Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive4

message: The one thing I was going to do before the time this disaster was scheduled to get off the ground was to make a subpage with suggested questions and link to it. I thought I had two days to do that before the consensus to start no earlier than 00:00 2 April. 
I won't bother to assemble it (it would be non-trivial work) if it's going to revwerted by the revert warriors among us. Well? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly wouldn't revert it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't reverted anything; I have reverted chiefly undiscussed reversions. I wasn't concerned about us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, "just for the record" was all.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm going ahead for now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of questions? 

message: Something's really uncooked here... this can't be the result of weeks of collaborating.. maybe people who've been working on this have spent to much time only focusing on it, because I don't think the outside editor is getting the full story. This is an absurd joke of a poll, and it seems to have been opened now only out of frustration. -- Ned Scott 02:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll was started on the basis of an hour's discussion among half a dozen  people, and has begun two days before the agreed on time, 00:00 April 2. (The only item on which there was consensus) I began by supporting WP:ATT; I now have difficulty believing any of this has been done with civility or in good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposedly, a pre-poll on the wording was still going on. While I have seen more hopeful strawpolls, Option 1, 4, and 6 looked promising, and Option 6 at least had no-one screaming in outrage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to get so worked up. Let people state their opinions unencumbered, as they are doing it now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh, come on gang!  We are on the same team.  It is life.  It all evolves.  Let us continue from where we are.  What will people say?  :))  Who turned off the lights?  --Rednblu 02:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, he's reverting you. Sorry, others can revert besides you and SV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If the results are inconclusive, we can always and based on the responses do some additional polling. Please do not make this into more of an issue. It is not such a big deal after all. We can always go back to pre ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find out if you stop and let people make their opinions known without 'you' deleting their opinions!. In any caee, I am outta here. Your actions speak for themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not have stopped it; but I did throw in one revert to support this protest. Please learn to discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  How is this anything more than a turf war?  Doesn't our task matter more than the turf?  --Rednblu 03:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, when I saw that the poll had started, I felt angry and cheated.  What a waste of time!  We had at least seven better options.  I was even tempted to revert to stop it.  But I looked at myself and I said, you know, I have just had the turf pulled out from under me by a dirty trick.  So, of course, I am furious.  But the only thing I am furious about is turf.  So isn't this just a turf war?  --Rednblu 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not been involved in any of the planning until now, so.. no. I saw the poll page with fresh eyes and saw something half-cooked. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm.  So what was "half-cooked"? --Rednblu 03:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under-developed is the impression it gave me. The links and basic idea were there, but the right things didn't seem to jump out. Links meant to give a background on the issue were easy to miss, the "oppose" "support" wasn't clear to me, since a user's response might not be so black and white. The potential for groupthink seemed to be much higher than a normal poll. I can just see people supporting one option that doesn't actually conflict with another, but will seem to conflict to a 3rd party. It's hard for me to put it into words.. but I know we can do better than this. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can sympathize, yes.  :(((  I wanted to try all seven options in a dry run with the twenty editors working on the options, but the dictators said no.  :(((  --Rednblu 03:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  So what do we do?  --Rednblu 03:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Some people started the poll. Then some other people decided they didn't want the pole to start and removed all the votes. Revert-warring and petty-bickering ensued, and here we are. Picaroon 03:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to use the word "drama", myself. On the plus side, we have two hour's worth of polling that we can use to make the poll better, if need be. Nifboy 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The poll started after a discussion (see Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive3). I am tired of all this bickering and disruption. I had more than enough. People have politicized and personalized this as if it is a thing of life and death. One week of useless cdiscussion, polls about polls about polls and other nonsense, trolling, and what not, is more than I can bear. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry. : (  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's get it started again, then. We can't just stop it once people have started commenting. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So the question is whether we will start the poll again without any actual measure of what consensus is or isn't?  What will our definition of consensus be for the next two hours?  --Rednblu 04:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. - Denny 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think people should be blocked. Everyone's upset, so I think we should let it go, so long as it stops now. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you here, SlimVirgin.  No one should be blocked.  I don't think that will aid in the recovery process towards calming down and remembering what we like about each other (for those who have forgotten).  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 05:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I strenuously object to that block.  I believe that virtually every single editor who has spent any time, on any side, of developing this poll has violated 3RR at least once in the week+ of its development.  Please check the archive pages; we have a gentleperson's agreement not to enforce 3RR on it unless the editwarring is excceedingly serious.  That agreement has served us well so far. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A gentleperson's agreement? ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh... trying to be gender-neutral.  Gentlefolk's?  Ladies' and gentlemens'?  I give up!  Wait, I have it: Gentlepeeps'.  Someone just trout me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 20 editors seemed happy to respond to the poll. Is their opinion about the poll's status not counting here? Could they not have objected if they wanted? But they did not. And two of the editors that stopped the poll had the chutzpah to speak of consensus... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for polemics. It was clear from the discussions I read here that the poll was scheduled for 2 Apr, and this date had apparent consensus. It's not surprising that people might feel upset that the date was changed without adequate time for discussion. CMummert · talk 04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must concur with Septentrionalis and CMummert, strongly.  This "fuck the consensus to wait, we're just going to pre-emptively launch it with our preferred questions" is highly questionable, certainly disruptive (as that term is actually defined at Wikipedia), and grossly against consensus.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As is moving the poll's introductory text to a protected page.  I've filed a WP:RFPP about that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And rescinded it.  Editprotecteds are getting dealt with quickly and neutrally enough that unprotection doesn't seem necessary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. That would be best at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have been following the talk here, and the following sections led me to believe the poll was scheduled for 2 Apr. Whether or not this was actually consensus, it is not hard to see how some editors could have felt it was.      and especially . There was certainly a conversation right before the poll opened, but there was hardy any time for editors who thought they had 48 hours to know that the poll was about to be started. CMummert · talk 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with CMummert, on "led me to believe the poll was scheduled for 2 Apr."  My recollection is that there was some talk about doing it very-nearly immediately, which back then was 28 March, I think.  I and Pmanderson and at least one other person brought up the Fool's Day issue, and suggested 2 April.  Then it was a dormant topic for a while, then a popular one within the last 24 hours with all plans pointing at 2 April.  Then all of a sudden over what I believe was about 30 minutes of chat between 2 parties in favor of the "go now" idea the poll was launched, over objections being made during and immediately after this "go now" launch process by at least as many "wait"-favoring parties, so definitely no consensus to launch.  I can't say that there was certainly concensus to wait until 2 April specifically, but I do believe that consensus was evolving in that direction.  This is from memory, not diffs though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop the poll.. 

message: Where was the consensus to wait, SMcC? I only saw people saying either let's go ahead, or let's not have a poll at all (with my own preference the latter). SlimVirgin (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been following the talk here, and the following sections led me to believe the poll was scheduled for 2 Apr. Whether or not this was actually consensus, it is not hard to see how some editors could have felt it was.      and especially . There was certainly a conversation right before the poll opened, but there was hardy any time for editors who thought they had 48 hours to know that the poll was about to be started. CMummert · talk 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with CMummert, on "led me to believe the poll was scheduled for 2 Apr."  My recollection is that there was some talk about doing it very-nearly immediately, which back then was 28 March, I think.  I and Pmanderson and at least one other person brought up the Fool's Day issue, and suggested 2 April.  Then it was a dormant topic for a while, then a popular one within the last 24 hours with all plans pointing at 2 April.  Then all of a sudden over what I believe was about 30 minutes of chat between 2 parties in favor of the "go now" idea the poll was launched, over objections being made during and immediately after this "go now" launch process by at least as many "wait"-favoring parties, so definitely no consensus to launch.  I can't say that there was certainly concensus to wait until 2 April specifically, but I do believe that consensus was evolving in that direction.  This is from memory, not diffs though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: Can someone restart this, and please put up the proper watchlist notification that was agreed upon so that everyone knows the poll is going? But *BEFORE* that happens can someone please refactor the responses into the "Sections" format? Having an editing free for all in one section will have edit conflicts out the butt later. - Denny 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has restarted, so let's just get on with it. Let people have their say. That's what this was all about in the first place — people having their say. I've added my comment/vote. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Que sera sera; I approve of restarting the poll. Nifboy 04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wrong header, gang!  We should take off the StopSign!!  :))  --Rednblu 04:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This back and forth has to stop, please. People are being asked their opinion. Let them give it!! SlimVirgin (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've done the requested refactor, though I think the poll proceeding at all is an iffy idea. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restart poll, Watchlist notification 

message: Would someone please change "How to participate in this poll" in the header to be a level 2 section heading instead of just bold, so it shows up in the TOC? CMummert · talk 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that looks great. CMummert · talk 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome. Thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: There's a stray horizontal rule at the bottom of the /header.  Please delete.  And unprotect.  No one is editwarring over the intro, which has been stable for a week, and it's unbelievably silly that I have to come make an editprotected just to fix a typo.  <grumble>  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they are. -Amarkov moo! 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call that an edit war at all; it's quite stable and doing what it is supposed to.  The protection didn't have anything to do with that, since the formatting changes made up to this point under that protection was where it was headed to begin with.  That was just some futzing. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: seems to be done. CMummert · talk 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, Jossi got it; thank you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stray hr

message: Amarkov moo! has objected to the Neutral/qualified/compromise section header.  How would people rather it be sectioned? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If more subsections are added, they should be made subsections of the current Neutral/qualified/compromise header.  We shouldn't move other peoples votes, but I think it would be appropriate to encourage people to move their own votes.  I would suggest additional headings like "mostly support", "partially/borderline support" and "mostly don't support".  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, you picked up the moo. Anyway, I'd prefer seperate sections for at least "I support everything but including WP:RS", which I expect will be quite a few people. I'm not too sure about the idea proposed above, since it doesn't really add much in terms of seeing what people actually think. -Amarkov moo! 05:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bowing out of this; people who feel strongly about the matter can add sections.  I do agree with Armedblowfish that we don't need a zillion top-level headings, but rather subheadings for general categories under the existing subheading.  I don't even feel very strongly about that, though.  I've said my piece, and I'm moving on.  Good night! (my time)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I stopped back by.  I actually agree with WAS 4.250 on this, and think that there should be no more sectioning.  We are all intelligent and can read, so I don't think anyone's views are going to be inappropriately seen as pro-"consensus" when they are in fact "neutral" or mistaken for "neutral" if they are in fact "qualified" support or opposition. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning

message: How can something attempting to be factual be so incredibly biased? Anyway, we're directing users who don't know about this to a page filled with "Yay for WP:ATT!", which might have a little teeny (read HUGE) effect on the results. -Amarkov moo! 05:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and it manages to contradict pretty much everything. For instance, for some reason, it takes a paragraph blasting WP:RS. Why we're including this supposedly terrible page into ATT isn't made even remotely clear. In addition, it directly contradicts the "We're not making any policy changes!" argument by explaining why all the changes to policy are good. It's rather funny, actually. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering a rebuttal wasn't submitted, I believe NPOV would sorta require deleting that from the poll—it certainly invalidates any poll neutrality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have this on the poll page:  "Wikipedia:Attribution is a merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research into a single policy page."  There seems to be no rebuttal of this info anywhere in the poll.  The poll is still leading and biased.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave the essay up, actually, as an example. If the policy is so confused that an essay attempting to explain it contradicts half the support it's gotten so far, that reflects kinda badly on it. I'm not entirely sure what's to dispute about the fact that it is a merger, though... -Amarkov moo! 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Wikipedia:Attribution/Attribution explanation is supposed to be the pro-ATT summary of the situation. Some people wanted statements from other sides added, see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2#Statements_from_all_sides_needed. There was another one written, see   User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy.  However, some people objected to linking to it.  See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2#Coppertwig_opinion.3F.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 05:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict x6 now...) Re: "rebuttal wasn't submitted": It's was complete over a day ago, I just think it wasn't moved into WP: space: Copy User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy and its talk page to Wikipedia:Attribution/Stability of policy (and matching talk page), enable the WP:ATTCON shortcut to it, and add it to the header under SlimVirgin's essay. Oh wait, we can't because ATT proponents have protected it...  Well, I did the other parts.  I don't even agree with everything in WP:ATTCON, but it should be available (outside of userspace like the largely SV-authored pro-ATT piece has been for a while). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a deal—while attempting to formulate Wiki policies, we rush up a poll (against "polls are evil") that's not even NPOV.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue on the table is "Do we merge V and NOR" or not? If the answer is yes then there are additional issues: Do we merge RS? Do the merged policies get frozen or deleted? If frozen do we call them "explanations" or "historical" or "superceded"? Should the merged policy be called "Attribution" or something else? And whatever the outcome the exact wording of the merged policy can be further hashed out. And new policy initiatives can be proposed to modify whatever is the end result of the outcome of all of that. A poll to try to find a "final" authoritative stamped-as-approved solution is nonsense given that anyone can edit and anyone can initiate new policy proposals at any time in the future. We have a process of thoughtful discussion that has got us this far. Let us stick with thoughtful discussion, sometimes illuminated by discussions structured as polls. WAS 4.250 06:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How is it not NPOV, Sandy? It just asks people what they think. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Let us stick with thoughtful discussion, sometimes illuminated by discussions structured as polls." Well said, WAS 4.250. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone just deleted (I mean redlink deleted) Wikipedia:Attribution/Stability of policy.  Investigating. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The investigation might lead to the user above your post :) — Deckiller 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/against the merge. CMummert · talk 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted.  Looks like SlimVirgin and I were doing the same thing, just at different pages. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great minds etc. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix the explanation 

message: OLD:
* Summary of the objectives of the merger.
* Arguments against the merger.
* Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion.
NEW:
*Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion.
*Summary of the objectives of the merger.
*Arguments against the merger.
The community discussion is an order of magnitude more important than either of the two essays. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix order of backgrounders

message: I'm troubled by the number of editors stating, to quote one, "I do not support putting attributability above truth". I have to assume that they think the WP:V policy is different from WP:ATT in this regard—but of course, it's not.
: WP:V—The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
: WP:ATT—The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true
Please examine the policies in greater detail to ensure that, if you oppose WP:ATT based on its content, the same content does not also exist in the predecessor policies. –Outriggr § 07:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, quite a number of editors here, who have read them at least as closely as you, do feel that a subtle but important change has been made.  I don't think they are insane.  I'm not sure I agree with them either.  I do not for a second believe we are in a position to tell people "You are welcome to vote in this poll, but only if you don't say 'X', because some of us here think that 'X' is nuts."  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, some people, me included, think that the current version of WP:ATT is too allowing of false information which is attributable, while WP:V is not. -Amarkov moo! 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine, if our hypothetically omniscient judges discount the comments appropriately. I guess I don't have that much faith. One minute it's "consensus", the next minute people are comparing, on this talk page, shear numbers of votes in each section. SMcCandlish, I didn't say we should tell people "not to say 'X'"—can I not bring up the point as food for thought on the talk page, where it belongs? If this process is consensus-driven, and those poll comments, unless elucidated, appear to provide no informed opinion on the matter, then presumably they hold less sway. By mentioning it on the talk page, I was hoping to suggest that this line of argumentation needs to be fleshed out, at the least. (As opposed to, say, replying to every comment on the poll page with You're nutz0rs!!) Per below, others are also concerned with this line of voting, though as usual, I'm stuck in my own section with no "me too"s. –Outriggr § 07:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm glad WAS won't be closing this discussion. Such comments should still be considered when closing. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course such comments should be considered, especially as they're entirely valid.  To "Verify" something is "To substantiate or prove the truth of something."  Therefore, the statement "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" suggests that to be included, a fact must not merely be true, but must be provably true.  Whereas to "Attribute" something is "To associate ownership or authorship with" it.  So "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" can be more easily construed, or misconstrued, to mean that a statement need not necessarily be true, but merely attributed to a source that is generally regarded as reliable (according to standards of reliability that may have been weakened by omission of detail).  Whether or not you choose to recognize such distinctions, you can't simply ignore the opinions of people who are sensitive to these subtleties.  It should be recognized that even in the basic use of language "verifiable" represents a higher standard than "attributed," and that the omissions that have occurred while summarizing did not only economize on language, they have resulted in generally weakened standards.  It should also be considered that many people who chose to highlight this particular point in their oppose comment probably have other grounds for opposing as well, and didn't always bother to repeat what was stated and restated in so many comments above theirs, such as "these are related but separate policies that are best described on separate pages," or "the combined article is more difficult to understand and explain to new users."zadignose 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be recognized that even in the basic use of language "verifiable" represents a higher standard than "attributed," and that the omissions that have occurred while summarizing did not only economize on language, they have resulted in generally weakened standards. Just wanted to replay that.  And an even higher standard when you factor in attributable but not necessarily attributed; this change weakened our ability to enforce verifiability to reliable sources, as "experts" (a la Essjay controversy) can argue they don't need to cite what they consider common knowledge, ignoring that our readers should be able to verify where our text comes from.  By the way, verify wasn't used in the dictionary sense you used it above; it mean verify that something was published in a reliable source, nothing to do with whether it was true. (From 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.)  It's the attributable but not attributed that really weakened policy, over verifiable to a reliable source that any reader can check, with the burden placed squarely on the editor wanting to add or retain the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are missing on the fine points, SandyGeorgia. Attributable but not necessarily attributed means that a statement that can be attributed but has not been attributed yet, can be marked as , or removed is there are no sources forthcoming. The burden of providing sources for any material that is challenged has not changed in ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, *I* understand it just fine; my problem is that, in practical application at FAC and FAR, that is *not* how it was being interpreted by others.  Semantically (psychologically) the wording is weakened, and it was being interpreted that way.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We have the line "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 can easily be seen as elucidating the standard of how we judge material as verifiable.  It does not contradict the interpretation that the goal is to provide factual, truthful information, that the material should be verifiable in the literal dictionary sense, and it shouldn't lead us to the conclusion that the truth of material included in our articles doesn't matter.zadignose 05:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurately implying policy differences in oppose comments 

message: Jimbo's objection to the merger originally was that it was done without enough publicity, correct? The consensus principle here has always held that people who don't talk are choosing to abide by the decisions made by those that do talk, because anything else would be impossible and require we notify every single user. But this has now been challenged by Jimbo, who is claiming that more must be done to publicize these things before we can claim to have assent from all the passive users. As an attempt to satisfy his wishes, we have now begun the use of watchlist announcements for policy changes. This has been both criticized as annoying and praised, but if one thing is for sure, it's that it has been highly effective in getting a large numeric turnout.
I believe that regardless of the outcome of this poll and discussion, the discovery that watchlist messages work may have a more transformative change on future policy working than the WP:A merger ever would have.
What if in the future we notify everyone via watchlist for 2 weeks/a month (timeframe negotiable) whenever there is a major change proposed. We wouldn't have to do this for every single WP:VPR thread, of course, but once something has been hammered out to the working draft level at least, if it was a proposal that could have a real effect on the community, we would add it to the message. The message could come in the form of a show/hide box which hides by default, but which when expanded gives a brief overview of all the current major discussions, and maybe include links to RfA and the like if there was nothing major going on at the time. I believe people would get used to the box rather quickly, but to deal with the inevitable annoyance complaints it could be designed to be unobtrusive, and we could give clear directions on how to opt out using your monobook on the help page for the watchlist message feature.
If we adopted this, we could then avoid messy confirmation polls because everyone had been quite clearly informed of the discussion and those who didn't speak had quite clearly chosen not to do so. Would it be an increase in bureaucracy? Yes, it would. But a much smaller increase than that which will be required if we end up having to run these damned polls every time someone wants to change something. --tjstrf talk 08:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto. cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 08:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I should mention Wikipedia:Centralized discussion here before somebody else does, since it is the current page that is supposed to act in the way I described (summary of current ongoing discussions). It's hardly effective for gathering broad community input in its current state though, because nobody but the meta-editors even know the page exists. If this proposal goes through, we might want to consider merging it with CENT. --tjstrf talk 08:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me.  This entire fiasco could have been avoided with such a mechanism.  Also think back to WP:N and the unbelievable state it was in ca. Oct. 2006 (guideline, yes, but still it would have been a good candidate given the enormous importance of notability in WP:AFD).  I don't understand the "it's annoying" complaints, other than about the early "loud" and undismissable versions of the watchlist header.  I would be delighted to be regularly notified of Important Things and Stuff that Need My Input on my watchlist.  I would make it a kind of metawatchlist when I most needed it to be. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Anything that requires active action by the end users (editors!) to get it in the first place is wrong. People have to sign up for sign post, unless if we change it to make it mandatory for everyone to get it. - Denny 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I for one rarely find anything in the Signpost worth paying attention to (I don't mean that as a slam against its editors; there simply isn't enough "newsworthing" actually happening at WP on a weekly basis, so we gets lots of reports about the progress of ArbCom cases no one cares about but the disputing parties. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that such notifications should be saved for very major issues, anything else can go to Village Pump, CENT, or other venues. I don't see that it should be a tremendous source of annoyance with the "Dismiss" option added. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How is a merger a "major change to Wikipedia's fundamental content policies" ? WAS 4.250 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, but some people sure seem to think it is. --tjstrf talk 04:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this is a good idea, it's what's bringing attention to this poll now. If the fund raising program can do it, why not major policy changes? Darthgriz98 01:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A slightly radical proposal to prevent any more policy confirmation polls ever being necessary 

