Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2

Approval poll?

It is usual in complex decisions to have an approval poll. For example, I can see approving "retain WP:V and WP:NOR as historic" and "finish work on WP:ATT and redirect the other two when done" Thia has the advantage that we don't need to spend so much time on wording; anybody who disagrees with all the options can just add one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The disadvantage is that the divergence makes it next to impossible to determine (let alone agree upon) which options(s) have consensus. >Radiant< 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The solution has usually been to compile a count of all those !voting at all; usually compiled afterwards, but we could request that anyone !voting sign an overall list. If 80%, say, of those who have expressed any opinion approve "historic" or "redirect" then that's the consensus; if 80% approve both, it doesn't much matter which we do, but we can have a runoff if either of the 20% minorities feel strongly. (As I write, we have one Yes/No question, and one "If Yes, then..." question, so this is less of a problem.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And it's just gotten worse with forking of the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion, the justification for which is entirely unclear to me. 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions

I think these are more elegant, both versus the version of earlier today and my first clumsy change. Should we ask the first alone, wait to see if there is a Yes consensus, and then ask the second? Marskell 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with asking multiple questions at the same time... but I do like having them as separate questions. Your current version works for me. Blueboar 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Respond only if you voted YES" is problematic. People who vote NO to first are still entitled to an opinion on what will happen if they're voted down... I think we should space out the questioning. Marskell 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I said "this question is only relevant if the answer to the first is YES." By the way, people who agree with the merge in principle, but not the present wording of ATT, are going to vote no on #1. >Radiant< 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I do realize that; I suggested from my initial post that this may bias the answer to first and thus that the questions should be spaced 2. Not if we offer a proper instruction in that regard. Marskell 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But that would be fine. ATT is in its current stage a completed work (with the caveat that all policies need some tweaking). So those that believe that ATT as it stands is a no go, should vote No. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked Question 2 to make this clear; do we want to say "the merger implemented" in Question 1? Some people dispute the question of fact whether the merger has been implemented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as ATT has a policy tag on it now, I think it fine to say "merger implemented." Or at least I don't think anyone will be confused as to what they're voting on. In fact, I think Q1 is so simple and obvious we should go with it as soon as possible and leave Q2 pending results. Marskell 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if the change is reverted (others may); but I think we should go with both questions, in order to provoke discussion as to the next step if Q1 fails. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Continue to exist

I have tweaked this. I presume that, even if there is consensus against WP:ATT continuing to be policy, the page will continue to exist with a {{rejected}} tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A Yes/No vote cannot have caveats for those that voted Yes, or for those that voted No. We cannot ask for a Yes or a No, and then if you voted No, and the consensus was Yes, to minimize that consensus by placing caveats upon the consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this poll premature?

I have been re-reading Jimbo;'s comments in the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, and it is becoming obvious to me that this poll is not the next step in the process. What Jimbo asked:

1. A vigourous debate on the issues at hand
2. A poll to assess the level of support
3. A closing process and final determination (TBD)

The poll is the second step in the process he asked for, and not the next. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A straw poll may be in order anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that is the case, Pmanderson. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And isn't the five months of editing on ATT a large part of step 1? Marskell 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Jimbo, no. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And he's right; a wide, and widely publicized, debate on the result, is called for. Some editors missed the whole five months; most editors missed part of it. (We should, if possible, avoid retroactive complaints avout process; some of them are difficult to act on without a time machine.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? We post to the Village Pump and anywhere else we can think of? This has already been done. And the poll itself ought to initiate vigorous debate anyhow. Marskell 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's comments yesterday in the mailing list:

"A major policy restructuring took place in a way that a huge number of very active and high quality editors were not consulted."""

