Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Working Group

message: As mentioned on the Working Group project page, "This page has been created as the home for a discussion between members of the Working Group."  If you have not been nominated for participation in this group, it would be most constructive if you would bring your comments and concerns to the more public community discussion page.  Members of this Working Group will not exclude one another's contributions through reversions, but they may revert any or all comments by other parties.  Your comments may be entirely reasonable and well intended, but can still be removed in the interest of maintaining the integrity of a small working group seeking compromise.  Thanks for understanding. zadignose 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note Regarding Edits To This Discussion Page

message: A discussion took place on the subject of whether this working group should hold its discussions privately.  Though some of the arguments in favor of a private forum were well reasoned, they did not meet with broad approval.  In the interest of getting the discussion started, I suggest that those editors who have been nominated and accepted should meet here.  Perhaps it would be best if all members of the working group should at least add this page to their watch list, and sign below with "I'm watching," so that we know who is aware of the discussion, and may become actively involved.  Also, at the time of the creation of this page, there are more people identified as "opponents" who have accepted nominations than there are "proponents."  If this is largely perceived as a problem, it would be wise to nominate a couple of more "proponents," or at least to see in what proportion the editors participate in this page.  If it's necessary for the balance of this discussion, I suppose an "opponent" or two could step aside, and if it fell to my lot to have to exclude myself, I would.  But in any event, it's probably best not to get so bogged down in process that the discussion never even begins... so let's kick start it. zadignose 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were people in a section below the "real" nominations who also accepted (Jossi and PMAnderson among others); who ended up in that section vs. the "actual" nominations seems to have been entirely arbitrary, so might as well have them here as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think this is workable in the current format. Discussions are ongoing at WP:ATT page and other pages. Maybe it is to late for this? I think this idea of a working group has lost its momentum. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the list is not representative, 1 neutral, 5 opponents, 3 supporters, 1 uninvolved.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, as far as "momentum", SlimVirgin said she was going to propose the working group nominees to Jimbo for his acceptance (and to see if he had other nominees of his own). To date, we've not heard from Slim. As for representation, frankly, I think the onus is on the non-supporters – particularly the "opponents" – to first proffer options they think may satisfy both sides, and the "supporters" to say what they think of them and how they might be further improved, in their opinion. Of course, anyone can and should make proposals, but my point is that it may even be appropriate for the "opponent" group to be larger; after all, there was much more variation in their reasons for opposition than among the supporters for affirming it. In any case, pending whatever "closure" may come to pass for the WG roster, I don't think it can hurt to begin laying groundwork. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting Started

message: Here's my attempt to start a discussion, with a brief reflection on the poll, and what should be expected going forward.  These points seem clear to me, though I'm sure some (or perhaps all) of them will be contested.
First, the result of the poll did not indicate a current consensus to merge the core policy documents and guidelines of V, RS, NOR into the single ATT document, using its current language.
Second, the ATT document, and the desire to demonstrate how our policies are related, were supported by a large enough number of people that we can't abandon the efforts that went into the attempted merger.  Simply put, we can't go back to the way things were.
Third, it seems it's time to abandon the claim that what we are doing is not a change to policy.  We are, in fact, editing policy pages.  I accept that "the intention of the merge" was "not to change policy."  But many objections were raised based upon concerns that policy was changing.  It's clear that the community will not accept the idea that we can merge and significantly edit policy pages (with omissions, additions, and rephrasing of key language) without changing policy and the way it's applied, at least to some degree.
I would go further and say (as I have said before) that one can't change the wording of a policy without changing the policy.
Because we can't go back to the way things were, and because our edits represent an actual (though perhaps slight) change to policy, then we must accept that a change has taken place that can't be entirely undone.  This doesn't have to be seen in a negative light.  An optimist will see it as part of an evolutionary change.  If we seek to restore any of the former language or structure of our policies, we must do so with an effort to preserve the contributions that have met with significant support.
From all this, it seems we must arrive at a set of policy documents that will integrate the work that went into ATT, and gain consensus.  To do so, we must recognize and acknowledge the ways in which we are changing policy.  We have to accept the validity of many of the complaints and objections that have arisen.  We must also address the desire to give "attribution" a place of prominence.  We must demonstrate how our core policies are interrelated through attribution, even if the whole of policy can't be effectively boiled down to a single document. zadignose 12:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree with what you say (other than to point out the poll was not worded to solicit a consensus for merger, but rather to approve the product after the fact). The more I study the issues, the more I too believe that "going back" will be quite difficult, if not impractical. However, if "going forward" is the only option, the less I like ATT/ATTFAQ as it is currently configured. Either way we go, the worst problem will be what to do with RS, something which the community has long had problems coming to consensus on. I'm dubious that the "old RS" can really be successfully restored. There does seem to be strong support for some aspects of the old RS to become policy rather than guideline, yet those elements did not really make the trip to ATT successfully and that's where a lot of the contention lies. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflections on the Poll, and a Perspective on Change 

message: Over the past few weeks, I’ve been taking a “deep dive” into the relevant policy and guideline pages – more or less as they currently exist, since they are not static documents.  In general, it’s helped to further strengthen my perception that many issues raised in the poll can be resolved by better wordsmithery; however, as I began considering what that might look like in several cases, I kept coming up against the question of “But where should it best be addressed (vice summarized)?” since where you do the rewriting affects how you approach it.  That led me to mark up a copy of WP:ATT to help me see where particular parts of ATT & ATTFAQ originated and how they were handled in this transition.  I’d like to share several observations and insights that I’ve gained by doing this.  Because it is long and covers several topics, I’m going to break it up into subsections so that responses can be placed near the relevant remarks, rather than all piled at the very end.  Please note that the “reference” versions I reviewed were “pulled” over several days roughly four weeks ago.  Askari Mark (Talk) 21:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some initial thoughts