message: Would someone else like to take on the job of moving User:Slrubenstein's responses from the poll to the discussion page?  There are one or two other users who have left responses, as well. CMummert · talk 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I request of this honored assembly that we allow the honorable User:Slrubenstein the opportunity to highlight one of the huge inversions of prior policy that WP:ATT makes.  Perhaps the most useful action would be to make a link to Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Role of truth where the public discussion still continues.  Of course, the honorable User:Slrubenstein is upside-down in his assertion, and that assertion is merely one of the huge changes in prior policy that WP:ATT makes.  After wide public discussion, I am sure that the honorable User:Slrubenstein and I could design a public poll in which the whole community could express its feelings in this matter.  The honorable User:Slrubenstein is very right in his analysis -- because if we make the implied correction to the Attribution policy text, much of the opposition to this huge change in policy would disappear, would it not?  As a matter of form, I would like to include the honorable User:Slrubenstein's statement as part of my statement to highlight the question.  Does that make sense?  If there is consensus in this matter, I will think of some way to 1) include the honorable User:Slrubenstein's comment as part of my comment and 2) make the appropriate link to the Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Role of truth page.  What is next?  --Rednblu 15:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you just said.  Every user has "opportunity to highlight one of the huge inversions of prior policy that WP:ATT makes" - in their comment at the poll. You are free to edit your comment as well.  I think there is agreement that users should not respond to other users directly on the poll page, right? CMummert · talk 15:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will post here a draft of how I could amend my comment to include the honorable User:Slrubenstein's comment and make a link to Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Role of truth and see if you think it would be acceptable.  Give me about an hour, thanks.  --Rednblu 16:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Would the following amending of my comment be acceptable?
--- Begin amended comment
# No on WP:ATT.  No on any merger idea at this time.  Verifiability, ReliableSource, and No personal research are very independent components of high quality Wikipedia pages such as gravity and truth.  That is, without a standard for "Verifiability" that is far higher than what mere Attributability requires, editors could not trim the gravity and truth pages to follow faithfully just the facts, not the mere attributions, as established by ReliableSources.  Similarly, without a standard for "Verifiability" that is far higher than mere "Attributability," editors cannot trim pages on living persons to exclude fully attributable personal attacks that are baseless, false, and unfair.  The honorable User:Slrubenstein poses the question before us quite succinctly.
#:*You present your no vote as if you were defending verifiability, when in fact you are attacking verifiability, because verifiability explicitly makes editors' views as to what are facts, or factually accurate sources, irrelevant.  If this is your reason your vote ought to be discounted. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  What is next?  --Rednblu 16:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your comment; amend it any way you like. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Somebody reverted my above amendment. :((  But :)) you jogged my understanding to think of a next step, thank you.  You made me realize:  It might be a good idea if I would get permission from the honorable User:Slrubenstein to wrap his statement as I have in the above amendment.  My preference would have been to have the honorable User:Slrubenstein's comment follow mine just the way it was made originally.  But that could not be.  So I going to leave a request for permission on the honorable User:Slrubenstein's TalkPage before I do anything further.  Thanks for your koan of a reply.  --Rednblu 06:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  No hurry.  Let's leave it as it is for a few days -- unless someone is particularly concerned.  Feel free to move my amendment to the PollPage if that would be useful and if I am away.  --Rednblu 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but there is some needless rhetoric involved. The standard for attributability is not lower, I could argue that it is higher than "mere verifiability". You can verify as true the statement "Charles Darwin wrote that evolution of the eye is absurd to the highest degree", but that's a case of false attribution. My point is not that previous policies could not handle such cases, but I'm asking you to not completely trivialize WP:ATT. It doesn't talk about mere attribution, it talks about attribution to reliable sources. In the end, we both actually want the same thing, this whole debate has been unnecessarily polarized. If you rephrase, more of the ATT supporters will take the whole "role of truth" discussion seriously.  --Merzul 19:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would you "rephrase" it?  --Rednblu 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very hard to say, I would stress more the positive aspect of your understanding of verifiability, and put less emphasis on straw man arguments like "mere attribution" ;) Your made your points more clearly on the Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Role of truth page, that was when I began to  understand what you mean.  --Merzul 21:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I start from the observation that many of us here conclude that the Attribution policy text is the inverse of the standard used in the gravity and truth pages.  Would you agree with that as a place to start?  --Rednblu 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's more like it. Attribution stresses the means instead of the goal, and in your view, I believe, loses the focus on information that has been verified by some experts as true in whatever sense their profession operationally defines truth to be, e.g. scientific peer review. Something along those lines. I personally still think your notion of verifiability is too sophisticated to work well on Wikipedia, and "attributability to reliable sources" is essentially trying to say the same thing, since reliable sources imply we rely on expert opinion. --Merzul 22:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok.  But "attributability to reliable sources" leads to all kinds of misunderstandings, does it not?  You and I might use it right.  The editors of the gravitation page do use it right.  What is a reliable source for a quotation may not be a reliable source for whether the statement "Gravitation is a phenomenon through which all objects attract each other" has been Verified.  I merely note that mere "attributability to reliable sources" is not enough to keep the junk attributions out of the gravitation page.  The editors need a solid standard for Verifiability, not Attribution, to maintain the quality of the gravitation page.  Is that a fair statement?  --Rednblu 23:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is fair. To sum it up. We both want to guarantee that information comes from a source that "verifies it" according to the accepted practice of the field in question. That is essentially what you mean by verifiable information and that is exactly what I mean, when I say attributable to a reliable source. For me, a source is reliable whenever it satisfies your demands on verification. Thus, what is reliable depends on the context, and I'm putting all complications into the word "reliable", so your statement is fair. --Merzul 00:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring responses 

message: I think adding or changing category names while the poll is ongoing is corrupting the poll process and its results. It is totally unacceptable. Crum375 15:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these categories existed when the poll was started. If you misrepresent my !vote again, I will take stronger measures. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only categories that were added were 'full yes', 'full no' and, effectively 'other'. Perhaps the name for 'other' has to be modified, but we can't start micro-guessing people's votes by adding more categories and changing names after they voted. Crum375 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe NedScott and SMcCandlish, now among the oppose votes, have stated the same position, but I don't have time to read all the votes now. Any imposition of categories on this mess will be chancy. I have notified all the voters I collected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the poll would have been better with more explicit options (see my rather angry note much higher up about the poll lauching without consensus as to time or wording), but I feel it is hazardous to try to alter it mid-stream and recategorize votes.  I think we're just kind of stuck with the mess we have. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lest that come across as hypocritical (since I did the first refactor), I mean that doing it now with several hundred votes already in play and more people adding theirs all the time, with finer and finer grained meanings, could lead to some POV issues.  I don't think the catchall third category is ideal, but I think it would be better than creating a bunch of new categories this long after the fact, if that is any clearer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Unacceptable. Leave it alone, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be good if everyone could just leave everything alone now the poll is underway. As I said earlier, it's time to lie back and think of England. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding categories while running live 

message: Right now, we have a "Support some merger, but not this one" subsection and a "Compromise/Neutral" subsection, with "other" apparently having gone poof!  If we are going to break this up rather than lumping it all together, as it was originally, we should do it all the way, and have four subsections.  However, since moving votes around can be a controversial issue, I suggest just adding new sections and encouraging people to move their votes into the new sections rather than the old lumped together ones.  To make this more transitional, all should be subsections of the original lumped section, Neutral/qualified/compromise/other.  Thanks,  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I have started this process.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just creates a mess of overlap and illogic. Marskell 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True.  However, now that you've combined everything again, we need to put it back in chronological order.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Erm, I'm agreeing with the mess part, no the overlap and illogic part.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that they're are not supposed to be threaded points anyway, I don't see that it's a huge problem. Marskell 19:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonetheless, people do comment on other people's votes within their own votes, and often base their votes on the votes above theirs.  Hence, the order is important.  Don't worry, I've fixed it.  While I was at it, I added refactoring notes after votes which were added to different sections than the current one, as it is important to the intent of the votes.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If we're going to break up the Neutral/qualified/compromise/other section, we should do it all the way. 

message: A couple of editors seem to continue to comment on other persons' comments; in particular commenting on the "truth-vreifiability" issue in people's oppose votes.  Is the warning about not starting a discussion on the poll page not strong enough?  Could such "comments on the comments" be refactored out?  It is not helpful to have the poll cluttered with such comments, nor is it appropriate for some editors to start such discussions on the poll page (there are plenty of other pages where that discussion in happenning).  -- Pastordavid 18:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be refactored out, but nobody seems to have done it yet, and its not clear to me what the best way is to do it. I don't see any recent such comments, though. CMummert · talk 18:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion, there are getting to be too many of them now.  I will go ahead and incorporate the honorable User:Slrubenstein's comment under my comment -- if there is no objection.  --Rednblu 18:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Between the discussion-comments on people's opinions (which the top of the page says should ALL be refactored out), and the "Other" sub-sections at the end, this is quickly becoming a mess.  Unless the page is cleaned up, I don't know that it will be possible to see a recognizable outcome.  -- Pastordavid 18:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The I started putting in to practice last night when the first of these appeared is to ask the editorializing user to refactor their own reply commentary back into their comment/!vote.  (Just with the first person to do this; I don't know if he/she complied with the request or not).  I figure if they don't do that after 1 day, it is fair game to refactor for them, by moving their reply comment to underneath their !vote, and noting that it was moved and if necessary who it was in response to.  Another option might be moving them here to the talk page with subject headings like "Response to User:UserName's comments".  I agree that they are messy, and they seem to really be focusing on bashing a particular viewpoint.  When we vote in the real world, we don't allow poll gangs to hang outside the ballot room and beat people up for voting Green or whatever or to put up posters advertising why a certain candidate sucks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, half-nevermind - I see someone is refactoring them to the talk page already.  However I think it might still be polite to let the party being refactored know about it on their talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commenting on Comments 