"A broad community discussion to shed light on the very good work done by a group of people laboring away on WP:ATT and related pages, and then a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results.' "

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is unavoidable... Not sure ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We could open a page at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion, advertise the page everywere we can think of, ask all these that were not consulted to comment, and then in 10-15 days open the poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm of two minds. For the last month WT:ATT has been hit by like five threads a day. It has been talked about. I don't know how much more useful information is going to be derived by (re-)posting to various locations. At the same time, we need to show due diligence to Jimbo. One thing we should not do is have this talk become another swamp—perhaps your Community discussion page is a better place to go. Marskell 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a discussion page is a great ides. Several main threads:

• Do we want a merger at all?
• Is the present text of WP:ATT such a merger? does it represent present policy and practice?
• Should present policy/practice be changed? (primarily a place for postponing such discussion; but if there is consensus for change, fair enough.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, Pmanderson. Be bold and start the page. I need to go now, and will come back later today. Advertise it in all talk pages of policies, the Village Pump and the Community noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done a draft. Others will have to go over it, and advertise it; I need to go myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Marksell, several editors in the mailing list have complained loudly that they did not know about ATT, despite all the activity that it generated. So, we need to afford them the possibility to engage in a discussion in which they can be afforded the possibility to understand the rationale behind the merger and comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly fair enough. Marskell 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking, Jossi. I like this idea. I think the merger will get more votes in favour after a thorough (energetically advertised) discussion than at present when people might just vote against it out of reactance. qp10qp 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So much for short and sweet

I guess I give up too. Marskell 22:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We've still got Q1 as short and sweet... Maybe... Marskell 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way, Marskell: we are wagging the dog with the tail. First, we need the "wide community debate" as per Jimbo's and only then, a poll. But it seems that we are more gang-ho to get the poll designed before the discussion. Let's change that and focus on promoting the debate. Shall we? Giving some attention to the discussion page at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion, would be best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. The wide community debate will be good. I suggest a pop culture exception be suggested off the top. More seriously, I'm just not getting it here—usually when you're a minority of one, you can deduce why you're wrong, but I can't. Given that Qs 2, 3, 4 depend on Q1, why don't we just ask Q1? It will be the community debate. It can be left up for a week, a month. Ask: "Do you agree with the merge?" and debate it. Marskell 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple is best. I would keep just the 1st question and everything else moved to the debate page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude! Yes. Marskell 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The simple first question to ask is "Should WP:V be merged with WP:NOR?" If we don't have consensus for that, we don't have consensus to do anything. If we do have consensus for that, the argument over whether the present WP:ATT is that merger is secondary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is oversimplifying the matter. (Also see m:Voting is evil#Polling_encourages_false_dichotomy.) If someone supports merging some policies/guidelines but not all of them, is that a yes or a no? There should be more options to avoid polarising the issue too much. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, someone might want all three to remain active, but only some to be considered official/canonical. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Canonical

Wow, there's already a talk page here.

I am concerned that canonical might not be a word everyone is familiar with, especially non-native speakers of English. I know we are not the Simple English Wikipedia, but is there a reason another word, like "primary policy", cannot be used?

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But please, note that we have been working all day so far in getting this poll worded accurately. Please discuss major changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We can link to canonical, if necessary; "primary policy" is not quite the same thing. Is it what we mean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "ruling policy"? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I started a suggestion on this topic lower down at canonical vs definitive. Signed Jeepday 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wording of first question

I changed the first question to be more practical and specific and less abstract and metaphysical: from

• "Do you agree in principle with the merger intended at Wikipedia:Attribution?" to
• "Do you agree with replacing some other policies with Wikipedia:Attribution?"

If the first version were to be used, the wording of the second question would have to be changed to refer properly to the result of the first question. --Coppertwig 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We are thinking of keeping just question 1, and the rest to be moved to the debate page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the current version of the question:

• "Should WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR be merged?"

It's short and to the point. (I think user Marskell put in this version of the question.) However, if there is consensus for "yes" for this, it is not to be interpreted as consensus that Wikipedia:Attribution is the merged version of those policies. A further process would have to establish how to carry out the merger. --Coppertwig 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And how do the people who want V and NOR merged, but RS kept separate, answer that question? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe that question is too simple. However, I object to the wording "agree in principle" and the wording "intended" -- intended by whom? What is actually intended? Much too vague. I'm waiting for user Jossi to explain the reason for the revert to this vague wording. This wording is now in the third question. Better than having it in the first question, but I still object. --Coppertwig 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coppertwig with respect to the vague wording. Different people might have very different interpretations of what it means. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How about: "Is WP:ATT (acceptable as) that merger?" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me (not as the first question, of course). --Coppertwig 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I regret to see that "Do you agree in principle with the merger intended at Wikipedia:Attribution?" keeps re-emerging. It is undefended here, and I agree that it is undesirably vague. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not enough options

Some of the options currently seem rather polarising. It is possible that some editors will want some pages to stay merged, but not all three.

