Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

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

This poll was nominated for deletion on March 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

Please join the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion

• Pre-poll Archives: Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 •

• Archives from after poll start: Archive 4

Contents 1 WP:RS? 2 Just an observation. 3 Extend? 4 What does "No consensus" mean? 5 A positive outcome 6 Poll closed 7 Post-poll comments 8 Please add this to the notes section 9 OK 10 I object to the classification of my vote and the votes of the 101 other editors who voted in the "Neutral/qualified/compromise/other" section as "neutral". 11 Attempt to summarize 11.1 Comments 11.2 A response to some of the opposition arguments 11.3 More serious opposition criticism 11.4 Next steps 12 This won't do 13 So what was the result of this poll? 14 Typo fix 15 Working party 16 Editprotected Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header 16.1 Mailing list archive link

WP:RS?

I'm on Wikibreak and have probably missed something, but the "advert" on my watchlist states this poll includes merging of WP:RS, while the blurb at the head of the project page mentions just WP:V and WP:NOR, before weasel-wording re RS. Seems inconsistent to me; important, as one of the two key reasons for my oppose was not wishing to merge WP:RS into a policy, as it's currently a guideline. I'd want consensus on RS becoming policy on its own before considering a merge. --Dweller 12:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you read was badly worded, Dweller. Aspects of RS that were already policy (which had been taken from V or NOR) were merged into ATT. The rest was abandoned or may be worked into the FAQ, if suitable. The only thing in RS that I know of that wasn't policy that ended up in ATT was "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence." It's a pity about the poor wording because I saw a few comments from people saying they'd opposed because they didn't want RS to become policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's the standard wording at the top of everyone's watchlist (unless they've dismissed it). --Dweller 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The wording of "Professional self-published sources" was also taken from RS, was it not? In fact, I remember the moment SteveBlock made the edit. It was one of the light bulb moments because we'd been arguing about the exceptions for so long. The wording from RS is a longer version of what was already in V, so it was already policy. Marskell 13:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin... the original intent was simply to merge V and NOR... Once again, I think people are confusing the concept of RS with the guideline page WP:RS. The problem is that both V and NOR contained sections on the concept of RS (pointing the reader to the guideline WP:RS for further info). Shortly after ATT went live, The short cut to WP:RS was redirected to the section in WP:ATT that discussed RS. Looking back, that was probably a mistake. People payed attention to the links and not the content... they assumed that WP:RS had being merged into ATT and promoted to policy, when in fact all ATT did was restate what had already been part of V and NOR.

Perception is everything in this debate... WP:RS was never meant to be included in this debate... but it got tossed in by happenstance. If you look back at the debates on the wording of this poll, you will see that I too percieved WP:RS as being part of the merger. It wasn't until I looked into it further that I saw what actually was intended.

The "Oppose - don't merge RS" comments highlight something important... One thing that we will have to do over the next few weeks is to analyze the comments in this poll. If you look at it as more than just a head count... there are comments made in the "Oppose" section that actually express some degree of support of ATT, and there are soome interesting critical comments in the "Support" section. Blueboar 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The original intent of ATT was to merge V and NOR and delete RS so that descriptions of reliable sources are policy and policy only. There would cease to be a reliable source guideline—in this sense ATT is a merger of RS. I don't think it was a pity to ask about it in the slightest. It needed to be asked about and should be asked about again if there is no consensus: why is this fundamental concept treated in a guideline? Why does V (if V is to remain) rely on a guideline for it's expanded definitions? Marskell 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the question of what sources are reliable, for what points, is essentially a matter of judgment; it probably can't be summed up, absolutely correctly, in a readable length. Guidelines can be vague and approximate, because {{guideline}} admits the existence of exceptions; policies can't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we be careful with our terminology here... there is a huge difference between the concept of Reliable sources (RS) and the guideline page Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS) ... I don't want people to mix them up. Now, I agree that some of the creators of the ATT page had the intent to delete the guideline page: WP:RS... but that intent was somewhat debated. I think almost all the contributors to ATT saw that WP:RS is flawed, but there was less consensus on what to do about it.

I would agree with the view that WP:RS is flawed... As I have said before, it is somewhat unique - sort of betwixt and between. On one hand it is a guideline that was treated by the community as if it were a policy (even Jimbo refers to it as if it were policy in the comments that got us started on this poll). On the other, it discusses a concept that is clearly part of Policy, which people can ignore because "it's only a Guideline". It is inherantly unstable and should be deleted or re-concieved in some way.

I have suggested elsewhere that we need to do a complete re-think of the page WP:RS ... leaving the any statements that could be construed as "rules" to either WP:ATT or a combination of WP:NOR and WP:V (and let us not forget that RS is part of WP:NPOV, in either case). I feal that we need a new RS guideline that should focus on giving guidance as to how to determine if something is reliable... not giving quasi-rules on whether something is reliable or not. And to make a clean break, I would re-name it to something like Determining Reliability. I am sure others may have different ideas. But I think a lot of us agree that the problems with WP:RS, and the RS issue in general does need to be discussed further.

But all of this is besides the point... the fact is that a lot of people percieve ATT as "promoting" WP:RS to policy status. I think we would agree that THAT was never the intent. Blueboar 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about SlimVirgin's and Marskell's assertions above that some "aspects" or portions of WP:RS are already policy, and that RS is a "fundamental concept" of Wikipedia. It seems to me like there may have been some instruction creep here over the last year or so, since I don't recall RS being introduced as policy before. (Admittedly I do not keep track of the intricacies of day-to-day policy modifications, and my own mental map of Wikipedia policy is based on year-or-two-old versions of WP:NOR and WP:CITE, so things may have changed without my noticing, but I think it is a problem if the policy is really shifting in meaning, rather than in the details of its wording, over time.) Can someone summarize what parts of WP:RS are already purported to be consensus-backed policy? -- Rbellin|Talk 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the opening sentences of WP:V: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Then scroll down the page to the section on Sources...

Look at the second paragraph of WP:NOR: Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. Then scroll down and look at the section entiteld Sources.

It was from these two "Sources" sections that the majority of the RS section of ATT was composed. Blueboar 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View also discusses reliability/reputability. NPOV says to "to find the best and most reputable sources you can" and "work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources." So, NPOV sees reliability/reputability as a scale, where the degree of reputability is one way to determine due weight, or degree of inclusion. Wikipedia:Attribution says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." So, ATT sees reliability and inclusion as binary. There was already contradiction between NPOV and V before this, but the new wording, as opposed to "verifiability not truth", with no mention of reliability, seems to increase this contradiction.

The tension between those who think of reliability as binary, and those who think of it as a scale, is the reason Wikipedia:Reliable sources has been a self-contradictory mess, in my opinion. Keeping one side of the debate in ATT and another in NPOV, without a separate page to try to reach consensus, does not seem like the solution to me. Besides, RS contained a lot of helpful advice of too much detail and insufficient consensus to be full policy, in my opinion.

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Blowfish... I am not understanding how you turn the "threshold" quote above into "ATT sees reliability and inclusion as binary." The "whether it is attributable, not whether it is true" line is not disussing the reliability of the attributable source, just that you have to have one. To me if confirms NPOV... as it means that statements of opinion are allowable. Even if people do not think the opinion represents "the truth", you can not exclude it since it is attributable to a reliable source. I suppose you could say that ATT does have one binary feature... if there is a reliable source you can add it... if not you can't. But that is not in conflict with NPOV. NPOV also says things have to be backed with reliable sources. The only difference is that NPOV tells us a bit more about what is and is not considered reliable. Blueboar 00:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Whether it is attributable to a reliable source" seems to imply two options: either it is attributable to reliable source or it isn't. The word "whether" seems to make it a true/false condition, at least the way I read it. If you took out the reliable source part and made it clear that this was only one threshhold, it might work. (E.g. "The first test for suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether the material is attributable to a source, not whether it is true. After that, see WP:UNDUE.")

I am not objecting to the "not whether it is true" part, just the inclusion of reliability in a true/false condition. That said, add an "According to X" and it becomes true (philosophical arguments about whether or not X exists aside).

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that having policy that says that all material needs to be attributable to a reliable source, but only having a guideline to what constitutes a reliable source is exactly the right thing to do. Sometimes editors are just going to have to reach a consensus value judgement about whether a source is reliable or not for a particular purpose. This is particularly true about online sources as the line between published and self published is going to continue to blur over time. To take a real world example, if the Alfred Russel Wallace Page website expresses an opinion about one of Wallace's works is it a reliable source? It is true that the website is largely the work of a single person (Charles H. Smith) and is essentially self edited without peer review, but anyone who does much research on Wallace knows that it is an important site with a strong positive reputation. Sooner or later you reach a point where policy can't eliminate the need for good judgement and that is what guidlines are for. Rusty Cashman 17:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation.

The poll states at the beginning that ATT has been edited for months by more than 300 editors, which is by itself a significant number. However, in comparison with the number of active accounts[1] which is more than 4 million, it seems that only 1 in about 10,000 editors was interested/aware/involved in this article. In these few days (not months!) of poll, since a note had been put on 'watchlist' pages, almost 800 editors have expressed their opinions, which tells that ATT policy making was far from transparent, and not well advertised at all. I am sure if a note was put on more visible pages, like 'edit' pages, the response would be even greater. Lakinekaki 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Numbers are fun... but they can be twisted to say almost anything... You could look at the same numbers and ratios as saying that ONLY 800 editors have exptessed opinions. Assuming the trend holds by tomorrow we should have around 900 opinions. That is only a little better than 3 in about 10,000 editors who are interested/aware/involved in this article - even after banging them over the head with a watchlist notification. I would bet that our results include most of the 300 who worked on the article (and I am sure there are some of them who voted "oppose" dispite their involvement.) Face it... most editors don't really care about editing policies. They just want to work on their articles.

As for the supposedly low number of contributers to ATT... I think this is somewhat true of all our policy and guideline pages... if you look at the number of editors who regularly contribute to NOR or V for example (discounting those who pop in just to ask a question) it is far smaller than the number of editors who worked on ATT. As with articles, our policy pages attract only those who really care about their subjects. It takes something as profound as a querry by Jimbo to move policy issues into the public eye. Most of our policies and guidelines are created by a only a few people... and almost all were declared to have consensus based on far fewer than 300 opinions.

Could this have been advertized better?... of course. But let's be fair to the creators of ATT... if there was a problem with how it was promoted, that problem is system wide and not limited to just this policy. All this policy debate did was highlight the need for a re-thinking on how all of our policies and guidelines get created/changed/etc. Blueboar 00:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I Agree! Lakinekaki 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Extend?

I probably should have said something sooner, but is there any need to close the poll so soon? People still seem to be adding their views, why not let this continue? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The watchlist message said that the poll would not close for another day... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We have advertised the closing as Apr. 7, 01:00 UTC, there are still votes and comments coming in, and I see no need to close early. Crum375 02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the poll should stay open until the time and date announced on the WatchList page! --Rednblu 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) It has apparently been closed and protected. [2] [3] — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And re-opened, to continue until the "advertised" (not my term) closing time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What does "No consensus" mean?

