Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll

message: I probably should have said something sooner, but is there any need to close the poll so soon?  People still seem to be adding their views, why not let this continue?  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The watchlist message said that the poll would not close for another day... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Yes, the poll should stay open until the time and date announced on the WatchList page!  --Rednblu 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (double edit conflict) It has apparently been closed and protected.    —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And re-opened, to continue until the "advertised" (not my term) closing time.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extend? 

message: Although Attribution as a combined policy as a replacement for V and NOR does seem to be shelved have not achieved a consensus for now, I think the work that went into it was still of great value.  To my eyes, ATT clarified the existing policies in a number of ways, and I hope these clarifications can brought over into the once-again-separate V and NOR pages.--Father Goose 10:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ATT is not shelved any more than V or NOR or RS are shelved. The only thing that is shelved is confident talk that any one side has a claim to consensus. WAS 4.250 11:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "shelved" is not the operative word here.  Nonetheless, we've now discovered that only slightly more than half of the community can describe itself as being "in broad support of WP:ATT".  We can hardly describe it as policy given the lack of consensus supporting it.  It is best regarded, I suggest, as a work in progress.   Bucketsofg 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A positive outcome 

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

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

message: I will try to summarize the more sophisticated opposition comments hopefully in a way more digestible to proponents of ATT:
# Synthesis. NOR operates at a different level from verifiability. When including the provision to avoid synthesis in WP:ATT, you are confusing the attribution of material with the attribution of ideas. When sources are synthesized to advance a position, each sentence may be attributable, but the conveyed idea is not. It is better to have a separate policy to work on the level of ideas and meaning. (The argument is actually more sophisticated, but this is as much of it as I understand.)
# Verifiable attribution. You have lost the notion of "verifiable attribution", the new formulation not only doesn't contain the sentence that "any user should be able to check..." but the distinction between "attributed" and "attributable" gives further arsenal to people who want to avoid being challenged, as they can now claim a statement is attributable, but refuse to attribute it. 
# Truth. You have lost the connotations of accuracy. Verifiable has very much to do with truth, and the ambiguity of the phrase "verifiability, not truth" was useful. The less subtle "not whether it is true" would allow the inclusion of outright nonsense as long as it has been published by a reliable source. While WP:V currently says verifiability "means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source", this is not the original intention/spirit of WP:V. Verifiable information is better understood as material that has been verified as true by experts in the relevant field (using their operational definition of truth.)
# Backwards. The goal of Wikipedia is not to attribute each statement to a reliable source, but to guarantee quality of the information, and WP:ATT has got the process backwards. A content policy, such as WP:NPOV, should be goal-oriented and state the ideal, not focus on the process/mechanics we use to reach the goal.
I have said enough in response to each, so I'll leave it for others to think about these objections. --Merzul 02:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of those unwashed millions who came and voted because of the invitation on my watchlist, I have to say that points 2, 3 and 4 of Merzul's summary capture my thoughts on the problems with ATT and why I voted against the merger after having read all of the relevant pages and articles. Disagreeing with these opposition points and debating or denying that the points are valid is not the way to reach consensus, and seems to indicate an unwillingness to discuss the issues to reach that consensus. I therefore appreciate Askari Mark's summary and direction below as a way forward. But I am having brain fatigue with the higher concepts right now. --Tinned Elk 00:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Policy should serve merely to simplify conflicts among editors, is that not right?  So how could the policy pages be worded to simplify the conflicts among the various views of quality expressed in the Attribution poll?   --Rednblu 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  um, see, I don't find that very helpful to be told that everything [[User:Merzul|Merzul], and apparently I, said was "really, really, wrong" because the policies don't "do" anything and it is the ability of the editor to add "what I know" and someone else to come along and delete it (or add to it) that guarantees the quality of WP. If "what you know," Slrubenstein, is not attributable, how is that different from your original research? That is just wrong. Oh, well, you did not appear to read or understand what Merzul said and maybe I am not reading or understanding what you said. Thanks Rednblu for trying to move this forward without telling me I am wrong. --Tinned Elk 20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More serious opposition criticism 