There is also the question of what to do if there is not consensus for WP:ATT. I am not sure what options everyone would like to see there, but I think "remain active with primary policy at WP:V and WP:NOR" should be on the list.

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And now there are even less options.  : ( Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See m:Voting is evil#Polling_encourages_false_dichotomy. The question of whether or not the policies and guidelines should be merged really shouldn't be simplified to a yes/no. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No poll

There is no need or benefit to a poll on ATT. It is already policy. Keep it and V and NOR frozen and let people refer to these as they wish and discuss them as they wish while they are frozen. Let consensus emerge naturally through use and talk. WAS 4.250 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Either as a new question; Is ATT policy? or the second question: ATT is policy, and therefore is the merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe ATT has consensus; but if it doesn't, it isn't policy, no matter how many policy tags it bears. Either way, I see no harm in asking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of yet another page to discuss this stuff. Have proposed merging Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Attribution for simple sanity. The discussion has already forked way too much. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please use informative edit summaries. If your edit is a revert, please begin it with the word "revert" or an abbreviation of it. If you edit involves only a few words, please quote the words in your edit summary. Make your edit summaries as informative as possible about what kind of edit you're doing. Thanks. --Coppertwig 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to a number of users who are using more informative edit summaries. It's worth taking the time to do; it really helps when trying to sift through the page history. However, just now I did a revert and intended to begin it with the word "revert" but I think my edit summary was too long and the first part of it got cut off or something, so I wasn't taking my own advice.  :-) --Coppertwig 23:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re "Dummy edits": Please carry on discussion on the talk page; please do not clutter the edit history with "dummy edits" in order to carry on discussion in the page history. --Coppertwig 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was concerned that some people might not have read certain relevant parts of the talk page, and I hoped the dummy edits would attract them to those sections. I believe m:Help:Dummy edit approves of that use. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It does seem like a way of "almost" reverting without actually doing so. Can't say I object to it, esp. if meta sanctions it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sort of, I guess. All of the disapproval with none of the revert warring. Although, I did technically revert war with myself over the inclusion of an extra blank line that made absolutely no difference in the appearance of the page.  ; ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, whatever meta says about dummy edits.

When commenting on this talk page, please quote the words of the questions you're referring to, rather than saying "I like (or don't like) the current version of question 2" -- later on, no one will know what version of the question you were referring to without time-consuming digging through page history. Sorry if I didn't do this earlier -- I'll try to from now on. --Coppertwig 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've been trying to provide permanent links to the page history, although it is possible I've slipped up on occasion. I'll try to pay more attention.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Do you agree in principle with the merger intended at Wikipedia:Attribution?"

Yes. Marskell 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong question to start with. There are too many different answers: "I agree with some merger, but not with this one"; "I agree with merging Verifiability and OR, but I do/don't want RS in the mix." and several others, including mikka's "This was done wrong, and the wording is flawed." I expect it to fail, and to leave no clear indcation of how consensus can be achieved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's all in the instructions. Again, you either do or do not agree with the merge in principle. We can say "Vote yes, if you agree to a merge of two of the three, and note which two", for instance. Marskell 23:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, Aye. Let's put the focus on the community discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion, and then come back here in a week or so to fine tune it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming back in eight or so hours. I will say that, despite some reverting, we've got precise questions on the table compared to 24 hrs ago. Marskell 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The current questions are not what this poll is about. The poll is about gauging consensus for an existing merged page called ATT. No more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And if that support fails to be consensus, then what do we do? What's plan B? At lease if we have consensus to merge, and not for ATT, we know we have to rewrite the merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The answers to that question could be much more complex than simple yes/no. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yikes

This is getting really complicated. I was thinking on a simple 3 options approach,

• Would you prefer that:
  • (a) WP:N & WP:OR were policies, but not WP:A,
  • (b) WP:V, WP:OR and WP:V all have policy status,
  • (c) WP:A is a policy, but not WP:V & WP:OR.