Given the discussion, the comments, and the number of people that have participated, closing the poll with a "no consensus" and a call to "move on and relax" does not address the core issues raised. We cannot dismiss 400 votes (pro or con) with a wave of the hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We could consider compromises. I know you don't like the hierarchical suggestion, where everything would be kept live but not all as policy, although I do not fully understand why. We could talk about it. Or someone could magically think up another compromise. I don't know.... — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected and corrected the closing date as per the announcement in the watchlist. As per the closing, it should be closed without comments and allow Jimbo, that requested the poll to make a statement about moving forward, given the results. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!  : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Jossi. The poll should continue to run to its highly advertised conclusion on Apr. 07, 01:00 UTC, as votes and comments are still coming in. I also agree that at closing time, the page should be protected, and Jimbo should then decide how to interpret the results. Crum375 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest that we should devise among ourselves a proposed next step. Jimbo's job is to make sure that we solve our problems in a reasonable fashion. It is not his job to invent a direction we should go. --Rednblu 02:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it is very simple. Jimbo asked for this discussion and for the poll. As such, we need to close the poll without a closing statement on April 7 01:00 UTC and send a message to Jimbo about the fact that the poll has closed, inviting him to check the poll page and suggest a way forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, Jimbo intervened because he saw that we were not solving our problems. We should be facing and resolving our problems here, I suggest. --Rednblu 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf)Not really. Jimbo's intervention was related to the fact that he was discussing an edit and was surprised to find WP:NOR superseded by WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We have already cut down a thousand virtual forests with our rhetoric. I see no reason to expect that another thousand will get this resolved. I agree with Jossi that we should hand the poll results to Jimbo to let him decide. Crum375 02:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope Jimbo does not pull a Solomon on us and say "Bring me a sword. Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other."  :) --Rednblu 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jossi's procedure sounds good, except for closing on 7 April. Why not extend until 14 April? If we close this while there is still a stream of votes coming in, they will probably spill over into the talk page. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

... because we advertised it as closing on April 7. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we'd learn anything more, but it wouldn't really bother me if the poll went on longer. The whole idea was to get a greater amount of community input. It wouldn't hurt anything, and I find it very ironic that the users who started the poll early, on a whim, are so insistent on closing it on a specific date. It doesn't matter if we said it was going to close April 7th, if we want to extend it we can. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason there is a date is that it's a cutoff date. Anyone that cares enough will vote, and if you don't cap the date it's just an endless discussion/debate. No concensus means that by no means have we all reached a mutual agreement about the topic at hand. As such, no changes are made at this time. Further discussion is encouraged, as for me I still stand firm on my view. Fr0 03:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

People who care, yet miss the cutoff date, might very well vote on the talk page. I've seen it happen before. WP:STRAW suggests not even having a set closing time. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again... the perception of regular editors is very important in this debate. Just as we could not close this poll early without someone yelling foul... we can not hold it open without the same reaction happening. Because we stated that there would be a closing time on this, if we hold it open after that time the perception of the average editor will be that it was held open in order to favor one result or another (it does not really matter which). As for people posting after the fact votes on the talk page... I see nothing wrong with that. Remember, the reality (as opposed to the perception) is that this isn't about exact numbers... it's about consensus, which is a mushy concept. We can already tell that there isn't a huge consensus in favor of the merge (what is trickier is that there isn't a huge consensus for un-doing the merge either). So a few late votes would not really affect anything, unless they had some brilliant idea. Since Jimbo is probably going to check this talk page anyway (he should, as there are some good preliminary discussions here on what the next step might be), if someone suddenly shows up with a brilliant idea or comment, we want them to share it. But there is no reason why they have to post it in the poll page. Blueboar 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Blueboar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you really think that's a risk, I guess it is for the best. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi asked:

Given the discussion, the comments, and the number of people that have participated, closing the poll with a "no consensus" and a call to "move on and relax" does not address the core issues raised. We cannot dismiss 400 votes (pro or con) with a wave of the hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

and while that thread, immediately above, grew in various directions, no one actually addressed that question.

I would like to.

No consensus means simply that it isn't over/decided yet, and we go on as we were before, business as usual, until the issue arises again. I think that some people are being confused by the scale here. This is no different, at its core, from a discussion/poll on an article's talk page in which there are only a dozen editors who give a darn enough to bother to weigh in, even after 2 months. If the discernable opinions are 50/50 or 40/60 or whatever, and defensibly so (vs. "I like it", etc.), then you have no consensus. Things go back to the status quo before the issue arose, and further discussion ensues (else the issue just goes away), typically with people building their "case" in the background, shifting things, twidding things, addressing concerns, resolving objections, and making compromises, so that when it comes up again, hopefully it won't be a big split but a clear yes or no.

This really isn't anything new. If the article one is working on survives AfD narrowly with a closing admin's determination of "no consensus", then one takes that as a sign that a lot of work needs to be done, or the next time you can bet that "no consensus" (much less "keep") is a remarkably unlikely outcome. This poll is a reprieve. Use it wisely, and maybe we'll all be singing WP:ATT's praises. Use this time to continue to attack, ignore or ridicule those with criticism for or concerns about ATT and/or the underlying processes, and you might as well just stop now and go do something else, like write a new article.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, someone foolishly asked the entire community, most of whom don't care; and now they feel compelled to randomly make up an opinion very much on the fly, on a relatively short time scale. That's not to say these people aren't intelligent or anything, it's just they may not have had 5 months to mull over possible compromises, so this poll wasn't very fair to them or their opinions. :-P --Kim Bruning 12:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Actually..." phrasing seems to indicate that we might disagree on something here; I'm skeptical that is really the case. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Summarising: I think we simply asked a silly question and got the silly answer we should have expected. (that, and we just wasted a lot of peoples time). :-/ --Kim Bruning 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (Possibly the actually was in there because I was thinking of Jossi's text too).

What kind of statement is that? "We" did not ask any question, did we?; This was a poll requested by Jimbo. If you have any issues with that, you can ask him. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Or saved a lot of it (people's time I mean). The debates here have been remarkably heated yet remarkably circular. If I failed to short-circuit that cycle, then @#$% it, I'll have to try again some other day. (Oh, and I just noted your... I'd call it a parenthetical, but it's not. Your "post-sigular" to make up a new word, and all is clear in-context now.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: I also just now clued to your much wider meaning of wasted people's time. Duh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we are left with some good material for future discussion. It's brought out: some big problems people have with the Attribution proposal in its current form, some problems people have with any merger at all, some outstanding issues with current policy and a few misconceptions about both current and proposed policy. Identifying issues is of course the first step to resolving them. --bainer (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been an eye-opener in many ways. Metamagician3000 14:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not an AfD. It is different. The process was different, the issue is different, and the closing should be different. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

True. We can't dismiss either side. As for compromises, I know you don't like the ones that have been thought of so far, and we don't know how the community feels about them since we didn't specifically ask. But where does that leave us? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 14:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Re "good material" and "identifying issues," I'm thinking that we should workshop the three pages individually and sequentially, drawing on the responses in the poll. I suggest starting with RS. There are a lot of issues and misconceptions surrounding it. Marskell 14:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. People above are mentioning "no consensus" and back to status quo before the poll. But ... what is the status quo? WP:ATT was policy for more than a month before the poll, was used in ArbCom cases and widely cited. So my point is: Jimbo asked for a discussion and a poll, and we have done that. As such, Jimbo needs to play a central role in the aftermath of this. So, we close the poll April 7, 01:00 UTC, protect the page, and wait for Jimbo to comment. After all, it was his intervention that triggered all of this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That all sounds good, jossi, except I would suggest extending the poll. Not that it's really that big a deal, but I don't see the point of having votes on the talk page while we are still waiting for Jimbo anyway. Perhaps we could extend it "until Jimbo gets around to closing this"? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 14:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See Blueboar's comment in the previous section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for how to close the poll: We can all work together to edit a document which summarizes the various positions about the merge, exercising our encyclopedic skills to (as much as possible) write it in a NPOV way. Working on helping to express the various points of view other than one's own can help to promote understanding and possibly even willingness to compromise. One idea would be to do it in two steps: first produce a document with short sentences such as "<number> users favour keeping all the pages as policy" following by copies of the actual votes. Afterwards, on a separate page, produce a document in paragraph form attempting to describe all sides of the issue. The question of what to do next would still remain, but I think it would be valuable to produce such a document. It could be helpful to Jimbo: "Here's our summary, and you can also read the individual poll votes if you like." We're not just doing this for Jimbo, though. I really think the process of producing such a document, and the document itself, wuold be helpful in somehow figuring out how to proceed. --Coppertwig 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi wrote "what is the status quo? WP:ATT was policy for more than a month before the poll, was used in ArbCom cases and widely cited." WP:ATT was declared policy on the grounds that it represented a consensus to merge WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. The current poll surely raises the question whether such a consensus ever existed. It seems to me that the appropriate course is to assume that WP:V and WP:NOR are policy, WP:RS is a guideline, and WP:ATT is a work-in-progress. Bucketsofg 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The poll shows a divided community as it pertains to this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This issue being what, specifically? Bucketsofg 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bucketsofg above. The true status quo is that ATT is a work in progress, and the older policy/guideline pages are current until the s consensus to change or merge them. DES ^(talk) 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo can jump in any time he wants. We should not wait for Jimbo. We should proceed in a normal fashion. This isn't a remake of Life of Brian. Once everyone who wishes to present an analysis has had such a chance (ie give people a few days) then normal wiki editing of policy pages and their talk pages is fully in order. This is a wiki, let's act like it. WAS 4.250 18:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think inviting Jimbo to comment, and giving him a couple days to do so, is reasonable. We might also want to invite opinions from the rest of Wikipedia on what the poll has told us, but I would rather not finalize a closing statement or take other action without waiting for Jimbo to chime in. TheronJ 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Metamagician3000 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be a mistake for Jimbo to comment at this time, other than to say "Carry on" -- because we have not done our job yet of coming up with a solution for this problem. --Rednblu 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well and concisely said, Rednblu. I agree.

I also agree with User:Bucketsofg and DES. I haven't seen evidence that WP:ATT ever went through a reasonable process of becoming policy, or that there was ever consensus that it was policy. The current poll demonstrates that lack of consensus. The status quo, in my opinion, is that WP:NOR and WP:V are policy, while WP:ATT is a work in progress.