message: Since there seems to be a question of where to go from here, please let me clarify a few things.  First, I don’t believe the differing numbers of “points” between pro and con is noteworthy.  Those in support basically fit into two general categories: 
*Those who worked extensively on ATT and have an intimate insight and understanding of what that article is supposed to mean, and
*Those who see the consolidation of fundamentally interrelated policies into one (not two or three or more) documents as simplification and clarification, which is a good thing.
Accordingly, one would expect fewer points to be made by the supporting group.  The opposing commentators mostly (but not entirely) have no intimacy with the back-and-forth negotiations and compromises that underlie the composing editors’ work, only the work as it currently reads – and those who did participate often appear to feel that their perspectives were ignored or rejected without a fair hearing.  As a result, the opposition have an array of specific and usually more nuanced objections – which, since they are often interrelated, made it harder for me to capture in fewer points.
In short, the relative quantities of “points” is just a construct of the polling and distillation processes (which may have resulted in a clearer product had it been a better-developed poll).  Merzul has made a praiseworthy attempt above to further distill this motley collection of critical issues into something closer a the “brass tacks” version.
While I have no doubt that JulesH’s point-by-point responses to each of the opposing positions was well-intentioned, I’m afraid it’s also not helpful.  Please keep in mind that the points I have listed are a silly-puttied pastiche of similar viewpoints, not a coherent argument, so one would really have to go back to the specific editors’ comments to debate their particular rationales.  Frankly, a “rebuttal” approach just leads to more “I’m-right-you’re-wrong” head-banging that raises blood pressures, but ultimately resolves nothing.
I think we need to turn this approach on its head.  Obviously, the proponents believe they have addressed the concerns of the critics – yet the critics disagree.  What this suggests to me is that the draft ATT doesn’t address the latter’s concerns quite as well as the former believe it does.  This could be due to a variety of basic problems: 
*In some key areas, selected words and certain expressions employed lack the clarity the drafters believe they hold.
*The drafting editors’ “understanding” of what they intended to convey has both explicit and implicit elements, and they do not realize that some of their implicit understandings have not been fully expressed in the explicit text.
*The art of producing the extant text may have overlooked, understated or inadvertently trivialized certain nuances due to an inadequate breadth of perspectives.
I believe the next step needs to be to take each point individually and have both sides engage in clarifying the issue so that both sides achieve a clearer mutual understanding.  The process should produce better explanations.  It certainly is necessary to assure that ATT can adequately and successfully handle the merger of purposes being assigned it – and it may prove that it can’t handle it all.
However, from what I’ve read, I perceive that a more acceptable result can be achieved.  It might be in a merged form that successfully satisfies the concerns expressed over preserving the distinctiveness of each policy/guideline.  It might be in the form of ATT being an explanation of how the separate policies/guidelines interplay in practice, with the actual policies/guidelines remaining separate, but explained (and maintained) in much improved form.  Most of the issues raised I suspect can be resolved inasmuch as they focus more on weaknesses in ATT as it currently exists, not that it is impossible – and it may be that working on those existing issues will change the thinking of those who believe it is impossible.  I think that to start, the fundamental issues that need to be addressed and resolved are as follows:
*RS appears to be the most problematic area.  More editors on both sides insist it needs considerable work than praise it in its current form.  The key issue expressed by the critics was that they wanted RS strengthened – not “weakened” as they see the current version of ATT doing.  This appears to be true for both those who would like to see RS elevated to “policy” and those who feel it should best remain a “guideline”.  There is a “minimum requirement” of being able to clearly elucidate the (high) standards errant editors need to hold themselves up to.
*Greater clarification of what elements make the separate policies/guidelines uniquely distinct needs to be provided by the critics – to the point that the supporters at least understand and appreciate their viewpoints – so that the latter can attempt to demonstrate how they can satisfy them.
*Better handling of the word “truth” needs to be effected.  While I believe all would agree that “Absolute Truth” is unachievable in principle wherever subjectivity is necessarily involved, there is a sense of “truth in terms of accuracy and authoritativeness” that is.  (Else why bother having an encyclopedia?)  Any expression that conveys a sense of simple attribution trumping “accurate truth” is a non-starter; this is especially true when “verifiability” seems to have ended up on the cutting-room floor.  The pursuit of such lower-case “truth” is a fundamental objective of Wikipedia and what I believe most editors would like ATT to strengthen and protect – something the current version is not perceived to do.
*Deconflicting WP:SYN.  It clearly constitutes a new policy element in ATT and is inextricably intertwined with NOR – and if NOR should remain separate, SYN becomes stretched between ATT and NOR (and thereby possibly requiring its own separateness as a policy or guideline).
Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next steps 

message: Typo fix for Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header the talk page of which redirects here (and wording change, because "[the] wrong section" is judgemental):
:Old: "placed their comments in wrong section"
:New: "placed their comments in an unintended section" (note the indef. article addition as well as NPOV wording)
PS: Why on earth is this subpage full-protected?  Stop WP:PANICking.  This is a Wiki, not your personal blog, or the U.N., or the New York Times; just deal with it.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected. —Centrx→talk • 04:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header, which is transcluded into Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll, appears to still be protected.  Restoring .  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Appears to have been done. Harryboyles 12:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo fix

message: The WikiEn-L list archives (along with others) are being moved apparently; dunno how long the old URL will work.
*OLD: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/065985.html
*NEW: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-March/065985.html
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: updated link. CMummert · talk 13:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mailing list archive link