Addhoc 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider your redirects; my guess is you meant to say:

• Would you prefer that:
  • (a) WP:V & WP:NOR are policies, but not WP:A,
  • (b) WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:A all have policy status,
  • (c) WP:A is a policy, but not WP:V & WP:NOR.

--Audiovideo 15:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks Audiovideo! Addhoc 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Senseless

Question 1 now makes no sense whatsoever. What was the logic behind it? Marskell 08:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? How does it fail to make sense? —David Levy 08:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In mixes the outcomes with the principle, which we spent so much time separating yesterday. "Q. What is your opinion of the upcoming election? A: The conservatives should raise taxes if elected." See what I mean? And we do not need "Other (please elaborate)". The shooting gallery should be moved out of the questions entirely. Marskell 08:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy; WP:ATT already exists. We need to determine what should become of it, and that isn't as simple as asking a "yes" or "no" question (which oversimplifies the issue).

To ask people whether or not they support the merger is to present an all-or-nothing proposition. (Either replace the old pages with the new one or keep the old pages and reject the new one.) In fact, there are viable options in between, and it's important that they be conveyed to the community. Otherwise, people will be forced to adopt extreme positions contrary to the moderate positions that they actually hold. —David Levy 08:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But David, if you ask both whether people agree with the principle of the merge and what should become of the pages if they agree or disagree, you won't generate useful consensus. At best, this question is going to give us a dissatisfying plurality outcome. Marskell 08:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're attempting to oversimplify a complicated issue. We might not reach a clear consensus in one go, but that's vastly preferable to reaching a false consensus. —David Levy 08:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I for one would find it much more "dissatisfying" to end up with an honest plurality outcome that indicates the need for further consensus building, than a bogus but less messy result that doesn't actually reflect true consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Read up: I suggested we begin with the simple question, and move to possible outcomes if there is a Yes consensus. It won't be a false consensus in the slightest—it will be a clear one, which is exactly what we need. Marskell 11:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Marskell has been making this good argument since about day one here AND that its a good idea. How does the saying go; "every journey begins with single step"? Jeepday 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point. What we have right now are several options. To ask whether or not people agree with the merger in principle is to artificially limit them to the two extreme options (instead of permitting them to advocate compromise). Given the current wording, I'll have to vote "no" (despite the fact that I support WP:ATT's existence). If others act in kind, this could lead to a false consensus.

Here's what I want to ask:

Which of the potential outcomes (including two degrees of compromise) would be best?

Here's what you're asking:

Do you agree with a specific, extreme outcome (yes or no)?

By the time that we get to question two, people concerned that WP:ATT will completely replace the original pages may already have voted it down. Given the fact that both extreme outcomes represented in question 1a as "yes" and "no" are included as choices in question 2 (along with two compromises, both of which have been noted by Jimbo as feasible possibilities), I see absolutely no benefit to asking the needlessly constrictive question 1a at all. —David Levy 13:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What about this as a single question:

• Wikipedia:Attribution is an intended merger of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS. What is your opinion?
• Yes to merging all.
• No, merge none.
• Two of three (briefly describe) Marskell 08:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See above. As far as I'm concerned, we could drop question 2 entirely. —David Levy 08:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that discussion seems to have moved to the Community discussion page, perhaps we're twiddling our thumbs here at the moment. Marskell 08:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no longer a rush. But now there's a chance to take time and prepare the right question (s). qp10qp 13:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening?

