Jump to content

Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This list of suggestion questions is not complete.

Note

[edit]

This is not a poll; these are some of the questions considered in the making of Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. All of them are questions somebody wanted to know the answer to; many of them were objected to as biased by somebody else. If they inspire your comments on the poll/discussion, they have at least served some purpose.

Do you support replacing Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research with a single policy?

[edit]

If there is a merge, are Wikipedia:Attribution (and its FAQ proposed as a guideline) adequate replacements of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and perhaps Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

[edit]

Yes, it is good enough.

[edit]

No, it requires significant changes.

[edit]

If these policies aren't replaced, should Wikipedia:Attribution be kept as official policy:

[edit]

Yes, it should be kept as official policy together with the current ones.

[edit]

Yes, it should be kept as official policy, and the others should be explanations of it.

[edit]

No, it should be made historical.

[edit]

No, but it could serve as a summary of current policies.

[edit]

Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution?

[edit]

[i.e., Do you believe it can be useful in some form?]

If the pages are merged should they include:

[edit]

[Vote in the appropriate section, "yes" or "no".

Do you support the merger behind Wikipedia:Attribution?

[edit]

Which of the following do you support?

[edit]

[You can vote any of the options, or vote 1st option, 2nd option and so forth]

In the alternatives given below, the original pages means: those policy or guideline pages that, in accordance with consensus established in response to question 2, should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution. WP:ATT is not everywhere verbally identical with its sources. Its supporters assert it makes no changes in policy, but is better phrased.


A. The original pages become inactive. Wikipedia:Attribution serves as a unified policy on their subjects.

[edit]

B. Wikipedia:Attribution remains as the definitive policy, but the original pages remain active to describe the concepts in greater detail.

[edit]

C. The original pages serve as the definitive policies (or guideline in the case of WP:RS), but Wikipedia:Attribution remains active as a condensed summary.

[edit]

D. Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive. (Parts of it that reflect consensus are integrated into the original pages.)

[edit]

Wikipedia:Attribution proposes that the current Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policy with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline be merged into a single policy page. Do you:

[edit]

[You can vote any of the options, or vote 1st option, 2nd option and so forth]

A. Support the merger of the three pages in the current form

[edit]

B. Support some form of a merger, but not the current proposal

[edit]

C. Support maintaining the current pages in their current form

[edit]

D. Have some other opinion (just vote here, opine in the comments section)

[edit]


How do you think "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" should be clarified or rewritten

[edit]

The issue is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true as we cannot decide the truth in any field

[edit]

The aim is to increase accuracy and reliability, and the provision of reliable sources enables fact checking

[edit]

Neither/both

[edit]