message: Refactoring note: Many or all of these comments were originally placed as replies to votes on the poll page, and were moved here.  To see a version of the page before the moving started, see here.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are comments being moved or removed? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't remove any comments unless it is vandalism or obvious disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That horse is already out of the barn and across the county, folks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll#Commenting_on_Comments above.  If you want to replace the comments that's fine with me, as even with the notices it might be confusing for editors to see their comments go poof!  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Your reason for voting "no" is not really that you object to ATT but that you object to one of the prior core polciies that ATT subsumes: Verifiability (not truth).  Our V policy explicitly makes editors' views as to what are facts, or factually accurate sources, irrelevant.  If this is your reason your vote ought to be discounted. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your claim that the truth matters directly contradicts our earlier policy, verifiability, not truth.  You are not really opposed to the new ATT policy, you are rather opposed to one of Wikipedia's oldest, most important policies.  If this is your reason for voting no, your vote ought not to count. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your repeated comments to tell people that their "votes" shouldn't "count" are inappropriate, and are generally based on the same false premise.  You ignore the fact that, to be "verifiable," something must also be "true."  The change in language from "verifiable" to "attributed" is a weakening of policy, and the new wording seems to be more open to untrue but attributed statements being included in Wikipedia.  MANY people see it this way, for a very good reason.  They recognize that the words "verifiable" and "attributed" are NOT synonyms.  The choice of language is significant, and several details from the combined policies have been omitted, further obscuring the meaning of the policies.zadignose 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not what "Verifiability" means - if you would just read the V policy page.  Verifiability means that the view is included in Wikipedia not because it is true or because anyone thinks it is true, but because it reflects a point of view that can be verified i.e. attributed to an appropriate source. NOR means that editors should not present their own research and views but must instead rely on views of non-editors that come from appropriate sources.  Two sides of the same coin Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your claim that the truth matters directly contradicts our earlier policy, verifiability, not truth.  You are not really opposed to the new ATT policy, you are rather opposed to one of Wikipedia's oldest, most important policies.  If this is your reason for voting no, your vote ought not to count. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh my, the poll has to be the worst idea Jimbo has ever had. This vote clearly shows that just because someone is a good wikipedia contributor, it doesn't make them particularly competent on policy decisions: WP:SYNT has been part of WP:NOR for how long? --Merzul 19:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second both the comments and the comments on comments and invite further comment. Marskell 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for being open to further comment. I feel that we are up to our eyeballs in comments, and while that in itself is a comment, my main comment is that further comments here will only distract from the commenting at the poll, and possibly distract those trying to stop further commenting on comments at the poll from moving comments to this comment page. :) –Outriggr § 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.  It's already painfully clear that far too many WP editors have never bothered to fully read the relevant policy pages in the first place.  Combining them into an omnibus will only increase the learning curve and serve no useful purpose.  If the policy pages do wind up being merged, we should at least create sub-section link redirectors, such as WP:AOR linking directly to the Original Research section and WP:AV or WP:ARS linking directly to the verifiability / reliable sources section.  Please don't make it even harder to explain fundamental WP policies to new users!  Kasreyn 18:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your claim that the truth matters directly contradicts our earlier policy, verifiability, not truth.  You are not really opposed to the new ATT policy, you are rather opposed to one of Wikipedia's oldest, most important policies.  If this is your reason for voting no, your vote ought not to count. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that WP:V is not intended to mean that truth matters, and I am surprised to find so much sentiment (also among the straight oppose !votes) that it does mean that. But disenfranchisement for that judgment is going rather far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *You present your no vote as if you were defending verifiability, when in fact you are attacking verifiability, because verifiability explicitly makes editors' views as to what are facts, or factually accurate sources, irrelevant.  If this is your reason your vote ought to be discounted. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * The public discussion continues at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Role of truth  --Rednblu 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Wiki being an introspective beast, I'm wondering if there's a known record for the number of sigs on any one question? This page will inevitably slow down after the first twenty-four, but it could easily go over a thousand after a week. Have we had a thousand comments on anything previously? Just an idle thought... Marskell 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out . They handled it pretty damn good. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:300. Probably will get blown away. WP:1000! - Denny 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main_Page/Final archive. Looks like 687+46+213+43 sigs. Gimmetrow 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ewww... That one's so close to 1000. We'll beat it here! At least we'll have accomplished something :). Marskell 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the watchlist banner counts as canvassing... CMummert · talk 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for once it was a good idea. Xiner (talk, a promise) 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record sigs? 

message: I remember reading a long time ago about a congressman who said that he had been careful to vote on bills in accordance with his district's wishes until he read a very emotional letter from a constituant pleading with him to not vote for daylight saving time because her flowers in her garden were not getting enough sun as it was. There is something to be said for representational democracy rather than mob rule. WAS 4.250 00:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did say something, but mob rule has neutralized it :) --Merzul 00:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support mob rule. Fewer forms to fill out. Marskell 07:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting for voters

message: What I think we need to do now is decide how we're going to close this poll. Given that it took us 14 days to choose the wording, and we only have seven days to decide how to close it, we'd do well to get going. :-)
There was a suggestion when the Brandt article was up for deletion the last time that we form a committee to close it. I wonder whether we should do that here. I would suggest five experienced admins: two who may be in favor of the merge; two against; and one who is neutral. They hold a discussion on a designated page, which others can see but can't edit. They reach a decision, and ask Jimbo to ratify it if people think that's necessary. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An ad hoc committee could work, providing I'm a member. El_C 07:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  I think 50 of us here will say that.  >;-)   — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems unnecessarily bureaucratic.  Just a) arrive at a cut-off date (2 weeks?) or b) when votes slow to a trickle just close it.  Close it early per WP:SNOWBALL if warranted, though I think that's unlikely. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't be easy to close, because the admins will have to look at the comments and interpret them. I think it might be too much work for one admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your point and support the proposal, since the particpants and their deliberations would be public.  I first think we should have a poll about who...  Uh, no.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! See, El C? I told you it wasn't over. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Lets absolutely not snowball any damn thing, ok? - Denny 07:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's running for seven days. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think any admin can close this, but not interpret the result: "The result of the discussion is to be determined by Jimbo Wales." What we could agree on beforehand is whether we want to flag people with less than 50 or 100 edits. Marskell 09:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, I think User:Marskell should close and interpret the result. I admire his work greatly. Marskell 10:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should let Willy on Wheels interpret them and close. ATT on Wheels? - Denny 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Close the voting on the advertized date... not sooner, not later. Even if the voting all but dies out, we do not want some editor to come back and complain that they didn't get a chance to vote, or for another editor to claim that the results are biased because one side or the other kept the voting going longer than was stated.  I like the idea of forming a committee of Admins, representing the different view points, who then compile and interpret the results.  Yes, lots of arguments are possible about the interpretation... but I have faith that consensus can be reached.  The results, analysis and interpretation would then get sent to Jimbo with a recommendation for his OK.  As a non-admin, I would like to be able to follow the discussion of the committee... but I agree that such a discussion should not be open to the general editing public (far too chaotic)  I support a viewable, but not edit-able page for this discussion. Blueboar 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And an unprotected talk-page for comments on the process; which I trust the committee will respond to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with an immediate protection once it is closed.  Also agree on an open talk page for general editors like me. Nice to have a place to complain about the "Evil Oligarchy" of Admins. :>) I trust the admins to compile the results accurately and fairly... but I could see how others wouldn't.  Blueboar 17:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could have a fully protected page for all admins. Of course, I give myself an advantage as I suggest that, but the basic reason admins are made admins is because people trust them. Having a committee of four or six may be difficult. The very much involved or the totally uninvolved? What if it turns out more admins were supporting or opposing? Wouldn't the composition of the committee have to reflect that? It will be messy trying to work stuff like this out. Marskell 17:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see the administrator role as more janitorial.  If we're going to have a discussion on how to interpret the results of the poll, it should be open to everyone.  And there will probably not be consensus on that either.  So, Jimbo might be the only person who will be able to interpret the results in a minimally controversial way.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about asking a 'crat or three to close it?  We trust them to close contentious RfAs, and to my knowledge the crats haven't been closely involved with the devlopment of this proposition.  Get three uninvolved 'crats, ask them to make the call, and we're done with it.  Philippe 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have in mind a few people I'd like to invite to close this. We need experienced Wikipedians and people Jimbo can talk to, because the comments have to be evaluated. It's not a question of just counting. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as whom? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to ask Jimbo first whether he thought it was a good idea, and then suggest some names, and ask him to suggest some. I'll do it within the next day or so, and if those people agree, I'll post the names here. Do people think that's an okay plan of action in principle? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Two editors who support, two that oppose, one neutral. Do not have to be admins, though. Editors with good standing will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I would strongly suggest that no editors with an interest in the outcome (either way) be party to the closure committee; by that, I mean no one who has taken a principal role in editing, promoting or advocating for the merged policy; nor any who has actively campaigned against it. By that token, for the sake of appearance of impartiality, I'd recommend that SlimVirgin not make nominations as to whom she believes should close/interpret the discussions-- as she is perhaps the strongest advocate for the pro-merger position. (Sorry, SV!)--LeflymanTalk 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could  wait to see these nominations, instead of prejudging, no? We need to stop seeing this as a polarizing/political dispute... it is not. All editors, pro ATT and against ATT want the best for the project and that that should the premise: AGF is not cosmetics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to make suggestions, then it'll be up to Jimbo and those individuals, assuming he thinks this is a good idea in the first place. He may want to do it himself, or the poll may be clear enough that we don't need a closing committee. I'm just thinking we should prepare for a no-clear-consensus scenario. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone has suggestions for names, please say either here or by e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  from the Mediation Cabal comes immediately to mind.  He's approached the entire issue with neutrality and dispute resolution as the goal. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Again, IMHO, the chief proponent of one position should not be suggesting names for closing a debate that she's involved in. That's not a matter of AGF; it's a matter of not having the appearance of a conflict of interest. I also think this sort of thing is precisely why we've gotten to this point-- individuals with good intentions speedily manoevering the process to get to a particular result, without taking heed of potential contrary positions. --LeflymanTalk 06:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is manoeuvering the process to get to a particular result? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Impatience is how such things as this occur: suggesting making a major change and asking for objections; then not giving adequate time for responses, and ten hours later deciding to follow your own suggestion.--LeflymanTalk 07:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely Jimbo needs to close this himself. If I were him, I wouldn't do it in a hurry, and I'd first ask for reports from some of the people I consider to have been most sensible on all sides of the debate including some who've been pretty neutral - half a dozen people or so - on what the problems are and what the possibilities are for future action. I'd definitely include SlimVirgin, Septentrionalis, and some of the leading opponents of the process, or of ATT itself. But I'd also be looking for people are just outstanding and experienced editors in various ways, even if they've been uninvolved, or scarcely involved. I'm thinking of folks like MONGO, Anville, Giano, Raoul, and many others, who surely have thought deeply about these policies in the past, and applied them well in creating great content. But if I were Jimbo, there's no way I'd let someone else close it. Still, I'm not ... so we'll see what view he actually takes. Metamagician3000 06:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Lets absolutely NOT discuss on IRC or email or back channels who closes. It needs to be 100% public and transparent. Any back dealings will be negatively viewed. Public only. - Denny 07:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, still opposed to any small group. If one is to be appointed, Jimbo should do it. And I don't know how it will work in a "locked room" on Wiki. It'll just create a situation ripe for wheel-warring. If you've got six admins, and a seventh shows up and says "I've been on vacation but I've got something to say" will that person be reverted? That would obviously be very bad. Agree this should not be decided on IRC or the mailing list—unless, again, Jimbo decides to make his announcements in those channels. Marskell 07:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind-of agree.  I think we should suggest Jimbo appoints a committee for the purpose, and then they can decide how they want to approach the matter. JulesH 11:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This thread seems to mix up two topics: how to close, and the meaning of the poll.  These are two separate issues.  The poll closes at the end of April 6 - I imagine 23:59:59 UTC.  At that time the page must be protected.  The deadline for the poll was determined before the poll began; once the poll began, it is not right to change it.  Now, topic two: what does it all mean?  Let's wait until the poll has ended before we discuss the meaning.  And by the way, even if Jimbo takes it upon himself to make any ultimate decision as to what it means, that can't stop anyone from weighing in.  i am just suggesting we wait until it is over. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to close