I think it's OK to wait a few days for a reply from Jimbo before making major decisions, but I also think it's important not to waste time but to continue discussing and trying to reach consensus. Developing a joint poll-closing document as I suggest above can proceed either before asking Jimbo for input, or while Jimbo is thinking. Probably better to do it before. If we can manage to reach consensus, or at least get closer to it, it would be better to present that to Jimbo. Think how you'd feel in his shoes. --Coppertwig 01:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I also concur with this. Lest that sound self-contradictory: Yes, status quo is ATT = work-in-progress, and much discussion is required. But also, yes, Jimbo started this inquiry, and will be required at some point to resolve the mess and confusion resulting from his declaration and actions, and perhaps to also resolve or declare resolved the ultimate issues after aforementioned continued discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a rather strange logic in some of the previous discussion of this issue, namely "Jimbo called for the poll, therefore Jimbo should decide what it means". Certainly Jimbo's comments will be interesting, but he clearly identified himself with the oppose side before the vote even took place. He may well rise to the occasion, but he is far from an ideal arbitrator. No consensus does not mean "let Jimbo decide", it means "read what people (on all sides) said and then move forward more informed". Geometry guy 09:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 !! Yes. --Rednblu 18:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A positive outcome

Although Attribution as a combined policy as a replacement for V and NOR does seem to be shelved have not achieved a consensus for now, I think the work that went into it was still of great value. To my eyes, ATT clarified the existing policies in a number of ways, and I hope these clarifications can brought over into the once-again-separate V and NOR pages.--Father Goose 10:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ATT is not shelved any more than V or NOR or RS are shelved. The only thing that is shelved is confident talk that any one side has a claim to consensus. WAS 4.250 11:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "shelved" is not the operative word here. Nonetheless, we've now discovered that only slightly more than half of the community can describe itself as being "in broad support of WP:ATT". We can hardly describe it as policy given the lack of consensus supporting it. It is best regarded, I suggest, as a work in progress. Bucketsofg 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll closed

I have protected the poll and header pages, as the poll is now closed. Crum375 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Post-poll comments

If you missed the poll, feel free to comment here. Your comments will not affect the vote outcome, but as the point of this poll was to gather and gauge opinions, not produce a vote count, your comments will be considered along with those in the poll. As on the poll itself, please do not post argumentative or supportive replies to comments in this section. For overall discussion of the issues, please see Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion.

Please add this to the notes section

An important point to make in the notes section is WP:!VOTE. It is extremely important that newcomers and readers be reminded that when viewing the results, that poll numbers aren't always the basis here on Wikipedia. Please be bold and make this change. Kopf1988 04:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

OK

So what happens next? JulesH 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Find someone who disagrees with you, and discuss with them. Then find some more. :-) (you now have a nice list of people you can discuss with :-) ).

You can try hardest first (find someone with the totally opposite opinion), or you could team up with folks with ideas closest to yours to refine your arguments, or you could try for an easy sell towards someone who almost seems to agree with you, or... well, take your pick. :)

--Kim Bruning 21:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea!! I've been looking for someone who supports the proposed new wording "attributable ... not whether it is true" who is willing to discuss back-and-forth with me long enough to agree on a statement like "OK, you see the words as meaning this, and I see them as meaning that. And you want them to mean this, for this reason, while I want them to mean that, for that reason." To achieve consensus, we have to have discussion. --Coppertwig 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to the classification of my vote and the votes of the 101 other editors who voted in the "Neutral/qualified/compromise/other" section as "neutral".

The title of the section was "Neutral/qualified/compromise/other", not "Neutral". Not all of the 102 people who voted in that section are "neutral". The wording of the count in the header should be changed accordingly. Also, the other two sections were not "support" and "oppose", but "broad support" and "broad oppose". — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed, I think those votes should be moved accordingly, just like it would in a RFA poll. --RiseRobotRise 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Same here. My opinion was "This is terrible as is, but it may be possible to do it well". Counting that as being neutral towards "the merger" completely misrepresents it. The question asked was not "What do you think of this merger?", but "What do you think of the idea in general?" -Amarkov moo! 01:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

* What do you think would work to resolve our little policy problem here? --Rednblu 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Either the policy has to be rewritten so that nothing is changed, or people have to stop insisting that nothing was changed. I can't really evaluate it until one of those two is done. -Amarkov moo! 01:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

While I did not vote in the same section as some of the commenters above, I do concurr that the wording in the header does not clearly summarize the intent of the respondents. The vote count summary should precisely match the headings of the sections where the votes were entered so no possible bias is introduced by any change in the words. If it does not match (as currently is the case), then the summary is not accurately reflecting what the editors responding were seeing when they entered their votes and comments. That could affect the perception of the results of the poll for someone who only reads the summary, or even someone who reads the summary first and then reviews the votes.

Here is a suggestion for improved wording to avoid biasing the summary of the responses in any way:

• 424 poll responses were entered in this section: In broad support of WP:ATT
• 354 poll responses were entered in this section: In broad opposition to WP:ATT
• 102 poll responses were entered in this section: Neutral/qualified/compromise/other

I request replies for consensus on this (or for alternate wording suggestions). Once we have consensus on this, if we can attain that, I ask that someone with the authorization and technical tools and to implement the consensed change please make it so. Parzival418 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the header to better reflect the headings in the poll. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick action! Parzival418 04:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks,  : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

bainer's version can be seen here. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Now it says, "102 voted in the section for neutral vote and expressed a qualified opinion, suggested a compromise or expressed some other opinion". [4] Once again, neutral does not equal qualified, compromise, or other. If you want to say "section" for fear that some people voted in the wrong section, say "102 voted in the section for neutral, qualified, compromise, or other votes." Also "354 voted in the section broad opposition" is bad grammar, it should be "354 voted in the section for broad opposition". Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I Strongly agree with Armedblowfish. This discussion is continued below in a separate section so I'll continue my comments there as well. Parzival418 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

See this section. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to summarize

I've gone through each of the votes for and against and have attempted to summarize them. I think that capturing the issues is more valuable than counting votes, per se. The key points for were much easier to capture than those against, which were more numerous and nuanced than the former. The latter could probably be further condensed, but I'm getting "editor's fatigue", so I think I'll just post them as they are at this point. They are not listed in any particular priority, just that general order in which they fell while I was trying to consolidate similar thoughts/issues/concerns. I've striven to be comprehensive, but I'm sure I must have missed something or two.

My intent in producing this synopsized listing is the hope that it will serve as a basis for identifying the more fundamental issues and coming up with ideas about where we might all go with this toward finding a more consensual outcome. My gut feel from reading all this is that a more agreeable product can evolve from WP:ATT, but it's going to require some further compromise on both sides. Please add your comments, observations, suggestions, etc. beginning in the Comments subsection that follows at the end of these two three lists. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In broad support:

1. 'Attribution' (ATT) does not change policy, but consolidates and clarifies similar and mutually relevant material; this is specifically the case for merging 'Verifiability' (V) and 'No Original Research' (NOR), but there remains disagreement regarding 'Reliable Sources' (RS). Essentially, most see V + NOR = 'Attribution' (which is "at the core of what we do"), and "Attribution to Reliable Sources" = Verifiability.
2. Most do not see that the two or three documents being merged in ATT are "different, overlapping, but distinct aspects of the same thing" or else they feel those differences to be semantic and trivial, especially with regard to their practical application. The policies may be conceptually distinct, but they are practically equivalent.
3. A consolidated document greatly eases the reading, learning, referencing, maintaining, updating, deconflicting, and understanding of these fundamental aspects of Wikipedia – something generally absent and impractical with the status quo – for both new and experienced users. Fundamentally, simplification = better understanding.
4. Streamlining how this set of policies is defined and described will make it easier for editors to reference them and for new editors to understand the guidance they provide. While these related policies have been on separate pages, they have often become inconsistent. Those who maintain policy pages – which are a constant target of single-issue edits – have a terrible time trying to keep them in sync, and a merged policy page would greatly ease their burden.
5. ATT provides far superior explanations and elucidations of these "fundamentals" to those currently present in the existing separate articles individually.
6. Condensation of Wikipedia’s policies is essential to prevent "instruction creep", especially as the project grows ever larger and has to create additional mandatory/core policies like 'Biographies of living persons' (BLP) to deal with new challenges it faces. In the beginning NPOV was our only really dominant policy; NOR and V developed as independent attempts to address some of the same problems. 'Original Research' (OR) is and always has been a special case of lack of verifiability/attributability. ATT gets us to coordinate our policies in a way we really should have done long ago.
7. The fewer policy pages there are, and the more detail in those policy pages, the less opportunity there is for wikilawyering and holding "the letter above the spirit of the law".
8. Consensus was already achieved over several months of work on ATT.
9. Fundamentally revisiting and re-thinking our core policies every three or four years is necessary to keep Wikipedia a healthy, learning organization.

In broad opposition:

1. Most agree with Jimbo's statements that each policy expresses a significantly different idea. They don't agree that the combined policy is either clearer or more streamlined, but rather assert that it obfuscates important aspects of our policies and weakens each of them. Merging them would only serve to confuse or dilute them, rather than clarify and strengthen them. There may be deficiencies in the existing documents, but this is not the way to fix them. The merge into ATT is exactly opposite of what should be happening.
2. This merger is not at all what many supportive poll respondents perceive it to be. It is not a 2-into-1 or (with RS) 3-into-1 merger; in reality, is it a 3-into-2 merger or even 2-into-2 (since ATTFAQ would exist whether it incorporated RS material or not).
3. It is not true that with ATT "we aren't changing things, we are only clarifying things". ATT actually makes major changes to our policies, both in breadth and in spirit. For example, the "unpublished synthesis of published material" (WP:SYN) section is new policy not previously addressed by RS. Moreover, although it is claimed that ATT only merges "existing policies", the actual process followed was one in which existing policies were molded to ATT before work on them was somewhat abandoned.
4. The "synthesis clause" as a subset of WP:OR should not be lumped together with fundamental 'Verifiability'. First we need to cite our references (WP:V and WP:RS), then we can worry about scenarios where there is OR (even with the references).
5. It's important to keep policy pages separate for the sake of clarity. 'Verifiability', 'Reliable Sources', and 'No Original Research' are very independent components of high-quality Wikipedia pages. Each one is a stand-alone principle. Having these policies merged would create a policy that conflates too much. Something is lost in most mergers, and the result of merging these as currently enshrined in ATT will inevitably dilute the understanding and even-handed application of all three as they are demoted to being just single points among many. Moreover, over time the merged document will evolve and that means there will be an unavoidable progressive mixing and recombination of its contents, further diluting and confusing these key principles. Such dilution of our policies makes it harder to defend Wikipedia against editors who do not have high standards for citing reliable sources.
6. WP:V and NOR are perceived as being very different concepts with V having little, if anything, to do with NOR. Along with RS, they are seen as quite independent (although some see them as interrelated) components of high-quality Wikipedia pages, and each one is a stand-alone principle. They see the development of ATT as reinforcing the widespread misconception that they are merely two sides of the same thing. Moreover, a lot of 'Original Research' (OR) which is found in Wikipedia articles is of the "synthesis" type, and is perfectly verifiable; it is the putting them together which constitutes the original research. Eliminating separate V and NOR pages will make it even harder for newbies and others to understand and appreciate their distinct and unique contributions to the whole. What is needed is more focused work on improving these separate documents (particularly RS).
7. Conceptually, the merger misses the mark by blurring important distinctions and placing undue weight on peripheral issues, notwithstanding adherents' assertions that it reflects the existing policies. In particular, the resulting product ('Attribution') suggests that the fundamental test for inclusion at Wikipedia is one of form rather than substance. "Attribution" was originally designed to ensure a representation of the variety of views that exist on any given subject. While this remains a laudable goal (especially on controversial topics), placing it up front and center creates the impression that the existence of a source for information is more important than its quality.
8. While 'Truth' is generally (but not universally) recognized to be an unachievable standard, they perceive the purpose of these policies as being to try to get as close as possible to an objective presentation of the facts – i.e., to ensure that Wikipedia is a high-quality, reliable information resource. That central aim is obscured and rendered far more difficult (if not made impossible) by the current proposal; worse still, "attributability" trumps "accuracy", which greatly weakens Wikipedia's ability to resist POV-pushers.
9. The chosen name, 'Attribution', actually seems to promote WP:OR at the expense of WP:V, although the text is neutral. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Citing sources, which is also directly related, isn't even mentioned in the poll.
10. ATT also encompasses the promotion of RS from a (very good) guideline to a policy. However, there is disagreement over whether this elevation is a good idea. Those that support it claim that doing so would strengthen the reliability of sources — as well as strengthen verifiability (although some say ATT strengthens RS but actually weakens V) — but these usually deprecate merging NOR. They see these three key content policies as operating in different ways, and feel that the best way to reinforce this is to have separate pages.
11. Those opposing the elevation of RS to a policy are leery of the impact. Elevating WP:RS to policy globally skews the whole whole rationale for and approach to citing sources.
12. Some don't mind if WP:V and WP:RS are merged, as they could easily cover the same material; but most feel that WP:NOR must be kept separate; 'No Original Research' is a focus that defines an encyclopedia and Wikipedia itself, in that it is the publication of a compilation of work from other people, and that needs to be stressed in its own article. Verifiability and reliable sources are important for stylistic reasons, in that for people to write good articles, they need to reference correctly and use the correct type of sources required for a good encyclopedic article. They are different things.
13. In practical terms, the policy pages' most important role is as a guide to settle content disputes, which requires tools of precision. Policy components need to be formulated in bite-sized concepts in order to be of value to users.
14. WP:ATT is too cumbersome to read. It's unrealistic to expect a newcomer to really read in one sitting all of WP:OR+WP:V+WP:RS...or an even longer WP:ATT. The 'Simplified Ruleset' is a much better place to send them to start. The longer the article, the sooner "reader fatigue" sets in. A large page is harder to follow and digest, and therefore less likely to be observed. Moreover, it is much more confusing to newbies to be referred to ATT, with its overwhelming abundance of information, than to specific separate pages where specific rules may be more easily learned. It's easier for newbies to understand V, NOR and RS one at a time rather than trying to take it in all at once in a huge gulp. Some, though, see a possibility that ATT could serve as a useful guide for providing an understanding how all three of these principles interplay. However, while these objectors feel it's a good idea to have the ideas of each all in one place, they believe it's a poor idea to do so for the purposes of making new policy.
15. The 'Reliable Sources' part must be hashed out more. The wording in the old RS guideline is much stronger. All kinds of controversial or even false things can be "attributed" to generally 'reliable sources'. In controversial topics (not just scientific ones, either), RS is essential to prevent nonsense, or anonymous IPs posting so-called "reliable info" from their own websites. Indeed, "attributable but not necessarily attributed" can be a means of avoiding providing sources for material, while verifiability supports that notion that Wiki's credibility depends upon the ability of our readers to verify that our information comes from reliable sources. "Attributable but not attributed" opens the door to "experts" to challenge the need to cite information. ATT falls into the "expert" problem by the subtle switch from verifiable to "attributable to someone, somewhere, sometime", but unless you're an expert on the topic, you don't have the right to ask exactly where it's attributed. Verification and NOR are not synonyms. 'Truth' – at least in the form of 'accuracy' – matters, not just 'attribution'. "Verifiability, not truth" is a much clearer, more accurate and more elegant expression than this clumsy "attributability to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" monster. Otherwise, you are really suggesting that an editor who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is making 'helpful' contributions in writing this encyclopedia.
16. OR, RS, and V answer three very different questions: OR says "Did you find this or do it yourself?" RS says "If a group with an agenda on a topic says something outrageous, is it appropriate to add?" and V says "Did someone make this up or is it real?" ATT seems to be "It's OK if it came from someplace, we don't care where." The original three policies do not apply equally in all cases (a source can pass V and OR and still not be RS). Therefore, they should be separate. ATT undermines the encyclopedic process.
17. The core policy of WP:ATT that "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" is profoundly misguided. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia should be accuracy resting on facts "attributable to a reliable published source." Facts should always and in all circumstances be attributable, but provided that articles conform to NPOV, arguments not only need not be externally attributable, but requiring them to be so gives POV editors a sword to wield against attempts to correct plainly wrong information. In short, NOR suggests that WP would rather an article be attributable and wrong than accurate. That is an open invitation to POV.
18. Wikipedia has developed a culture which is a vital component to its success – more vital than the exact wording of its policies. The terms V, NOR, RS, NPOV, AGF, etc., are part of the language of that culture. We have thousands of pages of discussion where those terms are used. Merge the terms and over time those discussions, where various boundaries have been hammered out and consensus formed, become meaningless to newcomers. Absent a compelling problem with the existing structure that can't be solved any other way, the importance of retaining our traditional policy structure weighs against a merge.
19. Merging policies into a single place for "simplicity" is not necessarily a good thing in of itself. If we wanted, we could merge all of Wikipedia's policy into one concise page, but it would be ridiculous and thus it's the same thing here.
20. ATT does not have, and never had, consensus – either prior to its being elevated to "policy" or now. It is the product of a small "cabal" developed out of due process for achieving "consensus" on fundamental aspects of what Wikipedia is all about. Opposition seems to have been ignored, and some very bizarre arguments were used at times for not listening to editors.
21. Having the wording "not whether it is true" without qualification is an invitation to knowingly post false information. This is distinct from the argument that Wikipedia should be based on accuracy in the sense of conformity to reality; that's a point made by others. It's possible to say nothing about truth, and require only that material be attributable, and not require that it be true, and still avoid giving an explicit invitation to knowingly post false information. In my opinion, the longstanding policy does all that, and is preferable. I think it's fine for someone to include information they find in a reliable source if they don't know whether it's true or not. If they have reason to believe that it's false, that's a different story. Of course, including various points of view with prose attributions is fine.

Neutral/qualified/compromise/other

TBD, when I can find the time — however, please feel free to complete this section of the summary yourself, if you so desire.

Armed Blowfish has started working on this. However, since Blowfish is not done, and is not all that great at summarising, you should feel free to fix this up.

1. Different people might find different pages easier to understand, either combined WP:ATT or separate WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Different levels of detail are helpful depending on what you are doing. Hence, all should be kept. This could be a hierarchical structure, with WP:ATT serving as a summary with a status like WP:5P, or all could be policy. Also, overlap is not evil.
2. Proponents of the merger insisted that no policy innovations were made. However, some were made, and they were just glossed over as clarifications, with nobody willing to discuss them.
3. Concerns about WP:RS like those in the oppose section.
4. Concerns about truth like those in the oppose section.
5. This is not important, or do not care. (neutral)
6. Objections to the poll itself. Poll was over-advertised and pushed on people who are not interested.

The “Neutral/qualified/compromise/other” votes are difficult to categorize. Many of them should probably have been included in the “Support” and “Oppose” groups. Perhaps the most valuable part of this group is that they were proportionately far more likely to make succinct, constructive recommendations for improvement or compromise than the other two parties. Accordingly, I’m going to break this into two parts. In the first “Neutral/Qualified/Compromise”, rather than reiterate the themes fairly represented above, I’m going to identify the ones that appeared to be the most significant among this group, as well as include some of the recommendations. The truly “Neutral/Abstain/Other” type comments will be found at the end. This bifurcated approach should provide guidance as to what the predominant themes for the “third party” as a whole (as opposed to being a repetitive, but comprehensive, “jumble of positions espoused by all sides). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral/Qualified/Compromise

