them as really being the same thing are, in my view, badly mistaken"? I think that it is important to present his views correctly and in full form, especially because there is an option in the poll to make the original pages inactive. -- Vision Thing -- 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

These comments were made before ATT was explained to him. This was his last communication at talk page of WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much support a straw poll. In the meantime, after an excellent discussion with SlimVirgin, we hammered out a compromise until we can have a fuller discussion. What the pages say now is that WP:ATT is canonical, and WP:V and WP:NOR exist as separate pages to more fully describe those. My big beef with this merger is that we often need to send people to a page like WP:NOR which explains in a rich and persuasive way what the policy is about and why it is a good idea. This involves sometimes saying things which overlap with parts of WP:V. (They are not the same idea!) The combined page provides a handy way to keep policy consistent and have a tight presentation of what policy actually is. The separate pages can be more detailed and understandable.--Jimbo Wales 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The "very good work done by people laboring on ATT" comment was made in the wiki-EN-l mailing list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Link, please. Let's have the record in front of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this one came after:

I would argue that WP:ATT is more maintainable, but at the price of being a significantly worse nomenclature. While policies like WP:V and WP:NOR are interrelated (as all of reality is interrelated), they are significantly different ideas and radical reductionists who see them as really being the same thing are, in my view, badly mistaken. When I say that something is original research, and when I say that something is unverifiable, I mean different things by those statements, as I am focusing on a different kind of deviation from good editing. WP:V and WP:NOR serve a valuable function in focusing on different sorts of things which come up. Reducing all policy to one thing is just not going to be helpful, since not everything is the same thing.--Jimbo Wales 05:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[12] -- Vision Thing -- 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Jossi has a highly pesonal interpretation of what "Jimbo Said", that is as favorable to WP:ATT as possible to extract from what Jimbo actually said. See #WP:ATT is currently canonical policy for a very different alternative interpretation that is at least as plausible. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop polarizing the issue, SMcCandlish. That comment was made before Jimbo had the opportunity to listen to the rationale of ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not polarizing anything. I believe you are misusing that word. I am pointing out that the personal interpretation you keep bringing up again and again and again, in overflowing detail, and which you are trying hard to infuse the poll and the entire debate with, is simply one interpretation, the one most favorable to you and to ATT. Also, the fact that some (not all, BTW) of what I quoted predated later messages by Jimbo is immaterial, as he did not retract or contradict any of it, he simply changed his decision about what to do for the time being and moderated his tone a little.

PS: Please stop being so aggressive. I barely refrained from bringing up your combative, controlling and browbeating attitude in the WP:AN wheelwarring debate today. Don't make me regret the decision to assume you are simply a little stressed right now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no wheelwarring. That is what I mean by polarizing. You are indeed polarizing the issues at hand, and I have the right to bring that to your attention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Other admins (at least two) at WP:AN appear to disagee with you (the ironic thing is, I actually tried to deflect some criticism from you to another party, because I thought you weren't the appropriate target, but I guess you didn't notice that.) Please note also that I didn't say "Jossi is wheelwarring" here, I noted which debate at WP:AN I was referring to; it is a long and oft-changing page. I too have the right to bring to your attention that some of your behavior here is disturbing to me, and I've done so, and, well, that's kind of that. I don't feel a need to belabor the points any further. The fact that you characterized me as "polarizing" is especially ironic to me, given that my principal issues (see #Keep it simple) with the Jossi/Slimvirgin/Jayjg direction of the poll wording and layout is precisely that it is polarizing. :-) But I'm not particularly offended, really. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And please, do not push me to tell you more about what I think of your behavior. I would prefer to keep my assessment of your behavior for after this debate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure we'll both have lots to say about each other's behavior if we still feel strongly about it at that point, which hopefully actually won't be the case. I think this will require as much effort on your part as mine (cf. accusatory terms like "disruption" and "polarizing" directed at me personally rather than criticism of my edits or positions on their own merits or perceived lack thereof). For my part, I will attempt to engage you in refutory debate a lot less, if you think that would help. I'm not sure what if anything else with regard to you specfically that you want. My 4-days-running issues with templates and protections are drawing to a close, and my focus is now on the poll and the community discussion, which is I believe what you want. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Give it a break, would you? This is not helpful. Drop it, move on, and let the debate unfold unencumbered by all that stuff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm trying to agree with you that we'll be more collegial and cooperative with each other. I don't understand your interpretation at all. But I'm not asking you to explain it. I am very happy to drop this, move on and get back to the policy debate. Just a bit mystified by your reaction. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My problem with this poll