message: I can see some votes from users that have just a dozen or so edits in less than 7 days. Not sure how to assess  these, if they should be marked as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about users who might be on vacation, sick, or simply taking a wiki break the last week?  I think if an edit count is  to be taken, it should at least be something like the last six months or even the last year? I fully support Peregrine Fisher comment below: the nature of the comments should surely be more important than the nature of the commentator! Having said that, if some users should be excluded or put on a separate page, then the criteria for doing this should be both logical and fair, ie perhaps if they 1) registered after the debate started 2) appear to be single user accounts or sockpuppets, 3)have fewer than a certain no of edits in the last six months or year (I don't really support 3).Cheers Ivygohnair 09:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Could we list these on a separate page, so that whomever closes will know, but we can avoid hurting any newbies?  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 05:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we  should be judging editors by their number of edits.  It the free encyclopedia that everone can edit, including this page. - Peregrine Fisher 05:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A poll is only a sampling of users, and hopefully users who seem to have a good understanding of what's going on. With that in mind, yes, we should exclude those who do not seem to understand what the poll is about, or what the concerns are. We have enough users with a good amount of edits to give an accurate count without having to include those with five or six edits. We're not a democracy, so we don't have to count everyone. Sounds harsh, but it's easier and more accurate this way. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to go through them at some point and list all the ones with fewer than a certain number of edits. I was thinking of doing it on a separate page. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Both low number of edits, and accounts created after the idea of the poll was announced. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that whoever closes this will be able to take such things into account, but will rely mainly on what concerns have been expressed by experienced users to see whether the degree of support for ATT amounts to a consensus, and if not what further action should be taken. Metamagician3000 06:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, I think many of us would agree that even a brand new user with a very good point and rational could easily be just as impactive as others. In general, though, most of the responses from new and old don't go into much detail. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The closer should look at the comments, not some sort of edit count.  If new users make unconvincing arguments, that's the only handicap they should have. - Peregrine Fisher 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't have to be ignored, but they can definitely be flagged, especially accounts created after the poll was announced. Marskell 09:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This poll has the unusual position of having been put in a public notice, which means inevitably there are going to be a different demographic of people coming here to what is normally involved in a "!"vote. Ansell 01:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about new users voting? 

message: V-man voted as a reply to Jersyko--since he voted as a reply, it was moved here:
I, liked Armedblowfish, support Wikipedia:Attribution being kept as a summary with a status like WP:5P, but I do not have Armedblowfish's qualms about including WP:RS in the summary. Thus, I think WP:ATT should summarize WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS but I'm unconvinced that it should replace any or all of them. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Jersyko on that. WP:ATT can be used for general reference on the broad policies regarding attribution, while it will still be useful in the future to be able to refer to the individual WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Even a brief mention of WP:CITE would keep it in context. Having this system will keep Wikipedia organized and familiar in the same style for those who are navigating WP:PAG for the first time. V-Man - T/C 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  refactored comment moved back as vote (v-man) 

message: At this time, it looks like the community is closely divided over the merger.  I imagine it will be a while before we sort out what this vote means, and how it will inform ongoing discussions about policy.  Right now I want to call attention to a problem that this poll has highlighted, regardless of views about ATT.  Rednblu, EdFitzgerald, Derex, Michael, terence, and JWolfe have justified their votes by insisting on the overriding importance of "truth."  Of all the people who are voting this is a tiny minority which is why I say this problem is separate from the debate over ATT.  But I find it very frightening for two reasons: first, the principle that representing different views - and the claim that the existence of such views is objective, and theirfore attributable or verifiable (meaning, one can find objective evidence that someone holds this view, e.g. a source) and not the "truth" is the concern of WIkipedia and the standard of inclusion of material in an article has been, in one form or another, the core principle of Wikipedia since its founding, and it has long been explained in different core policies.  The fact that some active editors completely discount this principle is dangerous because the only things that hold together this incredibly heterogeneous and quasi-anarchic community is our agreement to work within these core policies.  Second, this principle is enshrined in two longstanding policies independent of ATT: NPOV (our oldest policy) and Verifiability (which is several years old).  To reject or question this principle is not to question ATT, it is to reject V and NPOV.  It is disingenuous and dangerous to use a poll over ATT to reject V and NPOV. I ask fellow Wikipedians to take this problem seriously not because these views are shared by a large group of people - they are not, at least, based on this poll most people have other concerns that motivate their vote.  Rather, it is a serious problem because it really gets to the very core of Wikipedia content policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Role of truth.  Nobody disagrees about NPOV, and few about NOR.  But whether verifiability is primarily about fact checking or solely about sourcing is a matter of dispute, and the emphasis of WP:V has been changed over the last two years (check the history). The question could have been raised explictly in this poll (see Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Questions) but was not. --Audiovideo 12:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't changed, and as Slrubenstein notes, the idea of attribution, or verifiability, as opposed to truth has been a cornerstone of NPOV and Wikipedia since its creation. That issue is a completely separate one from how many pages the policies should be on, which is what we're deciding here, and it's a great pity that some people tried to mix up the two issues. I hope they did it by accident, and not as a deliberate attempt to use the merge and poll as a Trojan horse to change the heart of the policy. They won't succeed no matter what they do, because the idea of finding reliable sources, rather than tracking down "the truth," is absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is interesting.  Can you provide an actual diff where anyone has argued that "'truth' should be the principle governing inclusion in Wikipedia articles"?  If you would be so kind as to provide an actual diff of such an example, then perhaps we could get an idea of what on earth you are talking about.  --Rednblu 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A frightening issue 

message: If commenting on the poll page is discouraged, we should probably have a defined section for doing this on the talk page.  So I'm starting one here. JulesH 11:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that WP:ATT is only 200 words longer than WP:NOR is at the moment.  Add the length of WP:V and it's substantially shorter. JulesH 11:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's "lone" page, not "long" page. --bainer (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is "a defined section for doing this": Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll#Comments. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on voters' rationales 

message: Recommendation for a closing committee? Five admins, five non-admins. Anyone who played a major or vocal role in developing this poll *or* ATT need not apply. Myself, Jossi, Marskell, Slim, Jayjg, WAS, El C, etc. need not or be allowed to apply. Jimbo acts on their recommendations. All work they do: in public, here, subpage. Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Closing- Denny 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Addendum: Ultimately, I'd be fine with Jimbo or ArbCom certifying the results of the "consensus" if there is one; but I suspect there will be just as vibrant a debate about what the various community opinions actually mean. --LeflymanTalk 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, not another poll about the poll about the poll.  Admins, beaurocrats, and experienced editors know how to interpret poll results.  Wouldn't time be better spent addressing concerns raised, and not worrying about more polls?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too fear instruction creep, though nice work all the same. We need to be prepared. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I just think this one is funny :-)  "All discourse related to this will and must be public (no email, IRC, back channel, phone, etc.). "  Sure, that's how Wiki works—have you spent any time at WP:ANI lately? :-))  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It'll likely be up to Jimbo to interpret it ultimately, unless the result ends up being obvious. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How about just waiting until the time that the poll is supposed to close, and then let it be.  Is there any real hurry here?Olin 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. There's been too much talk about this one way or another. It's time to relax and let the opinions roll in. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That is ludicrous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's what the outcome is going to be though. As anyone who thought about it for even a moment would have concluded before going to the trouble of having a poll, and would have had confirmed by the enormous bickering over what the poll would even include. Grace Note 05:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Like Grace Note says, it's plain as day, sorry man. :-/ --Kim Bruning 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple closing idea, fair for all. 

message: There is no need to rush. There are still 4 days to go. Let the poll continue unencumbered. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral on the matter myself.  I agree with Kim Bruning's rationale that the end result will necessarily be no consensus, and don't feel that the incoming additions are actually providing any reasoning that has not already been entered by previous voters.  But I don't see any great evil in letting it continue, or anything.  Just seems like a bit of a time-waste. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: I think it would be a lot more productive to analyze the results so far and then figure out the next step (which may be another, different poll; previous policy processes of something like this nature have taken several straw polls to help guide them to consensus).  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we do after this will probably be decided by Jimbo, the ArbCom, or whoever else he wants to involve. This process has been horrendous, and there's no way it should be allowed to continue into other poll. At some point we need to get back to writing an encyclopedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good reason for closing the poll early and moving on.  >;-)  But, eh, I really honestly don't care. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are commenting on many different aspacts of ATT. It would not surprise me if there was a consensus for a merge that used Verify's wording on "truth" and a majority for merging RS but yet no clear data on distinguishing between "verify" and "no original research" as many clearly want the terms seperate while many feel they are two sides to one coin. WAS 4.250 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.  If someone actually has a rationale other that "just because" for continuing the poll (and that sounds like one, whether I personally agree with it or not; I remain neutral on that as well for now), then be my guest. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Many of us never stopped. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably doesn't need to be said, since everyone above seems to agree, but ... in six months' time it won't matter if "back then" we sat around wasting four days waiting for the poll's scheduled time to run out. In six months' time it might well matter - indeed, there might still be raging wars - if someone thinks that the process was foreclosed prematurely "back then". So, everyone please just be patient for a few days. :) Metamagician3000 06:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts to close this poll early? 

