Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive1

message: I object to putting all of the "keep the merger" options first.  Since the entire point of this poll is that the merger has been challenged by WikiMedia personnel, I think the order should be reversed. Instead of the struck-out idea they should be sorted by relevance.  Current alleged status quo first, and the immediately preceding status second.  WPians are smart enough that they don't need all of the merge options bunched together and all of the don't-merge options together before or after the merge options. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And put the "I dunno" options at the end. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the poll is structured backwards.  Some version of "should ATT even exist" should come first in the poll, followed by what should be included *if* it exists.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection to poll ordering

message: Re: "compromise reached by Jimbo and SlimVirgin" —  Since when does one random admin have more authority, weight or importance than everyone else? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest replacing "SlimVirgin" with "merger proponents". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She doesn't carry more weight than anyone else. She just happened to be the person who Jimbo tried to work out a temporary solution with. Maybe I'd be listed there if I had managed to work out a temporary solution first. (Instead, I took to badgering him about various things, including the creation of this poll. ;D) Picaroon 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe true but does not resolve the objection.  The level of control that that editor in particular has been trying to assert over the text is disturbing enough without the poll implying that that this is some kind of vote to go with Jimbo's ideas vs. SV's.  The discussion is quite broader than that.  I haven't yet made the suggested edit myself because I thought it deserved some further discussion, but I'm not very far off from making it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What can I say? SlimVirgin was a proponent of the merger and has been involved for some time now. However, I don't suspect anyone will mind if you remove the mention of her. Picaroon 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I think it just puts the wrong spin on things, and could lead to :WP:OWN bickering later on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that SV has reverted this change to keep her/his/its name in position as it was.  I don't think I need to comment further. I'm going to re-revert it because the user in question has a long history of not explaining edits and reverts and failing to address questions about edits/reverts, whether they appear in edit summaries, article talk pages, or user's own talk page.  Come out, come out, where ever you are.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SMcCandlish, please don't use this as an opportunity to cause trouble. There is simply no trouble to cause. Jimbo and I came up with a compromise position, which actually works pretty well, because there was never any intention to deprecate V and NOR; I was heavily involved in writing and maintaining those pages so I'd be one of the last people to want to see them forgotten. Please try to move forward in a constructive way. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written I think 5 responses to this in various tones, and just can't seem to get it where it will sound right.  I'll just have to summarize. And I won't even wikilink to any guideline and policy pages.  Just because you don't agree with my stance on the issue and aren't happy that I'm criticising what I see as patterns of behavior on your part does not mean that I am here to "cause trouble" or am in fact "causing trouble", nor that I am being anti-constructive, or deconstructive, or unconstructive, or destructive, or whatever you envisioned the opposite of "constructive" to be in the context in which you used that word.  I didn't come here to fight with you.  I did happen to notice very rapidly when I did come here that you are personally exerting an enormous amount of influence over this alleged policy and its better-accepted predecessors, and I object to that level of influence.  If you'd care to address that, I'd be happy to continue the conversation.  If you just care to charaterize me as a "trouble"-"causing" non-"constructive" pee-on, then we should probably take that to user pages to the extent it should be discussed further at all.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: SMcCandlish, this tone is completely unacceptable. Slim has worked very hard on this policy, and worked out the compromise with Jimbo. I don't understand why you want to remove her name, but I oppose your doing so strongly. You must be aware that it will upset her, and I just don't understand why it's so important to you to do that. I know that policy discussions can get heated, and the policies concerned here have from time to time resembled battlefields, but it's not necessary. Deep breath, calm yourself, move on in a constructive fashion. Grace Note 08:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding the note below, I see in retrospect how the "come out where ever you are" commentary may have sounded nasty. It was really meant to be silly, but, alas, what seems funny/goofy/harmless when written can seem otherwise when read by third parties.  D'oh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I follow you.  I'm transgressing AGF because I (and I'm not alone in this) am raising issues about over-control and lack of trasparency in this policy merge, meanwhile I get blatantly attacked as a "trouble maker" and un/not/anti-/something/de-"constructive"?  I'm not implying any bad faith of SV's part.  I objected (something like 2/3 of a day ago) against making the upcoming straw poll be about "SlimVirgin vs. Jimbo"; that's all.  I got reverted in a manner that (habitually, in my view, though that is not the topic here) provided no justification for the revert, so I undid it, and explained the rationale for doing so.  The AGF accusation here seems unwarranted and defensive.  Not to mention completely missed the point.  Instead of actually getting an explanation this time, I instead get told I'm an AGF transgressor.  Am I expected to suddenly stop questioning anything or having an opinion at all from now on?  Why is SV's cow so sacred? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what you mean at all. There is no Jimbo v. SlimVirgin. Quite the opposite: we came up with the most recent position together. But it's really best to forget the personalities and focus on the issues, and I'll hope you'll do that. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gahhh...  That was the entire point of my edit.  Remove the personalities and just make it be about the issues.  Before I got jumped on, my  next edit was going to be removal of Jimbo's name.  (See the edit summary of that page today if you don't believe me.  EVERYthing I've done with that page has been stepwise and in series.  I just happened to have to go to a pool league match tonight, so I didn't get home until several hours later, only to find I'm being accused of AGF and maybe NPA violations.  Great.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: Just to be clear, if I get re-reverted on this, I won' t fight it. I'm just aiming for neutralty and balance here (see my edits to the poll page today).  If no one but me sees a neutrality and balance problem with the wording I'm grumbling about then I am probably mis-grumbling, and will shut up about it.  I'm tenacious, but I'm not stupid.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PPS: I went to do a self-revert on this with edit-summary of "Self-revert; while I don't agree with prefered text, majority if not full consensus seems to be for it", but got edit-conflicted as someone beat me to it.  Anyway, "just for the record", I'm trying to play nicer here than I think I'm being credited for. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've handled yourself fine here. You've gone to great lengths to explain yourself in a reasonable and convincing manner, and that is good in my book. Don't agonise too much over this. Flare-ups happen. Carcharoth 14:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I've slept on it and decided it's a tempest in a teacup.  I was being a bit more sensitive than usual after some disputation, on the same day, over at WP:MOSNUM.  Today is a new day, and I feel better already! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection to aggrandizing wording in poll