The wording on the third question is horrible. The way it is phrased, the first two choices are YES options and the last two are NO options. It, however, is theoretically possible to vote Yes on 1 and some of 2 and then support an option that contradicts your voting pattern (and there will probably be at least one troll that will do so). One might be able to phrase them into two options, which then makes the choice dependent on the consensus of the previous two.

The sub-description of Question 3 also makes no sense ("You can vote for any of these options or mark them as your first choice, second choice, etc."). If you support the first two you cannot support the last two at all and vice versa (thus the "etc." in the ranking makes no sense). If it was narrowed down to two options, then it would be a clear yes/no issue.

Another problem that arises is if the answer to question 1 is YES, but 2 gives no majoraties at all due to no consensus on what to merge. Then the vote would be to merge, but nothing would actually be merged, conflicting the first decision. Similarly, if a consensus is achieved on 1 and 2 and it is close, it is theoretically possible for those people to be split on the first two choices in question 3 and for the people against to be united on one choice. In that case, one poll would lead to the first two poll decisions would be overridden.

Either each question needs to go one at a time, which would take a while, or it needs to be reworded. Otherwise, the decision would have to pass all of the 3 questions (eliminating the need for Question 1) in order to actually be passed, meaning that if the consensus in the poll wasn't achieved in ONE place, the whole thing fails. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, people could provide conflicting responses to questions 1 and 3, which is another good reason to eliminate the 100% redundant question 1.

2. On the contrary, the instructions for question 3 make perfect sense. I happen to support the second and third options (which are not, as claimed above, diametrically opposed). This is not "a clear yes/no issue," and there is no logic in pretending that it is one.

3. You're over-thinking this poll's ramifications. Again, it is not a majority vote. It will have no binding outcome. You're correct, however, that question 1 will provide no data on what to merge (or, for that matter, what function the new page should serve) and that it's entirely needless. —David Levy 18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes/no overly polarises the issue. the third option of the third question [13] is more of a "mostly not" than a "no", for example. In question 2, [14] if you answered "yes" for WP:V and WP:NOR, but "no" for WP:RS, that would be more of a "mostly" than a "yes", assuming for the third question you picked one of the first two options. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur with both of you that question 1 as a simply Y/N question is polarizing and useless. I'm not sure I agree with the big "scale" of options added to question 1, but I at least went and made it a scale per say, a stepwise range. Given contention here it will probably be reverted reflexively by someone before I even submit this post, but at least it'll be in the edit history. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the scale of options is a compromise between a yes/no question and removing the question entirely. I would support the latter, but it would be even more likely to be reverted than the scale of options. If the scale of options is reverted, the question might need an m:Polling is evil option, popular in any poll!  ; ) — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The compromise to give a scale of options sounds like a reasonable improvement to the idea removing Question 1. I everyone can agree, however, that Question 1 is completely useless as it is right now. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 01:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If only it would stay.  : ( Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the scale is better than yes/no, but the entire Q1 is just pointless. The Y/N version must go, regardless; the only reason to keep it is to push a POV that skews the entire poll. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome Orgy

Where's Template:Orgy-asperger's when we need it? Hey, it takes one to know one! Fondly, Butseriouslyfolks 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Jeebus!

This is the butt-ugliest page evah! What are you guys doing? It's horrible. So much boldface, everything all over the place.

Can we not just have a simple list of questions? This is close to demented and as good an argument for not designing things by committee as could be imagined. If sent to this page to vote, I think I would run shrieking for the wikihills. Grace Note 05:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It won't seem so bad when there are 100 comments in it; the headings will be very helpful. The problems with the structure and wording of the poll are far, far more serious. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)