When is the poll going to open? I recently voted because there was no date and I was linked from the Community Portal. I see no date anywhere, so I'm a little confused as to how this is going to run. Someone should state when the poll will open. (And, interestingly, keeping a poll only open in a certain time is more of a democracy than allowing people to vote when they want to. Chances are that I won't vote on this because I'm too busy.) _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  11:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"with the merger(s) intended"

Should this be "consolidation intended" given that some have argued for ATT as a supplement, with the three originals remaining live? Or perhaps we should just ask "Do you agree in principle with Wikipedia:Attribution." Thus, whatever your feelings about how all the pages should settle, you can still vote yes. Marskell 12:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's looking good, Marskell. Has anyone actually argued for ATT as a supplement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was Jimbo's original response (before his consultation with you). It's my preference and Jared's. —David Levy 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What would be the point of having it as a supplement, David? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Supplement" isn't the best word. It would be a condensed summary. —David Levy 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I can't see where Jimbo said that was his preference at any point, and he didn't mention it when we spoke. Do you have a diff? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I'm not aware of Jimbo expressing any long-term preference, but his initial response was to restore the old pages' policy/guideline status while leaving Wikipedia:Attribution active (but removing claims that it had superseded the other pages). After your consultation, he announced that for the time being, "WP:ATT is canonical, and WP:V and WP:NOR exist as separate pages to more fully describe those." (This is the other compromise listed in the poll, and I would be fine with that too.) —David Levy 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you prefer to emphasise the God-King's uninformed behavior rather than his informed behavior after he had time to gather data and reflect? WAS 4.250 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcastic characterization of Jimbo aside, I'm not implying that either decision should be held sacrosanct. I'm merely noting that both arose as potential compromises. Again, I'd be fine with either. —David Levy 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

David, he didn't, even at the very start, say he preferred ATT as a supplement. That would be senseless. I think we should remove that option, because clearly if NOR and V were restored as the main policies, there would be no need for ATT (as supplement, summary, or anything). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Again, "summary" is a better description.

2. Again, I'm not claiming that Jimbo expressed a preference for such a solution. (I'm merely describing the situation that initially existed when Jimbo restored the old pages' policy/guideline status.) But that's irrelevant to the fact that several users have expressed a preference for this outcome. Your belief that it's a bad idea is a reason to vote against it, not valid justification for removing the option. If the community agrees with you, they'll vote against it too. —David Levy 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But using that reasoning, we could add any number of questions. The point is that we need to keep the poll as simple and meaningful as possible. If NOR and V are restored as policy pages, the last thing we want is to retain ATT with any kind of formal status, because it simply adds to the number of policy pages to be maintained, so we'd be in an even worse situation than we were before the merge. ATT could easily be retained as an essay anyway if the other two were retained as policy, so it's pointless including that as an option in this poll. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you quite understand the proposal. No one is arguing that all of the pages should retain "policy" status. Either compromise would result in exactly the same content appearing on the various pages. The only distinction lies in how to tag the pages and which one(s) to edit on a primary basis (as opposed to mirroring some or all of the content in modified form). One proposal would mean that the old pages would serve as expanded versions of the policy, while the other would mean that WP:ATT would serve as a condensed version of policies/guideline (and not be a policy in and of itself).

In any case, I've merged two options into one (with the specifics to be addressed later). Hopefully, this is an acceptable solution. —David Levy 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Attribution should stay active as a summary page. It is possible that some newbies will prefer reading it over Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. It could be sort of like WP:5P, only longer and more focused.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the symbols

These symbols are not just "decorations". These are widely used and understood. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which way I go on this; the symbols are widely used and understood, but I'm not sure they add much. It may be a reasonable compromise to move them out of the actual headers. Can we please, however, discuss the question here, instead of revert warring? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Not worth spending tooo much time on this. I guess that my training on usability and information design forces me to look at these things somewhat differently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you say that. I was concerned about where you were coming from with all that eye candy. Big letters in color and such are often an indication of ego issues. As for style choices, some of us hark back to the days of inteacting with a distant computer using a teletype for I/O and punched paper for data storage. WAS 4.250 16:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have computer usability training, and I work with elderly (including visually impaired) computer users on a voluntary basis. —David Levy 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Not only are they mere decorations, but I believe that they actually clutter the page and make the poll more difficult to read (in addition to breaking the section links). I've left the ones that serve to visually demarcate the individual sections. —David Levy 16:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with David Levy. They're silly and distracting and were making the headings weird. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We already agreed to remove them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But agreed to keep the numbering, as we have a __NOTOC__, the headings are not mangled by adding the number pics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