message: Just for the record, I removed a bunch of subtle (and surely unintentional) bias from the voting categories.  I won't be watching this every minute of every day, so others please be alert for any additional skewing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to chill out a bit and remind yourself that everyone involved is trying to do their best for Wikipedia, even if they seem misguided to you. Grace Note 08:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to note that that wasn't a very graceful comment. ;-)   I went out of my way to specifically imply that the bias was not intentional.  I think we may be having a simple culture clash.  There is nothing malevolent at all about pointing out bias in a survey; it's just part of making the survey more sound (in social science terms; in hard science terms they are all meaningless nonsense of course).  Anyway, while I do have my irritable disagreements to air, this isn't one of them.  Please do not overgeralize discomfiture with one or two or seventeen things I've said to blanket opposition to everthing I say.  PS: I don't think anyone here is misguided. The full extent of my complaint is over-control by a limited number of parties, which is self-resolveable with more WPian involvement. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: We have three fundamental, distinct, but related doctrines, or content policies: verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. The question is, do we need three pages (one for each doctrine), two (one page might cover two of them), one (consolidate the lot on one page called "fundamental content policies") or four (one for each plus a summary of the lot and explanation of how they interrelate, called "summary of fundamental content policies"). There is no doctrine of "attribution". Attributing is a practice that is often (but not always) helpful for avoiding breaches of the three doctrines. The options should reflect the possibilities of how many pages we might need. Metamagician3000 08:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your summary.  We have two "doctrines," attribution and NPOV.  If one violates attribution, this may be either because the work is original research or it may simply have the undesirable consequence that it becomes unverifiable (i.e., impossible to distinguish from original research). JulesH 08:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This implies that "no original research" and "verifiability" are the same thing, but they are not and never were. Even the existing attribution change does not claim they are (or I hope it doesn't - it talks about various key principles). This is the kind of confusion that happens when you try to merge what are really distinct ideas into one policy page. Metamagician3000 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not an implication at all.  There is a requirement that content in wikipedia be based on the content of reliable sources; if you ignore this requirement by making up information then it's original research, if you ignore it by failing to list the sources you're using then it's a verifiability problem.  They're two different possible outcomes of failing to follow the same general rule. JulesH 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Attribution is not a "doctrine", "policy" or anything else.  It is an idea (heading towards "if it is not attributed then delete it") which a small group of editors have developed and are trying to make policy but for good reasons have not achieved anything approaching consensus. --Henrygb 11:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a policy; it says so at the top of the page, and almost everyone -- including Jimbo, despite the fact he doesn't like how the policy was implemented -- seem to agree that it is now policy. JulesH 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the rest of Wikipedia, just because it says so doesn't make it accurate; it is not a policy because there was never a consensus and that is why we are having a debate about its status. --Henrygb 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, in looking at the various pages Carcharoth links... I note that neither ATT, V, nor NOR has been listed at Wikipedia:List of policies.  No wonder people don't understand them.  We really do need to advertise this policy/these policies no matter which way we end up going. Blueboar 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite, and the point isn't to quibble about whether something is else is also important. The point is that all three of these are and that they can't be reduced to each other. Metamagician3000 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Options