1. If this page was an article, it would be ripped as being too long. If someone does original research, sending them to NOR is easier than then telling them to read through ATT. If ATT gets them easily to NOR, Verifiability, and all the other rules, then it helps. If it holds the same content, it will not be long before it gets split as being too large. I approve of it being the parent article, but leave the rules and content in the detailed places rather than remove them.
2. When giving people advice, particularly those new to the project, it's extremely important to be able to give them a direct link to the exact part of policy that is relevant. Therefore anchors and redirects to them are very much necessary if the community takes the decision to go ahead with a merge. The merge will be a good thing if it succeeds in making the policy simpler to understand and more coherent.
3. Policy is currently scattered and non-transparent. Support in principal a merge (if it will help policy centralization and policy transparency) – if the current policy articles are maintained for historical reference, their content remains policy, ATT has appropriate anchors, and is ratified by community consensus. The idea of having all the information together is a good idea, but it's also extremely useful to be able to have a shortcut such as WP:NOR which goes directly to the information relevant to that particular problem.
4. The original three policies were partially overlapping, rather long, and IMO three sides of the same issue. A compact attribution policy page would be easier to digest, especially for newcomers. Some objectors make valid points about the new policy being different from the three old ones together. So an Attribution policy page would be better a reasonably short summary rather than a replacement of the three old policies. Boundary cases and more esoteric examples can stay on the V/NOR/RS pages.
5. Would support ATT with a stronger emphasis in its "lead" on NOR, RS, and undue weight (linked to NPOV); and with new, simple, shortcuts (WP:Style) to the traditional parts of it.
6. Some points WP:ATT makes, particularly in the expanded FAC, are useful. Support expanding and clarification on existing policies; however merging WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS, per Jimbo, is a confusing and bad idea, not to mention that the very name - 'Attribution' - simply furthers this confusion, as new users think more of 'authorship' than V/OR/RS issues.
7. A merged page would be a very good idea, in order to keep it short and readable. But the process of condensing and merging information tends to result either in an overly technical and hard-to-read document, or some points must be rationalized away; in either case, parts of the message get lost, and the resulting merger is hard to comprehend anyway! Recommend: 1) a heavily summarized page, pretty concise, but dealing with "synergic" information, 2) links to the relevant subpages that already exist.
8. ATT should be a guideline, not a policy. The reason being is that policies are too rigid to handle each individual case.
9. Partial support as long as stubs on all sub-policies are kept. As Jimbo himself noted, there are zillions of links leading to WP:NOR or WP:V and I believe the links should be left intact. Concerned about consistency as far as old discussions go
10. Prefer the overall page have abstracts with links to specialized pages, but transclusion might better protect internal consistency. With transclusion we can have our cake and eat it too. Everyone can have what they want. The ATT policy page can consist of: {{:V}} {{:NOR}} {{:RS}} and the talk pages of V, NOR and RS can redirect to the ATT talk page.
11. Merge the general idea of all of the polices into ATT, but keep the original pages as detailed information. Merging all of the above policies into one page seems feasible, but I have a feeling that merging everything into one ATT will tend to confuse users.
12. The merger is harmless. It may be helpful to consolidate core policies in the area of attribution, but unsure whether it is necessary. It actually may be better to use our own summary style here: WP:ATT for a broad overview, retaining specific explanations in the other three pages.
13. Overlap is not evil. Don't see the need to only have non-overlapping policies.
14. Oppose WP:ATT being policy, but support ATT being kept as a summary with a status like WP:5P, should people choose to maintain it. Such a summary should include WP:V and WP:NOR, but strongly oppose including Wikipedia:RS as part of WP:ATT. First, WP:RS is more a WP:NPOV issue, particularly with regard to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Second, incorporating RS blurs the distinction between policy and guideline. Third, RS has been historically controversial when it comes to the details, and it is best if it has its own page for us to attempt to reach consensus on
15. WP:RS should not be promoted from controversial guideline to core policy, since this would promote that material to the status of a policy even though it is currently a guideline. RS suffers from not measuring relative reliability of sources. Its promotion to policy would be a serious error. A determination of whether WP:RS should be promoted to policy, and what form that policy should take, should be a wholly separate issue from what has been purported as a procedural merger of WP:V and WP:NOR into a policy that is equivalent to the two policies in their separate forms. Merging WP:RS into WP:ATT changes the essential balance of V+NOR with NPOV as "twin pillars". The ATT treatment of "reliable sources" is far too simplistic without mention of bias.
16. “Use reliable sources" is and should be policy, but this does not mean the WP:RS page should be elevated to official status. There are far too many gray areas between "reliable" and "unreliable" to officialize exactly how we define reliability. Doing so would open the door to further instruction creep and legalistic squabbles as people feel driven to take literally what was intended to be flexible and situational. Propose that we rename and refocus the page to Wikipedia:What is a reliable source, Wikipedia:Guide to using reliable sources or something to that effect. In that case, WP:ATT, with or without the accompanying WP:V and WP:NOR, would say "Use reliable sources", as the refocused WP:RS helps the community decide whether this or that source is reliable, which is the page's purpose anyway. This would accomplish two key goals: It would help resolve the complexity and steep learning curve of Wikipedia policy, while furthermore settling a point often brought up by those who advocate merging WP:RS into WP:ATT or elsewhere: that WP:RS as a guideline doesn't fit in with the policies that demand the use of reliable sources. I think WP:RS serves a similar purpose as, say, WP:CITE: it's a guideline that helps illustrate, explain and put into practice a policy, and should stay that way.
17. Strongly prefer merging WP:NOR into WP:V name – Verifiability – rather than pulling out a new policy.
18. Merging WP:V and WP:OR makes a lot of sense to me, but oppose merging in WP:RS; policies should state the concept of relying on reliable sources, with the operational definition of RS left to guidelines. Also, as others have pointed out, WP:RS has as much to do with WP:NPOV as it does with the rest of WP:ATT.
19. Verifiability and NOR really can be merged and the ATT page did a good job of it – particularly like the strong simple concept that if it is not attributable to a reliable source, it is original research. However, don't think it was wise to try and merge so much of reliable sources into a policy page. Having a policy that says that all material must be attributable to a reliable source is a good idea. Having a policy that defines what a reliable source is or is not is a bad idea, especially considering how fast various media are evolving today. Sometimes editors are simply going to have to reach a consensus value judgment on whether a particular source is reliable or not for a particular purpose. Having a guideline for such decisions is helpful, but having a hard and fast policy is not.
20. Support merging especially V and RS, but NOR seems a bit different then the first two and probably should stay separate. Agree that WP:RS should definitely remain separate from WP:ATT, but don’t object to the union of WP:NOR and WP:V in WP:ATT.
21. Support the merger of WP:V and WP:RS into WP:ATT, but I think WP:NOR is too strong of a principle on its own to be merged in such a way (though, arguments could be made that having WP:ATT and WP:NOR are redundant). However, having WP:ATT and WP:NOR to quote and cite violating users of as two statements to be easier than one big statement, and certainly the existing three, where WP:V and WP:RS already have overlap.
22. The way WP:ATT reads, if an editor finds a "reliable source" that says "X" and another that says "not X", an editor may choose between the two and include whichever that editor fancies. In many of the articles dealing with controversial subjects, an editor will without difficulty find "reliable sources" for both sides of the debate and for "facts" supporting each. The synthesis of contrary reliable sources is always original research or POV to some extent (even the ordering of the arguments, whose is first is original research or POV). So we should use WP:ATT as a general policy that articles need a source, let WP:RS tell us what sources are considered reliable, and let WP:NOR and WP:SYNT tell us what constitutes impermissible original research or POV pushing. So hierarchically, putting WP:ATT on the top, but keeping the nuances for the other pages.
23. WP:ATT should be a summary of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS but not convinced it should replace any or all of them. Have ATT as a summary-style policy of the other three, allowing people to refer to any one or all three together easily.
24. WP:ATT it didn't seemed equivalent to the other three rules. All the previous rules were distinct, important concepts. If they must be merged, the merge should maintain all the concepts. Given that, it seems to be a good idea to have a single "big rule" to point people at rather than three - it is just easier.
25. Keep all and keep the redirects WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR to their own respective pages. Users may then continue to refer to any of these or WP:ATT/WP:ATTFAQ as alternate summaries of sorts. Have personally cited each of them in recent discussions, as they are each useful in different contexts. As long as the standards are conveyed accurately, there should be no problem with all these pages coexisting. Minimize any potential confusion for newcomers with “See also” links and tags at the top that express the redundancy. It's okay if policies and guidelines overlap with each other; this is already the case with some other ones.
26. Support the concept of merging the articles, but not putting attributability above truth. False content should not be included just because it is attributable. Do we want to be correct or do we want to be verified? We need some way of weaving out the fiction, published though it may be. ATT doesn't do enough to keep out-of-date information out when new information contradicts it.
27. The current form of ATT leaves too many ideas out. Mainly, truth is still important. Just because some fringe magazine with a wide following says that "the sun will die in a year" doesn't mean it should be added to WP, it's clearly wrong, but still attributable. Also, there should be something near the top or the main core of ATT that says something along the lines of "The sources used to write an article should be reported in the article." While sources aren't required, they should at least be strongly recommended.
28. Suggest that WP:ATT be retained and run parallel with policies WP:NOR, WP:V and the guideline WP:RS. Attribution should be about taking these foundation policies/principles and building on them. Wikipedia needs to address issues about sourcing; political ideologies, historical falsehoods and new developments. It should address "truth" in its many forms; what it shouldn't do – which ATT currently appears to be doing – is providing inclusion for lies/falsehoods as factual, providing it’s attributable. Ultimately ATT will/could grow and encompass NOR,V and RS. We have the time do this right: Wikipedia will be here for hundreds of years. The change should be one that editors understand and trolls can’t use to push their agendas.
29. Keep WP:ATT as policy. Keep the others as guidelines subordinate to WP:ATT, and resolve any inconsistencies in favor of WP:ATT. Merge any parts of WP:V that are not already in WP:ATT into WP:NOR and WP:RS.
30. Issues of systemic bias have not been addressed in ATT.

Neutral/Abstain/Other

1. The real problem is giving other editors and admins the tools needed to clean the cruft, spam, non-encyclopedic content, and vanity pages for individuals or their pet projects off the encyclopedia.
2. Availability of information is more important than its reliability. Wikipedia as a place where a new knowledge can be found. I'm comfortable with this knowledge existing only on Wikipedia and not attributable to anything at all. It shouldn't matter where the information lies, so long as it exists in an easily accessible location. The page isn't important; the content is.
3. Like the wording of WP:ATT – it is an easier read for new users, and lays out good ideas for an encyclopedia. In the end, both WP:ATT & (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR) reach for the same goal but use different terms to achieve that goal. Whether or not we should replace one set of terms for another is a question with an uncertain answer, but Wikipedia is a constantly changing document, so that would work itself out shortly. In the end, don't think either option will effect things much as long as we a lot of smart people working together who are friendly enough to bring new users into the fold.
4. Believe that attribution can exist as a summary of all three as a broad policy, but each one is integral and deserves a separate article.
5. Support the merging of WP:V, and WP:RS into one page at WP:ATT. However, in my reality working with indigenous communities, oral sources are very, very common and are considered a reliable source if there is verifiability from reliable sources (often also oral in nature). However, verifiable oral sources are still considered "original research" in the world of Wikipedia so the policy of WP:NOR must remain distinct from the others, without a merger.
6. Excessive policies are the opposite of what Wikipedia stands for, and the more details used when defining them, the less productive of an encyclopedia there will be. Stick with general overviews and guidelines. Not policies.
7. Who cares where the policies are written? Hardly anyone will read them anyway, let alone follow them. More to the point, people should stop wasting time on policy debates and get on with writing the encyclopedia.
8. Strongly oppose this poll (“Not per due process” or “A waste of time”).
9. Clearly no consensus.
10. Voting is evil.
11. Abstain

Comments

Excellent work. This seems like a very good summary of most of the key arguments. It is interesting to see how the actual arguments put forward differ from both the pro and con position papers. --bainer (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A very good summary indeed. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A thing of beauty, even. Clear even for newbies. Jfarber 03:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What is interesting is that the summary above, condenses 424 comments in broad support into 9 points, and 354 into 20. This could mean that there is strong consensus about the raison d'etre of ATT amongst those that supported it, and that there is a lack of clarity about these reasons by those editors that opposed it. Food for thought. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it could mean that, though that seems to me less likely than that in this kind of process, commentators sometimes want to make new points, even if they're minor. One way or the other, the diversity of opinion suggests that it will be hard to form a concensus around WP:ATT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bucketsofg (talk • contribs).