message: (copy)
Anyone who started an account after the poll started should have their comment flagged. End of story. It doesn't mean we need to ignore their comment; it's basic common sense. I removed two comments from the support section last night and started a SOCK report. I only noticed because they were red-linked. All the comments need to be checked. Marskell 08:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WAIT A MINUTE! You've removed people's comments?  That's completely inappropriate.  Well, at least you told us, so they can be put back in.zadignose 10:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed  and . The former supported with his second ever edit, and the latter with his first ever edit five minutes later. It was not completely inappropriate. The suspected sock report can be found here. Marskell 10:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed again. Another person can review. First, they were the only red-linked editors to show up on this poll, and they did so one after another in the same section. Second, the only other edit that FunnyMunny had made prior was to inquire on the Help Desk about how many "hemmeroids" it is possible to have. There was obvious grounds for suspicion. Marskell 10:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh. Please, everybody, just let the poll run. All of the analysis of who was a new user, who was a sock puppet, who put put good arguments ... whatever... can wait for a few days. That information won't disappear. It will be there to be analysed by whoever closes the poll, and their attention can be drawn to it if needed. There are plenty of people who are experienced with taking all this into account, but the thing to do now we've come so far is just let the data come in without any appearance of tampering with it. I suggest we go and edit some articles for a few days or do whatever we do in real life. Metamagician3000 11:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly hope that the information won't disappear.  Though at least a bit of it has.  Does anyone else favor putting back in the two removed comments?  That is, the two that we know of recently?  As I pointed out before, I'm opposed to the merge, but don't favor removing comments that disagree with my view, because it doesn't seem to serve the interests of fair play.zadignose 12:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Scratch that, will be in order. --bainer (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid making threats. If you'd like to place them back in, place them back in. Marskell 12:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done so, with my initial flags. If you have any other comments on the two users you can post to the suspected sock report, linked above. Marskell 12:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that we should be concerned about sockpuppets, and puppet votes should indeed be checked and removed no matter how they voted.  However, we should not remove any thing based on suspicion... We must have confirmation that a vote is indeed a puppet vote before removal.  As for Newbies ... I don't see any reason to deny them a voice in this.  When the Poll is over, I would love to see some statistical data on the results - what percent for or against were new editors, old editors, admins, etc. Blueboar 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds reasonable. Really, the less we do the better. Let it run, and I hope whoever closes it does so after plenty of discussion, analysis, and deliberation. Metamagician3000 13:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removes

message: I caught this and then fixed it over the next 3 edits. I really, really hope no one missed anything like this along the way... should the closers (multiple) audit afterwards? :(  - Denny 16:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's normal.  The database is not robust under simultaneous edits, so sometimes one gets overwritten by the next (the diff hides this because they both start with "Support"). So yes, someone will have to go through all the diffs by hand to restore the deleted comments. CMummert · talk 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. Just to make sure no one thinks Spangineer (a serious editor) did that; it happened to me once before on AN/I, was quite embarrassing, as another editor accused me of removing his comments.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, looked like a total accident. Just wanted to call it out to see if someone should audit to check for 'lost' entries. Is that worthwhile? - Denny 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's interesting--I had the edit window open for awhile, but before I posted I hit refresh, copy/pasted in my comment, and then clicked save.  The contents of the edit box didn't change when I hit refresh, and I didn't get an edit conflict message, so I assumed that by some random chance no one added a support in the 50 minutes between my vote and the one that appeared above mine.  Is there another way to check other than looking at the history?  Would purging (instead of refresh) do the trick?  Anyway, sorry for the trouble. --Spangineerws (háblame) 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, doing a cache purge is necessary depending on the browser you have. You can usually see the deletion from the "Show changes" button before you save; this compares your version with the latest version on the server. CMummert · talk 11:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please monitor edits - some statements accidentally removed 

message: Starting this simply for the 'interesting' factor, for those curious to watch this as it unfolds and see how many people actually contribute each day and how. Whens the last time this many people saw/got directed to one thing on Wikipedia to contribute? Ever? Basing this on the diff/version of the FIRST edit after that day's 00:00 UST passes by. - Denny 16:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to have been a significant change in who was conscious yesterday. The support votes were only 35% and significantly trailed the oppose votes for the first time, unless my math is wrong. Dekimasuよ! 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, this chart doesn't include votes that were cast by someone but then deleted by someone else.  For example, these two votes: .  They were probably sock puppets, but I would think that puppets should be deleted after the poll is complete, not at the whim of individuals who think they are probably puppets. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Christ, I put those votes back in. Read up. Marskell 09:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies!  I was unfair to you, especially in the snide wording of my comment.  Sorry about this. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree I think that deleting right away gives the people the time to respond to the deletion if they are not sockpuppets. Also, the people involved have done a great job of using the watchlist to promote it so the big response is no surprise. On the central limit theorem, I have to ask (rhetorically) why scientific polling is used instead of straw polling? A weak convergence theorem should not take precedence over important variables in practical polling as opposed to theoretical polling. A possible variable being that angry disenters are more driven to action than content defendents and thus vote earlier. It should however take away systematic advantages if we keep this poll open long enough.--Jorfer 23:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest you put it in your own userspace, then. Although people can obviously see how many support what when they go to vote, but this kind of stuff just gives the impression that a conclusion has already been reached. If we can, lets reduce focus on such numbers until people are done voting. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day by day process (just something interesting) RUNNING COUNT BY DAY

message: Can we sub-section the headings at each 100 for ease of editing?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind; that would probably break the counter.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would. - Denny 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The code underneath was way too complex but clever... I undid it. It's working fine so far. - Denny 18:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-sections?

message: What's the purpose of this exercise?
* To run a majority vote? (not permitted). 
* To have a poll to determine consensus (determined. no consensus.)
* Or to find out opinions from the community? (Consensus is against, see section above)
Ok, well, We've eliminated the impossible, So whatever remains must be the truth. 
But before we start drawing premature conclusions, does anyone have a possible reasonable explanation that's missing from the above?
--Kim Bruning 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the purpose of this exercise (as you call it) is to give Jimbo the answers to his questions. It is up to him to determine what it all means. Blueboar 12:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What questions did Jimbo ask, according to you, and can you provide a link or diff to where he asked them? --Kim Bruning 12:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is sitting in the Background section at the top of the page. Marskell 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The necessity of this StrawPoll has nothing to do with Jimbo.  In my opinion, an empirical measure of "consensus," such as in this StrawPoll is crucial to avoid the  destructiveness of faction, as exemplified by the false claims of "consensus" for the so-called "merger" to WP:ATT.  Such a StrawPoll may or may not have symbolic meaning in terms of fairness, regularity, or stability.  We don't know how the community would assess "fairness" on closing this StrawPoll yet, do we?  In any case, to be viewed as "legitimate" rather than "manipulated," it might be a good idea if the poll would remain open for the period of time it was announced and, in a sense, promised to be open.  --Rednblu 12:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The objective outcome of the poll is "no consensus", since we have >WP:100 people supporting each and every possible position. (see elsewhere on this page).  I was then told that this poll was not meant to be a decision making poll at all (as summarised above), so that's eliminated in at least 2 different ways. Note that there is no motive to manipulate a poll when there are no stakes involved. --Kim Bruning 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question of "consensus" may be settled, I would agree.  And perhaps you are correct in your assessment that most of the community would look at an early closing as entirely legitimate and fair.  This would be the time for everyone to speak up.  But there are only a few here to know that it is their turn to speak.   :)  --Rednblu 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: What about that page? It is presently listed as a "proposal", but depending on the outcome of this poll it probably isn't. >Radiant< 11:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, "Outcome" is no consensus, at any rate. Draw conclusions as appropriate. --Kim Bruning 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about [[Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ]] 