message: I am a bit concerned there isn't an option which clearly equates to "put things back how things were a while ago before people started trying to do better". --BozMo talk 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I've missed something, I think that is precisely what "No merger, WP:A tagged as historical" means.  If it doesn't then it needs editing, because I'm absolutely certain this is what it was intended to mean. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old status quo 

message: How on earth is this going to help deciding anything? We've had lengthy and many discussions about ATT. And we've had Jimbo saying that those three pages should not be merged. To both points, a poll is irrelevant. >Radiant< 09:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree massively with first two sentences.  As to the third, JW recommended the poll after the fact, so I'm not sure I see a way around that one. As to fourth sentence, I also concur, but I think the horse is already out of the gate, so the question is about to become forensic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could MfD the poll page, but that would be silly. Carcharoth 14:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A poll is a good way to begin a consensus-building process (or can happen in the middle of the process, too).  It helps identify what the disagreements are and which people disagree with what.  Then people can discuss things with those identified as disagreeing with them, with the goal of eventually compromising or finding a solution that satisfies all sides.  What are other ways of carrying out a consensus-building process?  --Coppertwig 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. But that is not what Jimbo asked. He asked for a vigorous and wide debate first, followed by a poll, followed by a decision. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object to the poll period 

message: Radiant does have a point... the more options you present, the more difficult it becomes to determine which option has consensus.  So perhaps what we need to do is structure the questions a bit better ...  I would suggest the following: Blueboar 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposed structure confuses shortcuts and policy pages. To everybody: from now on, please do not use shortcuts to refer to the actual policy pages, as the shortcuts are an issue in their own right. Picaroon 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Structure 

message: Well, time for the next header. Anyways, is this option necessary? RS has been a guideline for a while, I believe, and I don't think anyone, throughout this whole discussion, has floated scrapping it entirely. Did I miss this proposal? Unless it happened, we don't have any reason to believe RS is going to be devaluated completely. And if we have no reason to believe that, then it's just clutter. Other thoughts? Picaroon 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Moved the question about RS to the "Yes" section, as it belongs there rather than on its own. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good point - it hinges on a yes vote, so it should be a subheading. What do you think about the additional comments section? There are already several talkpages this discussion is spread out over, so I don't think we need that section, either - as I've said several times, even more discussion fragmenting isn't desirable. Picaroon 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrap Wikipedia:Reliable sources entirely? When was this proposed? 

message: What if my opinion is "ATT needs more work, but when it's done, V and NOR should be redirected"? >Radiant< 07:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still doesn't work 

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

message: I realize that RS was only a guideline while V and NOR were policies... but it is part of the equation here.  It should be included. Blueboar 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was already covered at a topic above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where?  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do you keep dropping RS?