It could also be a confirmation that people who like ATT were the people who worked on it over the last few months (and have thus had plenty of opportunity to clarify their thoughts on it), and that more people who don't like it have only recently become aware of it. --bainer (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is part of it; that WP:ATT is viewed inconsistently is one of the signs that no real consensus for the new wording was built up. Qnother example is the support of WP:ATT because it will mandate inline citation; contrasted with the oppose here, on the grounds it weakens WP:V on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The oppose section included gems such as "The core policy of WP:ATT that "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" is profoundly misguided, shows a total lack of understanding of our core policies, regardless of ATT. Given this, a continuous and vigorous debate about the importance of these core policies is necessary to continue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Another misguided notion is the one that asserts that RS was a"very good" guideline. Well, that was not the case, until RS was redesigned based on the work done at ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. My impression was that WP:RS (at my last consultation of it) was better than the ATT/FAQ. But it is surely the case that improvements can still be made. Bucketsofg 05:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't what anyone intends to do with this summary, but it's senseless to condense the oppose at twice the length of the support. It's obviously lopsided. Marskell 08:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can fix that by adding missing arguments to the support (if there are any missing) or merging arguments of the oppose (if they can be merged). I think we should not, however, that finding a new way to build consensus surely begins with accepting that different views on this question can honestly held by intelligent people. Removing some views out of a misguided sense of "balance" would not help. Bucketsofg 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On RS, good or bad, it's fundamentally redundant. Some of the wording is stronger in it than both V and ATT—but there's no concept within it that can't be handled by the policies. Marskell 08:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is redundant to the policies. True, there's no concept there, that's not present in the policies. But, whether we end up merging or not, there's a need for a practical "how-to-judge-sources" guide. If we merge, it will be the FAQ; if we don't it will be RS. Bucketsofg 13:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you removed the two largest sections of RS as it stands, Types of source material and Self-published sources, there would be very little left to the page. One idea I've been thinking of Wikipedia:Verifiability/Reliable sources. Bind it to the policy and put the tag back on, or make it less than a guideline (basically a link-farm) and place any critical wording back in V (or ATT) directly. Marskell 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There ias little or nothing that is not present practice; there are numerous elaborations and clarifications which are not now in V or NOR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now, there's the Exceptional claims section and an expanded note on Wikis, usenet etc. that constitute "numerous elaborations and clarifications;" the rest is redundant. And note we've got Wikipedia:Citing sources to boot, which could absorb, for instance, the Convenience links section. There's nothing about RS that tells me it can't be re-incorporated into V (or ATT). Marskell 16:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The questions are (1) what the advantages and disadvantages of that are, and (2) whether there is a consensus to do so. The poll makes it fairly clear that the consensus is still lacking, no doubt because the advantages have not been sufficiently enumerated and concerns about the disadvantages have not been met. Bucketsofg 18:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the advantages are "see 1 and 2," rather than "see 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5." "Reliable sources" (those two words—full stop) are policy. Whether V or ATT, our principal content policy shouldn't rely on a guideline to explain the concept. OK, you've suggested a how-to. Isn't WP:CITE already doing that? I don't follow that page that much because, well, there's so many pages to follow—half the point of the merger. I'd like to workshop wording that is (or has been) unique and critical to RS, and pull it back to V as policy, then debate the semantic differences between verifiability and attribution afterwards. Marskell 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• In my view, it doesn't normally work this way. When I've seen a need to give new editors guidance, "see 1 and 2," is no advantage over "see 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5", since we're usually directing them to a specific problem: "1.2" in your new system, or "3" in the old. To choose an example. Say an editor is arguing some point of ancient Mesopotamian history (Nineva in the 8th century BC) on the basis of what is the equivalent of The Dummies Guide to the History of the World, arguing for its equal treatment with a specialist history (e.g. "Nineva and the Iron Age, Harvard U.P., 2002). As things are now, I can send him to WP:Reliable_Sources, directing him to tertiary vs. secondary sources. We have the advantage that the issue at hand (how to determine what sources are better than others) is actually the name of the page. Now, Attribution/FAQ deals with this too (though to my mind in a less satisfactory way). But in this case, it subordinates the question to the notion of attribution, which to my mind is less satisfactory. And would "see FAQ section 2, subsection 2.1" be any real advantage?
• I would make the same point about WP:NOR. When some newby has created a page for his theory-of-everything, I think it's better to explain to him that its not included because it is original research and wikipedia doesn't do that. Deleting it because it isn't attributed or attributable may have the same effect, but it replaces what strikes me as a bureaucratic mechanism (no footnote? sorry!) for an intellectual principle (WP:NOR).
• On V vs. ATT, I'm agnostic at the moment. Which ever we eventually adopt, I think we should avoid the "V/ATT, not truth" formulation, since although its intended application is sound, it could be taken to imply a certain cavalierness to correctness that some editors have problems with. Bucketsofg 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ahem, what about the third section of 'other' votes - don't their comments deserve to be summarised. Some of them (such as mine) were Qualified Support (or oppose in some cases) which are certainly not neutral. Rfwoolf 21:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just what I was thinking. I feel ignored....  : ( However, it is more likely that Askari Mark simply became fatigued. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  I applaud your effort in summarizing the results. However, you've left out the point I've been making all along (and which, as I understand it, several others have also been making): that having the wording "not whether it is true" without qualification is an invitation to knowingly post false information. This is distinct from the argument that Wikipedia should be based on accuracy in the sense of conformity to reality; that's a point made by others. It's possible to say nothing about truth, and require only that material be attributable, and not require that it be true, and still avoid giving an explicit invitation to knowingly post false information. In my opinion, the longstanding policy does all that, and is preferable. I think it's fine for someone to include information they find in a reliable source if they don't know whether it's true or not. If they have reason to believe that it's false, that's a different story. Of course, including various points of view with prose attributions is fine -- I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. --Coppertwig 23:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Armed Blowfish, for coming to my defense! ;-) Yes, I do have to plead both mental and physical fatigue. I had read through the Neutral/et al comments earlier (and that was a horrible way to lump such disparate positions together), though, and what I found was that most of these were reflected in the above positions by one side or the other. I may have missed a few and if someone finds and wants to add any unique issues, please be my guest. As for Coppertwig’s point, I thought I had captured it, but in reviewing it I see that I didn’t bring it out fully on its own merit. If you don’t mind, I’ll append your description at the end of the critics list. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind adding a section for it and leaving a filler text such as "to be filled in later"? Alternatively, if you don't want to finish it personally you could write a filler text such as "You are invited to complete this section of the summary". I am hesitant to mess with your work, but if invited, that would be okay. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Added ... and an open invitation stands. Feel free to mess! I would recommend keeping to "new, unique" issues as relisting those already addressed will just make it harder to track. There's a lot of information to digest already in this "pre-digested" section. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:01, 9

April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your admirable effort Askari Mark! I can see you need a well-earned rest now :-)Ivygohnair 06:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A response to some of the opposition arguments

I've responded to some of the arguments opposing the merger below. I'd welcome any comments on these responses. JulesH 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

2. This merger is not at all what many supportive poll respondents perceive it to be. It is not a 2-into-1 or (with RS) 3-into-1 merger; in reality, is it a 3-into-2 merger or even 2-into-2 (since ATTFAQ would exist whether it incorporated RS material or not).

Yes, but ATTFAQ isn't policy or even guideline: it is an explanatory note. This means that all of the policy is collected on one page, with explanation of tangential issues that are not necessary for an understanding of the policy moved into a separate page where they're out of the way. This arrangement does achieve the goal of simplifying the text of policy.

3. It is not true that with ATT "we aren't changing things, we are only clarifying things". ATT actually makes major changes to our policies, both in breadth and in spirit. For example, the "unpublished synthesis of published material" (WP:SYN) section is new policy not previously addressed by RS. Moreover, although it is claimed that ATT only merges "existing policies", the actual process followed was one in which existing policies were molded to ATT before work on them was somewhat abandoned.

Unpublished synthesis was previously in WP:NOR, not WP:RS.

4. The "synthesis clause" as a subset of WP:OR should not be lumped together with fundamental 'Verifiability'. First we need to cite our references (WP:V and WP:RS), then we can worry about scenarios where there is OR (even with the references).

It's more a case of we need to cite our references, and while we're doing so we should make sure that we're not using them to claim something that they don't support. The no synthesis section is simply part of honestly presenting the views of the sources we are using.

6. [...] Moreover, a lot of 'Original Research' (OR) which is found in Wikipedia articles is of the "synthesis" type, and is perfectly verifiable; it is the putting them together which constitutes the original research.

This rests on a misunderstanding of what WP:V means: yes, the individual statements in a synthesis can be verified. The conclusion drawn by it cannot. Including the synthesis section on the same page that WP:V's text ended up on highlights the point that everything in our articles must be verifiable, even subtext.

8. While 'Truth' is generally (but not universally) recognized to be an unachievable standard, they perceive the purpose of these policies as being to try to get as close as possible to an objective presentation of the facts – i.e., to ensure that Wikipedia is a high-quality, reliable information resource. That central aim is obscured and rendered far more difficult (if not made impossible) by the current proposal; worse still, "attributability" trumps "accuracy", which greatly weakens Wikipedia's ability to resist POV-pushers.

This same criticism could be applied to the existing policy. No change in WP:ATT has weakened requirements for accuracy.

9. The chosen name, 'Attribution', actually seems to promote WP:OR at the expense of WP:V, although the text is neutral. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Citing sources, which is also directly related, isn't even mentioned in the poll.

I don't understand this argument at all. WP:V defines verifiability as "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Attribution is the method used to allow this. Wikipedia:Citing sources is a style guide, and isn't really related.

14. WP:ATT is too cumbersome to read. It's unrealistic to expect a newcomer to really read in one sitting all of WP:OR+WP:V+WP:RS...or an even longer WP:ATT.

WP:ATT is less than 10% longer than WP:NOR is currently. It is substantially shorter than the combination of the three.

14 (cont) [...] It's easier for newbies to understand V, NOR and RS one at a time rather than trying to take it in all at once in a huge gulp.

I believe that it is impossible to understand either V or NOR without reading RS, as both use 'reliable source' as a term and refer to its definition at WP:RS.

15. [...] ATT falls into the "expert" problem by the subtle switch from verifiable to "attributable to someone, somewhere, sometime", but unless you're an expert on the topic, you don't have the right to ask exactly where it's attributed. [...]

This interpretation isn't born out by a reading of the policy. ATT says "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

15 (cont) [...] "Verifiability, not truth" is a much clearer, more accurate and more elegant expression than this clumsy "attributability to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" monster. Otherwise, you are really suggesting that an editor who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is making 'helpful' contributions in writing this encyclopedia.

Given the number of people who have expressed disagreeing opinions of the meaning of "Verifiability, not truth", I'd say it really isn't clear. We can't have an important sentence like this that is interpreted in two totally different ways by two large groups of people. An editor who knowingly includes cited but false information is also behaving acceptably according to WP:V, but many people seem to have missed that. The policy has not changed in this respect.

16. OR, RS, and V answer three very different questions: OR says "Did you find this or do it yourself?" RS says "If a group with an agenda on a topic says something outrageous, is it appropriate to add?" and V says "Did someone make this up or is it real?"

These characterisations seem wrong to me. OR asks "has this been published by somebody reputable?"; RS describes what is meant by somebody reputable; V tells editors to make sure people can tell that the material has been published by somebody reputable. Specifically, OR can be something done by somebody else, and V isn't actually concerned with whether something is "real" or not.

16 (cont). ATT seems to be "It's OK if it came from someplace, we don't care where."

I don't see how anyone who has read ATT can come to this conclusion.

17. The core policy of WP:ATT that "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" is profoundly misguided. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia should be accuracy resting on facts "attributable to a reliable published source." Facts should always and in all circumstances be attributable, but provided that articles conform to NPOV, arguments not only need not be externally attributable, but requiring them to be so gives POV editors a sword to wield against attempts to correct plainly wrong information. In short, NOR suggests that WP would rather an article be attributable and wrong than accurate. That is an open invitation to POV.

This is an argument to change current policy, as an almost identical statement exists on WP:V. I don't see how requiring attribution gives POV-pushers a weapon, anyway, but the point is that attribution is already required by WP:V, exactly as much as WP:ATT does.

18. Wikipedia has developed a culture which is a vital component to its success – more vital than the exact wording of its policies. The terms V, NOR, RS, NPOV, AGF, etc., are part of the language of that culture. We have thousands of pages of discussion where those terms are used. Merge the terms and over time those discussions, where various boundaries have been hammered out and consensus formed, become meaningless to newcomers. Absent a compelling problem with the existing structure that can't be solved any other way, the importance of retaining our traditional policy structure weighs against a merge.