message: SMcCandlish, since YOU forked it off to three sections I see here, why are you complaining now...? Just curious. The format we launched it in was a generally commentary free-for-all survey that could be interpreted post-closing. What was your exact need to split it? What was your justification? - Denny 13:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, his edit summary was "Sections, for sanity," which I can understand. It's done now—many people argued for a simple up-and-down question and we've basically got one. Marskell 13:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I want to AGF, but the insistence on changing the format NOW for being biased after he was the one HE instituted... it seems wrong with this wording. Why didn't he say, "Hey, I made a mistake, here, can we undo my mistake in formatting?" rather than, "Three of you stuck it up our Wiki butts with the poll formatting!" essentially. Its hurtful to me after all the hard work put in because it makes it out like we tried to do harm. The poll format we launched was literally: Hey, what do you think? Thats it. - Denny 13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WThuh? (edit conflict x3; I mean Denny, not Marskell).  I am either losing my mind, am asleep and dreaming, or have phase-shifted into another dimension.  The sectioning was Denny's idea, not mine: #Restart poll, Watchlist notification.  I implemented it (in terms that have largely stayed as is, so I guess they were pretty reasonable; I think the only change has been "/other" being added to the end of the neutral/etc. section by Pmanderson[?]) because someone (you, Denny) requested it be done, and I didn't mind taking the heat if someone wanted to angrily revert me.  No more, no less.  This is just too absurd, in the deepest senses of that word, for me to participate here any longer today.  Well, OK, to quickly respond to the Twilight Zone question before backing away warily:  I thought everyone would play fair.  I put the Support section first at that time as a show of good faith, because the ATT proponents were being WP:PANICky and were way too revert-happy.  I never thought I'd meet armed resistance inverting it halfway(ish) through the poll to even things out.  Goose, gander, and all 'at.  Anyway, I'm outta here for a while.  This bite-the-hand-that-feeds by DennyColt is a BJAODN candidate.  PS: To SV: The fact that I installed the sections doesn't have anything to do with the issue of what order they are in at any given point in time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: Please stop it with the "change the format" stuff.  This has nothing to do with formatting.  Also you are engaging the straw man; I never said WP:ATT proponents chose the order of the sections; as Rednblu said, I did.  What I did say is that the order staying the same biases the poll (Miss Mondegreen says this better than I do), and that the the poll's entire wording, launch time and process and other espects have been "stuck up our Wiki butts" in your, eh, colorful metaphor.  Don't put words in my mouth please.  At least not so blatantly.  I made no "mistake in formatting"; I made a mistake in trusting that this poll would be handled in fairness and with a goal for balance and truth in its outcome. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Denny suggested sections, but it was you who added support/oppose/neutral, which you're now complaining about. That's what we're finding confusing. We could have added random headers, and retained the comments/votes in a mix, but you chose otherwise. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really am in the Twilight Zone.  "Random" headers? In a poll?  What, like "Chicken" and "Snorkel" and "Mu"?  READ THE ORIGINAL POST.  Denny asked for the votes to be resorted into sections to avoid a free-for-all (i.e. to avoid, specifically, "retain[ing] the comments/votes in a mix".)  You (SV) all along have advocated a Y/N simple poll.  Numerous others wanted at least something other than Y/N.  I compromised; you and Denny got what you wanted, people with compromise, neutral or qualified positions got (more or less) what they wanted.  No one complained, other than much later after the fact someone wanted to make the not-Y/N section be umpteen sections and got reverted.  Do you either of you two realize you are totally pantsing yourselves, repeatedly?  Just stop, for everyone's sake.  You've made a totally bogus accusation due to heat-of-the-moment short term memory loss. Own up, get over it, everyone will forgive you, and move on.  And again, please actually read what I say; I am not "complaining about" the section names.  I'm "complaining" about the fact that ATT proponents cannot tolerate the idea of two of the three sections trading places for a while to eliminate any chance of ordering being a bias.  You ought to be embracing the idea.  I really am signing off now.  This is just unbelievable.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Random section breaks as we do in DRV. People could still say yes or no or not sure, as they saw fit, but my idea was not to split those comments up into support/oppose sections. It was you who did that. And it is you who is now complaining about it. As I said above, this is what is confusing people. You seem to be willing to argue each and every point, and then argue about the arguments, and now you're even arguing against something you yourself implemented. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeezey creezy, could you two please go have a beer or something? This bickering back and forth over semantics and microdetails of bad idea that was poorly implemented in too short a time is insane. There, have I offended everybody enough to get you on the same side, yet? If not, let me know. -- nae'blis 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I could throw in a gratituous "Why do I surround myself with idiots, madmen and barbarians?!?!!?!!!!!111oneone1111eleven11", in case that might help? O:-) --Kim Bruning 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you all stop micro-managing this poll!  Just leave it alone until it closes!  Let me tell you how making any kind of change will be viewed by the average editor... any changes will be seen as an attempt to skew the vote one way or the other.  Your intentions may be good, but intentions do not matter... perceptions do.  Just leave it alone. Blueboar 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ouw. That's an interesting lesson learned. So you're saying that to prevent percieved skewness, we may in fact need to permit actual skewness? (leaving the actual question of whether we are indeed preventing or allowing actual skewness alone for a minute). :-/ --Kim Bruning 15:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I know,  believe me I know. Ideas of OWN are sensitive to me, and I'm wary now due to all the accusations that we railroaded through some unfair poll. The poll "as launched" was basically as neutral as you can get, NO SIDE of the ATT debate got what they wanted--it was just a wide open speak your mind survey. Maybe thats the problem to some. :) - Denny 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Winter Rules? Blueboar 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's Winter Rules? --Kim Bruning 16:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  after looking up Oooohhh, interesting concept. Could we play by winter rules today, somehow? O:-) --Kim Bruning 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what was it? I'm still not sure, but I want more Kim—Cat analogies, STAT! El_C 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Short version, after reading google (real golfers please correct me! ;-) ): In golf, under winter rules, you get to pick up the ball and put it someplace nicer. There's actually solid rules for when that's allowed, typically set by the local organisations... but of course, actual golfers out for a day's recreation might go and just cry Winter Rules! when they're stuck in a bind ;-) --Kim Bruning 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahh! El_C 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Only one problem... while you can pick up your ball and give yourself a better lie under winter rules... you have to place it further away from your goal (the hole).  I don't think anyone would be willing to move back an inch in this debate.  :>) Blueboar 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Much ado about nothing!Ivygohnair 17:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Why does this matter? This is going to end with no consensus anyway, so the semantics of the poll are more or less moot. --Sable232 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Q to SMcCandlish

message: I see that Slim Virgin is preventing me from changing my !vote to oppose, which it is (on the immediately pending issues). I will be changing it again now.  If this happens again, I will take stronger measures. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, she's asking you to do it in a way that's not confusing.  Seems like a good faith request to me.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to say the same thing. It seemed a reasonable request, and the edit summaries showed that she was not in any way trying to prevent you from changing your vote. ElinorD (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You should strike your previous vote, and then vote again in a new section. -- Vision Thing -- 21:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I added a refactoring note for, both times. If anyone is still confused, they are free to add other notes, or a struck vote. No one is free to change my !vote from where I choose to place it; not if acting in good faith.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual thing is to strike out a vote and then copy it elsewhere. I'd appreciate it if you'd do it that way, because your comments are long and the diff seemed confusing. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But of course the best thing and most considerate thing is to do what other people will find least confusing, which is presumably striking through your vote and then voting elsewhere. ElinorD (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone changes their mind, I think it's quite ok for them to change their mind, as long as they do so before the end date. (and the end date part is a concession, since this page is really abusing the wiki. On normal wiki-pages, you can just read the page history. You are the person responsible for using the tools provided to you! :-) ) --Kim Bruning 12:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SlimVirgin's actions

message: See also the above section marked purpose. Certain people's words and actions seem contradictory, I'm trying to sort that out. 
Could everyone please state what the (remaining) utility of this poll is, a least as far as they themselves are concerned? --Kim Bruning 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editors who worked on it for months would like to see what support there is for it. Jimbo wants to see what support there is, or otherwise. Comments are still coming in, and they're interesting; the arguments for and against are useful because they show where the common misunderstandings of policy lie. We could only guess at this before or extrapolate from talk page comments. Now we have a much larger sample. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must finally agree here. We should let this poll run out (it's only two more days), if only to seem to do right. In the process, we may find some interesting data; the latest oppose was another comment on the necessity of "truth". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sometimes see an RfA or an admin noticeboard issue that I intend to comment on, but don't want to comment on it immediately. That would be because I want to plan out what I'm going to say, not because I don't know which "side" I'm on. In the case of an RfA, I look to see the closing date; in the case of an admin noticeboard, I know that a bot can archive it if nobody has commented in that section for twenty-four hours. Quite frankly, it's annoying if I find I've forgotten about the RfA, or if someone comes along and unexpectedly archives the admin noticeboard thread before I have had a chance to participate. There could be people now who fully intend to add their voices to this poll, but who have worked out how long they have left to do so, and are still planning how exactly they are going to express their support or opposition. Plus, I endorse what SlimVirgin has just said. ElinorD (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was my objection to the precipitate start of the poll. Let's not make things worse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The point of a vote (which this is not) is to decide an issue. The point of a straw poll (which maybe this is) is to find which way the (political) wind is blowing (throw up the straw, see where it lands). The point of a discussion structured as a poll (which this is) is to ask everyone to give an opinion in a way that is structured to be helpful in the continuation of a previous dicussion that now needs clarity concerning who supports what to bring in new ideas and perspectives as well as to identify likely successful compromises and directions. WAS 4.250 23:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would survey be a better name for what this turned into? I.e., speak what you will on a given topic, but no threaded discourse on the 'survey' page itself? - Denny 23:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Survey" seems as good a word as any other. WAS 4.250 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no way we should be changing anything that was said which someone just might be relying on. Somewhere out there is an editor planning to put in his/her magnum opus in support or opposition just before the announced time of closure. Let them do it. Why can't we just do what we say we'll do? This also applies to the early start, of course, but that's now water under the bridge. Metamagician3000 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose *2 

message: Only partly tongue-in-cheek, is there an abstain option? I participated for a while on the talk page of WP:ATT when it was going through its growing pains, and I'm now wondering how the hell to vote here. Is two days enough time to read through even just the discussion here? I shouldn't start thinking my vote won't make any difference, but I hate casting an uninformed vote. Carcharoth 00:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I found the neutral section and dumped my comments there, so that's OK. Carcharoth 00:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstain option? 

message: Copied from my vote: "Oh, by the way, has anyone noticed that the bit under the edit window (you know, the bit no-one really reads) says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*." - yes, folks, there is a link to Wikipedia:Attribution sitting right there in the boilerplate Wikipedia framework! I wonder if we need a poll on how to word that bit of text?" Carcharoth 00:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilarity ensues. --Kim Bruning 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Those catch 22s! The supporters have it by design; there is no way the opponents can actually win. If they don't get the votes they need, they invalidate the opponents. Genius! (Evil laugh heard in background of the talk page)--Jorfer 02:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, verification just isn't as catchy. Nifboy 02:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dog gone it! You are on to us. All anti-consolidation opinions will be discounted as in violation of the consolidated policy. WAS 4.250 04:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:ATT linked in boilerplate edit window 

message: Out of curiosity, I conducted my own breakdown of the opinions in the "Neutral/qualified/compromise/other" category (so far)... before I share this info, there are a few (perhaps four or five) comments that I think were placed in this section in error... Where they were either clearly for or clearly against.  They should be noted, but I don't think we should move them (at least not without an OK from the editor who made the comment... and probably better if they moved their own comments).
Now... by my reading (and I understand that someone else might see this differently) the break down at this point in time is...
*19 editors express some sort of general support for the merger, with qualifications.
*9 editors express some sort of general opposition to the merger, with qualifications.
*19 editors express support for the idea of making ATT into a Summary page, but leaving V, NOR and RS as opperative policy/guidelines
*36 express the fact that they don't care ("neutral") or make comments that I put under "other" (such as having a unique idea that no one else supports).
Make of this info what you will... I don't think it really changes things all that much. Blueboar 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A look at the "Neutral/qualified/compromise/other" section 

message: This topic reminds me of the war on drugs.  With the rate of growth of WP and the large amount of existing uncited material, catching reference-challenged wikipedians and slapping them with attribution tags will never solve the problem. Every attribution/verifiability/NOR tag is a speck on WP's credibility.  These days it seems like most articles, particularly on popular culture, are preceded by a banner headline proclaiming the article's potential inaccuracy. 
A prevention approach would be to make adding references really easy.  Right now it's very confusing for the occasional editor.  A reference-creation wizard would help.  Reference creation should be more foolproof and, most of all, readily available and apparent. H Bruthzoo
:Some sort of wizard would be a great idea... but I don't know if the system would support such a thing.  Why not suggest it at the Village Pump tech page?  I agree that we should make adding references as easy as possible for the editor.  Unfortunately, I don't think the real problem is with the ease or difficulty of adding references.  I think the real problem is that many editors don't understand that references are required.  I think we need to find a better way to explain this requirement to editors, old and new.    Blueboar 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Magnus' MakeRef tool running on the toolserver. You fill in the form and it generates the necessary wikitext. At the moment it only handles three common types of references though. --bainer (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a very handy tool, bainer, thanks for that. As for educating newcomers and those who never did 'get it', one thing to remember is the high turnover rate. Wikipedia doesn't want to put too much effort into educating someone who leaves after a few months. A lot of the untidy and unreferenced content is added in by a mixture of specialists (maybe), anon editors, fanboys and fangirls, people adding something about where they went on holiday, the book they've just read, the TV program they just watched, and so forth. Whether this is good or bad is debatable. But then this untidy content is improved by various grades of wikignomes. The problem tends to be finding sources. For that you need someone who has at least rudimentary knowledge of the area (I still recoil in horror when I recall seeing someone add references to an article after doing a series of Google searches and finding, in some cases, frankly unreliable websites that just regurgitated the same old, wrong, stuff). The rudimentary knowledge is required to attribute to judge which sources to use and which sources are reliable. It might help to remember that Wikipedia articles are not intended to spring, like Athena, fully formed from the head of Zeus. It helps if they do, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater if they don't. What is really needed is for dedicated editors to make some inroads into the articles tagged as unsourced, while other help slow, or at least sort, the tide of unformed contributions coming in the other end. Like a sausage machine. A pulped mess in at one end, and nicely formed (and referenced) articles out the other end. Carcharoth 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevention, not interdiction

message: (oppose vote #233) pointed to my !vote in support of WP:ATT, and the !votes of a few other editors, as evidence of "confusion".  I don't think I'm confused, but perhaps I was confusing.  I support the merger of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS into a single policy, WP:ATT.  I believe that it is accurate to view these three as different aspects of a single policy.  I also think that there are times when emphasizing one aspect or another is useful.  Therefore, I think that WP:ATT should be written in summary style, with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS treated as sub-articles spun out from the parent, WP:ATT.  I consider this to be "broad support" of the merger, but with a nuance.  Is that confusing, or does it demonstrate confusion on my part? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it does not sound like you were confused, nor are your views all that confusing.  If there is confusion, it comes from the fact that similar reasoning was used by other editors to place their "votes" in both the Opposed, and the Neutral/Other categories. Same reasoning... different conclusions.  You placed your vote where you thought it belonged.  We should respect that.  Blueboar 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is confusing to imagine how WP:V and WP:ATT could exist at the same time. At a minimum ATT ought to replace V, given that they mimic one another. This idea of a condensed summary is really an idea completely removed from ATT, and should be treated separately. But the confusion isn't your problem; I think you placed your !vote in the correct spot. Marskell 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: On a rather different point, a number of editors seem to be placing, especially, Oppose votes in Neutral, presumably because they haven't realized there is a 3rd section & just shoot to the bottom. At least one has moved his vote subsequently. Johnbod 21:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't "neutral".  It is "Neutral/qualified/compromise/other".  So, anyone who felt there answer was more complex than a straight oppose or a straight support might choose to put their vote there without being confused about the sectioning.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 14:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion? 

message: This vote seems to have been sprung on us from nowhere. I was not previously aware that these three core policies were in the process of being merged until the message appeared in my user space and I'm sure that most other Wikipedia editors must have been in a similar position. If there is going to be a vote on such an important matter surely the voting period should be extended. Has it been deliberately timed to coincide with the Easter holidays when many people will be away to ensure that Wikipidia Attribution is forced upon the community without a consensus? Dahliarose 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I don't think it was any sort of conspiracy. Easter I doubt had anything to do with it, and a week is a long time for people to see the information... - Denny (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no problem extending for a few more days. Maybe until April 10th? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're in no real rush anyway, why not just go a full 14 days? Won't Jimbo be back by then anyway? - Denny (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Does the vote so far not show that ther is in fact no consensus one way or the other?
There's no good reason to ever close it. It's a straw poll, not an election. Why can't people turn up here five years hence and add their views? And Dahliarose, chill out, will you? Policies sum up how we do things. They are descriptive. No one has invented anything or composed anything new. It's just what we already have in a more digestible form. And slightly more slanted to a particular set of views, of course. But nothing all that major. Grace Note 00:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should close it 23:59 07 April. One complete week. Marskell 07:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timescale for voting

message: I kinda suspect that a nontrivial number of the "support" votes come from people who have only a vague understanding of the issues involved. They scroll down the poll page, see repeated (and bolded) assertions of "Not a policy change," and assume (quite logically, actually) that merging three into one is WP:KISS, since "nothing substantive has actually been changed."
I have also seen "support" voters opining that many "oppose" voters were in fact ill-informed ;-).
I also saw a table above summarizing the reasons for support/oppose.
I propose two dueling essays for the enlightenment of the entire community. each should only be edited by a handful of people on either side of the issue: SandyGeorgia, SlimVirgin, etc. They should not be open to editing by others, to prevent chaotic sprawl. The essays should present very concise summaries of the reasons given in the table "is/is not a policy change" etc. The editors of each can consult with whomever they choose, including especially the editors of the essay that is the counterpart to theirs.
With these in hand, we the hoi polloi :-) will be somewhat better informed.
--Ling.Nut 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have those, linked to at the top of the poll. I agree neither does an adequate job, but clearly its too late now.  Johnbod 04:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's kinda the point — the essays are obviously in need of serious revision, in light of the poll/discussion. Take all points raised in the poll/discussion, answer them in the same order in both essays. Dodge/elide/talk around no points whatsoever. Any debate point raised in one essay must be matched with a reply in the other. Etc etc. :-) --Ling.Nut 05:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be ideal for the next phase, whatever that is. Don't expect it to happen quickly, or easily, though. Johnbod 12:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dueling essays 

message: As far as Jimmy Wales' influence, I think it biases people to vote No, not to vote Yes.  His two famous (or infamous) quotes that led to this poll were clearly critical of the ATT project.
I find this very problematic, even though I myself voted No.  My greatest fear is this:  
* Some of the Support votes might have been cast by people who think of Wikipedia as an aristocracy, where a small, "newbie-free" group of administrators can rewrite fundamental policies such as NOR and V and maybe even NPOV.
* Some of the Oppose votes might have been cast by people who think of Wikipedia as a monarchy, where a quick comment by Jimmy Wales can overturn five months of hard work by a dedicated bunch of editors.
But then I see how this poll has been conducted, and I rest content in the realization that Wikipedia is, as always, a true anarchy! — Lawrence King (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the conspiratorial angle here and above is a little overboard. But your point about Jimbo is correct, and I think informed the way this was constructed. Jimbo severely, probably fatally, wounded ATT as soon as he posted criticism of it. The support essay and the attempt to emphasize the "hard work" should be seen as an attempt to balance, not bias, the poll. Marskell 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd also comment that the idea that the work to produce ATT was "newbie free" simply isn't true.  When I started working on it, I'd been actively participating in Wikipedia for less than a year, and had very few edits in article space to my name.  JulesH 08:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally think of Wikipedia as a Hegelian dialectic process.  :D  Armed Blowfish (mail) 08:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do too... but I don't think we're getting close to synthesis yet! Dekimasuよ! 08:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even when we do, the synthesis shall become the new thesis, to which a new antithesis shall arise, and we'll have to find another synthesis. chart  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 09:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristocracy versus Monarchy 

message: It seems to me that a lot of the opposing votes aren't actually voting against having WP:ATT, but are voting against not having WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS.  Also, a lot of them are voting 'per Jimbo', which seems to me to be the same position, as Jimbo hasn't stated his position on this page, but apparently agreed that WP:ATT is good in principal although he doesn't want to lose the original pages.  A number of people in the third section also have taken this stance.
It strikes me that despite this poll not reaching a consensus (which to me it clearly will not), that the compromise situation (all pages are policy with WP:V et al expanding on the same principles applied at WP:ATT) would have consensus.  Unfortunately, despite having been proposed in the early stages, this question wasn't asked.
I'd suggest that whoever ends up closing this thing keeps this possibility in mind when evaluating the oppose votes: sifting them into these two categories may cause a consensus to emerge that isn't obvious from the current categorisation. JulesH 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This assumes people supporting the merger (1 page) would also support keeping ATT live without a merger (4 pages). These are opposed, not corresponding positions. Having four pages has always been the most radical (and terrible IMO) idea going—it's completely contrary to the intent of ATT and the many of the supports on the basis of KISS. At a minimum, ATT and V should not carry on live at the same time. That doesn't mean we can't work out a tally in that direction, of course. We should sift for a variety of positions—supporting some but not all of the merger etc. Marskell 08:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being live does not necessarily mean being policy.  WP:5P is very much live, but is not policy, although it summarises policy.  Guidelines are live, but they are not policy.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 09:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, an "Attributable" page is very useful to explain the process to beginners.  However, Attributability is only the beginning of the editor's duty.  Not only must Wikipedia content be Attributable, it must also be Verifiable, as in "Verifiability, not truth."  And I refrain from stating my own opinion at this time as to exactly what "Verifiability, not truth" must mean, because it is not my opinion that matters.  What matters is that we somehow capture an operational definition for Verifiability as it actually works in high quality Wikipedia pages such as gravity and truth, I would say.  I and many others have several ideas how that might be done to simplify the various policy texts, but I would not want to shift the discussion in any particular direction at this point.  --Rednblu 09:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so used to the Attribution page now that I will be sorry if I can't quote it in the future (I loathe trying to explain "Verifiability" and "No Original Research", which have specialised Wikipedia meanings, in my opinion). But I'm scratching my head about how it could sensibly remain in operation alongside the others. And though you could interpret this poll to give leeway for ATT to remain, I've a feeling that were a further poll to be held (please, no) on "keep or scrap", the vote might go towards "scrap", even from some who voted "support" in the present poll—if only because a keep would leave the policy situation slightly eccentric. If you had two gloves and a muff, where would you wear the muff? On your head? qp10qp 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on oppose voting rationales