The terms V, NOR and RS could continue to be used, with redirection pages pointing either to an explanation of the concept that is subordinate to ATT (the current status quo) or to sections of ATT (as they did before). I don't see why this would be a problem.

20. ATT does not have, and never had, consensus – either prior to its being elevated to "policy" or now. It is the product of a small "cabal" developed out of due process for achieving "consensus" on fundamental aspects of what Wikipedia is all about. Opposition seems to have been ignored, and some very bizarre arguments were used at times for not listening to editors.

This argument is circular: ATT cannot not have consensus because it didn't have consensus.

Bosh. The "argument" is the observation that something close to 50% of those polled is not WP:Consensus, and therefore the claims to have consensus or wide agreement on WWP:ATT]] were. as o matter of fact, mistaken. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, if you poll wikipedia *at large* about *anything* you won't get consensus on it. (including, if suitably phrased to hide what you are actually asking, such things as "Is wikipedia a wiki?", "is wikipedia free?" and "is wikipedia an encyclopedia?") --Kim Bruning 21:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In my estimation, few if any of the above responses take into consideration what the opposition said. Maybe it would be best to select just one of them to examine first. What do you think? --Rednblu 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

JulesH, you said: "No change in WP:ATT has weakened requirements for accuracy." Perhaps you missed some of the earlier discussion. The dictionary definition of "verifiability" contains the concept of "truth"; the definition of "attributable" does not. In the phrase "verifiability, not truth", the positive emphasis on truth from the definition of "verifiability" modifies the interpretation of the phrase "not truth", at least in many peoples' eyes; the phrase has been described as meaning "truth, not truth". But in the phrase "attributable ... not whether it is true" this modification is absent, so the words "not whether it is true" stand on their own and say something about the acceptability of knowingly inserting false statements which is seen by many as being absent in the "verifiability, not truth" formulation. When you say "accuracy" here I assume you mean the dictionary definition, i.e. conforming to reality, which is how I'll use it here, not the definition some are using in this discussion, i.e. conforming to what the sources say regardless of reality; correct me if I have that wrong. Anyway, many of us do see the change in wording as either (a) weakening or removing a requirement for accuracy; (this is a point made by others and not the point I'm making), or (b) allowing knowing inclusion of false information (my point) or (c) disallowing the use of apparent truth or falsehood as a criterion when deciding what to leave out (another of my points; I can explain the difference.). I understand that you might disagree with this analysis, but it would be helpful if you would indicate awareness of this point of view and discuss where exactly you disagree with it. --Coppertwig 23:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in WP:V immediately after Verifiability, not truth defines verifiability, as that policy uses it: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. This has indeed nothing to do with truth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

More serious opposition criticism

I will try to summarize the more sophisticated opposition comments hopefully in a way more digestible to proponents of ATT:

1. Synthesis. NOR operates at a different level from verifiability. When including the provision to avoid synthesis in WP:ATT, you are confusing the attribution of material with the attribution of ideas. When sources are synthesized to advance a position, each sentence may be attributable, but the conveyed idea is not. It is better to have a separate policy to work on the level of ideas and meaning. (The argument is actually more sophisticated, but this is as much of it as I understand.)
2. Verifiable attribution. You have lost the notion of "verifiable attribution", the new formulation not only doesn't contain the sentence that "any user should be able to check..." but the distinction between "attributed" and "attributable" gives further arsenal to people who want to avoid being challenged, as they can now claim a statement is attributable, but refuse to attribute it.
3. Truth. You have lost the connotations of accuracy. Verifiable has very much to do with truth, and the ambiguity of the phrase "verifiability, not truth" was useful. The less subtle "not whether it is true" would allow the inclusion of outright nonsense as long as it has been published by a reliable source. While WP:V currently says verifiability "means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source", this is not the original intention/spirit of WP:V. Verifiable information is better understood as material that has been verified as true by experts in the relevant field (using their operational definition of truth.)
4. Backwards. The goal of Wikipedia is not to attribute each statement to a reliable source, but to guarantee quality of the information, and WP:ATT has got the process backwards. A content policy, such as WP:NPOV, should be goal-oriented and state the ideal, not focus on the process/mechanics we use to reach the goal.

I have said enough in response to each, so I'll leave it for others to think about these objections. --Merzul 02:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As one of those unwashed millions who came and voted because of the invitation on my watchlist, I have to say that points 2, 3 and 4 of Merzul's summary capture my thoughts on the problems with ATT and why I voted against the merger after having read all of the relevant pages and articles. Disagreeing with these opposition points and debating or denying that the points are valid is not the way to reach consensus, and seems to indicate an unwillingness to discuss the issues to reach that consensus. I therefore appreciate Askari Mark's summary and direction below as a way forward. But I am having brain fatigue with the higher concepts right now. --Tinned Elk 00:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

um, okay, here is a quick response to Merzul and others: anyone who writes "Verifiable has very much to do with truth" does not grasp what has been an essential part of our policies, "Verifiability, not truth."

But while I think Merzul's motives are good, I think all of his/her objections are really, really wrong. Here is why. Wikipedia policies have never functioned to assure the quality of the information included in articles - it is our being a wiki community, in which everyone in the world (i.e. people having a wide range of knowledge) can add to the encyclopedia, and everyone in the world (including many people with good judgement) can delete things, that is meant to produce a quality encyclopedia ... this is the whole gamble of the project, the dare to be wiki and have faith that the result will be quality content, that distinguishes us. Policies have never and in my mind should never police quality. On the contrary they provide the framework for a wiki community to funtion. This is why the core policy is NPOV: a large heterogeneous community can work together because none of us will use Wikipedia to forward his or her own views, and because people with contradictory views will not paralyze an argument over who is right (who knows the truth, the objective reality). NPOV does this by insisting that we provide an account not of the truth or objective facts but of diverse views. These views must not be our own ... thus giving rise to our No Original Research policy. Since they must not be our own, they (including views that are synthetic!) must be attributable to some source ... thus giving birth to our Verifiability policy. Many people reasonably see NOR and V as two sides of the same coin: do not do x, instead do y. The distinction between attribute and attributable is important for the same reason that what distinguishes us is the wiki nature of the project. Each article is a product of the community, not a single author - because we know that multiple strenghts will outweigh multiple weaknesses. I add what I know to an article but of course it is not everything; someone else adds more. I add one view, someone else adds another view. Similarly, I add an attributable claim, someone else adds the attribution - this is the very nature of collaboration which is at the heart of Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, that was a very eloquent and succinct way to explain what WP is and how it works. Thank you. I will file that in my user page under: "What Wikipedia is and how it works" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy should serve merely to simplify conflicts among editors, is that not right? So how could the policy pages be worded to simplify the conflicts among the various views of quality expressed in the Attribution poll? --Rednblu 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

um, see, I don't find that very helpful to be told that everything [[User:Merzul|Merzul], and apparently I, said was "really, really, wrong" because the policies don't "do" anything and it is the ability of the editor to add "what I know" and someone else to come along and delete it (or add to it) that guarantees the quality of WP. If "what you know," Slrubenstein, is not attributable, how is that different from your original research? That is just wrong. Oh, well, you did not appear to read or understand what Merzul said and maybe I am not reading or understanding what you said. Thanks Rednblu for trying to move this forward without telling me I am wrong. --Tinned Elk 20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tinned Elk, if you think anything I wrote undermines our commitment to NOR, V, and ATT, you really did misunderstand me.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Next steps

Since there seems to be a question of where to go from here, please let me clarify a few things. First, I don’t believe the differing numbers of “points” between pro and con is noteworthy. Those in support basically fit into two general categories:

• Those who worked extensively on ATT and have an intimate insight and understanding of what that article is supposed to mean, and
• Those who see the consolidation of fundamentally interrelated policies into one (not two or three or more) documents as simplification and clarification, which is a good thing.

Accordingly, one would expect fewer points to be made by the supporting group. The opposing commentators mostly (but not entirely) have no intimacy with the back-and-forth negotiations and compromises that underlie the composing editors’ work, only the work as it currently reads – and those who did participate often appear to feel that their perspectives were ignored or rejected without a fair hearing. As a result, the opposition have an array of specific and usually more nuanced objections – which, since they are often interrelated, made it harder for me to capture in fewer points.

In short, the relative quantities of “points” is just a construct of the polling and distillation processes (which may have resulted in a clearer product had it been a better-developed poll). Merzul has made a praiseworthy attempt above to further distill this motley collection of critical issues into something closer a the “brass tacks” version.

While I have no doubt that JulesH’s point-by-point responses to each of the opposing positions was well-intentioned, I’m afraid it’s also not helpful. Please keep in mind that the points I have listed are a silly-puttied pastiche of similar viewpoints, not a coherent argument, so one would really have to go back to the specific editors’ comments to debate their particular rationales. Frankly, a “rebuttal” approach just leads to more “I’m-right-you’re-wrong” head-banging that raises blood pressures, but ultimately resolves nothing.

I think we need to turn this approach on its head. Obviously, the proponents believe they have addressed the concerns of the critics – yet the critics disagree. What this suggests to me is that the draft ATT doesn’t address the latter’s concerns quite as well as the former believe it does. This could be due to a variety of basic problems:

• In some key areas, selected words and certain expressions employed lack the clarity the drafters believe they hold.
• The drafting editors’ “understanding” of what they intended to convey has both explicit and implicit elements, and they do not realize that some of their implicit understandings have not been fully expressed in the explicit text.
• The art of producing the extant text may have overlooked, understated or inadvertently trivialized certain nuances due to an inadequate breadth of perspectives.

I believe the next step needs to be to take each point individually and have both sides engage in clarifying the issue so that both sides achieve a clearer mutual understanding. The process should produce better explanations. It certainly is necessary to assure that ATT can adequately and successfully handle the merger of purposes being assigned it – and it may prove that it can’t handle it all.

However, from what I’ve read, I perceive that a more acceptable result can be achieved. It might be in a merged form that successfully satisfies the concerns expressed over preserving the distinctiveness of each policy/guideline. It might be in the form of ATT being an explanation of how the separate policies/guidelines interplay in practice, with the actual policies/guidelines remaining separate, but explained (and maintained) in much improved form. Most of the issues raised I suspect can be resolved inasmuch as they focus more on weaknesses in ATT as it currently exists, not that it is impossible – and it may be that working on those existing issues will change the thinking of those who believe it is impossible. I think that to start, the fundamental issues that need to be addressed and resolved are as follows:

• RS appears to be the most problematic area. More editors on both sides insist it needs considerable work than praise it in its current form. The key issue expressed by the critics was that they wanted RS strengthened – not “weakened” as they see the current version of ATT doing. This appears to be true for both those who would like to see RS elevated to “policy” and those who feel it should best remain a “guideline”. There is a “minimum requirement” of being able to clearly elucidate the (high) standards errant editors need to hold themselves up to.
• Greater clarification of what elements make the separate policies/guidelines uniquely distinct needs to be provided by the critics – to the point that the supporters at least understand and appreciate their viewpoints – so that the latter can attempt to demonstrate how they can satisfy them.
• Better handling of the word “truth” needs to be effected. While I believe all would agree that “Absolute Truth” is unachievable in principle wherever subjectivity is necessarily involved, there is a sense of “truth in terms of accuracy and authoritativeness” that is. (Else why bother having an encyclopedia?) Any expression that conveys a sense of simple attribution trumping “accurate truth” is a non-starter; this is especially true when “verifiability” seems to have ended up on the cutting-room floor. The pursuit of such lower-case “truth” is a fundamental objective of Wikipedia and what I believe most editors would like ATT to strengthen and protect – something the current version is not perceived to do.
• Deconflicting WP:SYN. It clearly constitutes a new policy element in ATT and is inextricably intertwined with NOR – and if NOR should remain separate, SYN becomes stretched between ATT and NOR (and thereby possibly requiring its own separateness as a policy or guideline).
  

Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This won't do

{{editprotected}}

Mikkalai's edit, which is actually to Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header states that several editors edited the wrong section of this. Mikkalai might well have placed their comments differently; so might I; but they didn't. This is one of the problems with an open question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of Mikkalai's edit but not the second part. The first part makes the summary more NPOV by factually stating that a certain number of people voted in a certain section without interpreting the meaning of such action. However, I agree with user Pmanderson/Septentrionalis that that part saying that people voted in the "wrong" part is overly judgemental and needs to be removed. --Coppertwig 23:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I left tentative query messages during the poll on the talk pages of a few "Neutral" voters whose comments appeared to contradict their placings. Two I think moved their votes, one whose comment appeared to me to strongly suggest an accidental wrong placing replied to confirm it was where he meant it to go. Others did nothing. It is wrong to second-guess after the event. Johnbod 23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I stated in my comment in an above section, I also object to that edit, as it goes back to misclassifying the votes of the people who voted in the third section. Neutral does not equal qualified, compromise, or other. If you want to say "section" for fear that some people voted in the wrong section, say "102 voted in the section for neutral, qualified, compromise, or other votes." Also "354 voted in the section broad opposition" is bad grammar, it should be "354 voted in the section for broad opposition". — Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the preceeding comments in this section. The first correction to the header page after the discussion above as linked by Armedblowfish was acceptably NPOV. Why was it then changed a second time after it had just been corrected? Even if a respondent placed their comment in a (so-called) "wrong section", that was their decision. Any subsequent interpretation of what they intended is groundless assumption. Maybe the respondents knew exactly what they were doing and intended to place their comment where they placed it. Even if they did not, it's not up to one person to make that decision and cast doubrt upon the editors' actions. This talk page already has many re-interpretations of what people said in their votes, but this is a talk page where discussion belongs and where someone can respond if their intention is mis-interpreted. On the poll page though, we cannot respond.

The formal header at the top of the closed poll is the single most prominent place to make a statement that people who visit that page will read. Because it is in a box and no mere mortal can edit it, that gives it the impression of weight and authority and accuracy, a position of power and influence. In accordance with the core policies of Wikipedia, any statement in that header box must be as unbiased as possible. To avoid undue influence over editors reviewing the poll results, it must be handled with extreme care, like a double-blind study in medicine. Otherwise readers of the poll page might be mislead. Please note that I am absolutely not implying that any bias was intended. I believe the edit was made as a good faith attempt to improve the summary. But even a well-meaning interpretation could create un-intended bias, and the box should be returned to the prior version as posted by bainer or something equally clear and un-interpreted. Parzival418 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I support such changes to the header as this one but not edit warrign over them. It is IMO more accurate and assumes less to say waht sectiosn people voted in than what their intent way. To say that some "may have" voted in the wrong section would probably be better, as it is just as wrong to presuem error as to presuem perfect accuracy on teh aprt of all who posted to the poll. DES ^(talk) 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So what was the result of this poll?

Did it actually accomplish anything, or did a bunch of people just give opinions that didn't serve any real purpose? Looking at this page, it's very unclear what effect this poll will have on a potential decision to merge or not. Can anyone clarify? --Minderbinder 14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly "no consensus"... I think we are waiting for Jimbo to give some input before we make any significant changes... I notice that ATT has been shifted to "Proposed", so I suppose that is one result. Blueboar 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Jimbo has been advised not to provide input, afaict. But he can do as he choses, of course. --Kim Bruning 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Advised by whom? Or is that just speculation on your side? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope he will provide some input. It was his comments that got us onto this path... and I, at least, would like to know his thoughts on the results. Even jsut an acknowlegment of the poll to let us know he has seen the results would be nice. If he wants to leave it up to us to figure out what to make of it all, a comment along the lines of "You guys can figure it out" would help (it would let us know that he is "offically" not taking a stand).

I suppose my main concern is that I don't want us to spend another five months or whatever, working on the various policies involved based on our own understanding of what the poll indicated, only to have Jimbo come back and question what we did all over again. Blueboar 16:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a lot more clarity in many minds about what the proponents are wanting to achieve with a merger. Equally I think the reasons for others objecting to either a merger, or this specific implementation of a merger, are a lot clearer.

For the supporters I think it demonstrates the issues that need to be addressed, either in implementation or communication with the wider community, moving forward. Of course I find it illuminating that many are choosing to interpret the various objections as simple not understanding and trying to find ways to bulldoze it through anyway.

I think Jimbo does need to provide some direction, although I think that applies to the development of policy and guideline in the more general sense. That's particularly pertinent given his late entry into the debate, he needs to make clear whether this is what he actually meant and whether it meets his perceived needs for implementation.

What it has usefully demonstrated is that policy development needs someone to actually grip it, rather than letting it grow organically. There may be a need to diverge the process so that content and structure are developed in different ways.

ALR 16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, Jimbo's been making a lot of mistakes lately and it would be wise of him to concentrate on those areas he does best in. Everyone agrees he is a hell of a speaker and a promoter. He is also a very nice guy and it pains me to say anything bad about him. WAS 4.250 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Founder syndrome, a common problem in growing enterprises. The birth phase benefits from an entrepreneur, whereas stability and continued growth need some professional management.

Interesting congruence with the comments attributed to Brad Patrick following his recent announcement of resignation and commentary on the professionalism in the management team.

ALR 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we keep ALL of the pages, ATT plus the original ones. Let editors refer to them all as best fits they way each editor works. After a some time, it will become more clear which pages are more effective. For now, editors are used to quoting the separate pages. If ATT is better, they will start to switch over and quote it more often; it'll naturally take over as the more effective method. Or maybe it won't take over naturally and editors will prefer the separate policies for ease of quoting or focusing their concentration. Assuming the merged page expresses the same in essence as the separate pages, which was the intention as I understand it, there should be no conflict if they are used together. Seems to me... that would be the best way of getting the widest consensus: let it be decided organically by the entire community, by watching how we all use the separate and merged policies in actual editing. Parzival418 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's probably the most logical solution. Until a couple of days ago, WP:V, WP:NOS, weren't even on the policy list, which I thought was pretty unfair, especially considering that half of the Wikipedia community voted againts WP:ATT. To me, it would seem that since only WP:ATT was represented on the policy list, newcomers would tend to be more familiar the people that idea, and not so much the others, eventually resulting in WP:ATT's favor. Having all sides represented on the list would give new Wikipdians the chance to review the information and make up their own minds in a non-biased manner. It would take time to reach a consensus on something this big, but I do believe that it would be the new comers who would eventually help us land a resolution. -- RiseRobotRise 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Typo fix

{{editprotected}} Typo fix for Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header the talk page of which redirects here (and wording change, because "[the] wrong section" is judgemental):

Old: "placed their comments in wrong section"

New: "placed their comments in an unintended section" (note the indef. article addition as well as NPOV wording)

PS: Why on earth is this subpage full-protected? Stop WP:PANICking. This is a Wiki, not your personal blog, or the U.N., or the New York Times; just deal with it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. —Centrx→talk • 04:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header, which is transcluded into Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll, appears to still be protected. Restoring {{editprotected}}. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have been done. Harryboyles 12:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Working party

I've discussed the poll outcome with Jimbo, and we've agreed that it would be a good idea to form a bipartisan working party to develop a compromise, and that it should include the best voices among the yes and no vote.

Jimbo's on his way overseas at the moment, but will try to find time to make a comment about this publicly.

In the meantime, we should think about who should be on the working party. One person from the no vote that I would like to see on it is Sandy Georgia, who made some excellent points, and I would suggest a group of around five to ten people.

I'm going to post this note on a few of the relevant pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All the work will be on-Wiki for others to watch? - Denny ^(talk) 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That hasn't been decided, but yes I don't see why not. I think we should discuss this the working party issue on Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just got a job :-) <gulp> ... my travel schedule is somewhat lighter over the next month, except for two short trips. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the purpose of this working party to come up with an assessment of the outcome, or to come up with a workable policy framework as a result of the discussion and poll?

There are a fair number of contributors who have entirely valid arguments but don't clearly sit in either camp, having either explicitly gone neutral or having caveated their yes or no in some way.

ALR 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC) - (Note: I have copied this comment to Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion as per Slims request above. Blueboar 19:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

I've been away, interstate, for a week. I was wondering what was going on with this. It seems like a reasonable approach. Metamagician3000 11:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the committee going to have the final word on how the policy is written up? I think the community should have the final word on whatever compromise is reached within the committee via poll or any other way. --RiseRobotRise07:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the committee will make recommendations for the community's debate and final say. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header

Starting a new section to avoid confusion with other edit-protected requests.

{{editprotected}}

1. The header currently implies that neutral = qualified support or oppose, compromise positions, or other opinions. This is incorrect. This can be fixed by changing "102 responded in the neutral section and expressed a qualified opinion, suggested a compromise or expressed some other opinion" to "102 responded in the section for neutrality, qualified opinions, compromises, and other opinions".
2. "354 responded in the section broad opposition" is bad grammar. Please change to "354 responded in the section for broad opposition".
3. The header should not even be protected.

Also see these conversations above.

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have disabled the editprotected tag. There are plenty of admins involved in this page; if there is consensus for changes to the header, one of them will make them, and if there is not consensus then no other admin should step in to do so. CMummert · talk 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one left. I left a message on Mikkalai's talk page, but at the top it said, "Please don't leave me any messages here. Most probably they will not be unanswered."

I provided links to the conversations I thought showed more or less consensus for the change, but you or anyone else can read them and judge for yourself. I personally though the two were mistakes caused by lack of proofreading, especially the grammar one.

You could remove the summary altogether: let people read the votes for themselves. Or unprotect the page. (Which criteria of Wikipedia:Protection_policy does it meet, anyway?) Or link to the talk page with the note, "Some editors object to this summary". However, as it stands, it is misrepresenting the votes of a lot of editors, including mine.

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 12:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection was scheduled to expire on May 5, but I went ahead and turned it off, so the header is now unprotected. CMummert · talk 12:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!  : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mailing list archive link

{{Editprotected}} The WikiEn-L list archives (along with others) are being moved apparently; dunno how long the old URL will work.

• OLD: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/065985.html
• NEW: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-March/065985.html

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

updated link. CMummert · talk 13:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.