They still do undesirable things in edit summaries. It's much simply to just, um, use numbers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And who on earth is "we"? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We? as you, me and the others? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Main question

The main question as posed now: " Do you agree in principle with the existence of the Wikipedia:Attribution page in some form?" is "leading". That is not the question that is being asked. The correct question should be neutral. I have revereted once more to the formulation that was worked out yesterday. If there is disagreement, let's discuss. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree... this must be neutral, and Jossi's verison of the question is that. Blueboar 17:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's an assumptive, all-or-nothing proposition. (Should we merge the pages and deprecate them or throw out WP:ATT completely?). As I commented earlier, given the fact that both extreme outcomes represented as "yes" and "no" are included as choices in question 3 (along with two potential compromises), I see absolutely no benefit to including this question at all. —David Levy 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The benefit is to find out what the bottom line is — do people support the merge in principle, or do they not? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How does question 3 fail to establish this? —David Levy 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it doesn't ask it straight out. Remember that it's not just gathering input, but sorting it afterwards. Q1 as it stands is going to give us a straight, identifiable majority opinion—the very thing that Wiki polls always fail to do. I'm worried about Q3 and think it should be put on hold until we get an answer to Q1. Q3 may well produce only a plurality and thus indecision. Let's get the Yes/No done, and input on which of the three should be merged first. Marskell 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, it does ask it straight out. Two of the options are essentially identical to the "yes"/"no" responses of question 1. The only difference is the inclusion of two compromise options (which allow respondents to express their actual viewpoints instead of forcing them to select an extreme scenario that they don't necessarily advocate).

2. This is not a majority vote. It's a straw poll, and we don't base policy decisions directly on straw polls. (By definition, they're non-binding.) This is merely an attempt to gauge the community's opinions (whatever they may be) for the purpose of furthering discussion, not an attempt to lump everyone together in one of two groups for the sake of expedience.

I did, however, attempt to eliminate unnecessary fragmentation by combining the two compromise options (leaving the specifics to be addressed down the road), but SlimVirgin reverted this change. —David Levy 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because you changed it and made it unclear. If you think the first question is just repetitive, why not leave it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, you believe that my wording made the question unclear (and I respect your opinion). I'm merely pointing out that I've made a good-faith effort to address these concerns via compromise.

2. I don't "think the first question is just repetitive." I also feel that it polarizes the issue and discourages compromise. —David Levy 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec. to your first 1, 2)

1. "Essentially identical," except for the fact that they're (possibly confusing) phrases; "yes" and "no" are unambiguous. "The only difference is the inclusion of two compromise options"—right, you're not asking it straight out, and as I say you risk only deriving a plurality.

2. Of course. This is still all subject to Jimbo's discretion and 50+1 isn't something we can rush to the bank with. I only meant that we'll derive data that's unambiguous, one way or the other. Marskell 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1. If you feel that the wording is confusing, why don't you help to revise it? You say that we "risk only deriving a plurality," as though that would be terrible thing. If no majority opinion exists, why do you seek to artificially create one by limiting people's choices? We can easily apply common sense to any plurality outcome or even a tie. (If each option were selected by 1/4 of respondents, that would mean that 3/4 of them favored the continued existence of WP:ATT in some form.)

2. The derivation of ambiguous data is precisely my concern. By forcing respondents to adopt an extreme position, we won't know how many of them would have preferred a compromise. As I said earlier, given question 1's current wording, I'll have to vote "no" (despite the fact that I support WP:ATT's creation). —David Levy 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good surveys "artificially create" majorities all the time; if you're designing a survey, you often set out to do just that on particular questions. But it's not actually artificial, when you think about it more closely. Putting people on-the-spot is what elections do, for instance, and people applaud that idea—it's what any poll ought to do when it wants a useful result. People either do or do not agree with the mergers at WP:ATT. Let's find out. Marskell 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it simply isn't true that "people either do or do not agree with the mergers at WP:ATT." People agree to varying extents, and you're forcing them to declare that they support or oppose it 100%. I see nothing "useful" about deliberately soliciting inaccurate responses for the sake of convenience. —David Levy 19:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Soliciting inaccurate responses" is an entrenchment and an exaggeration, so I don't see any point in further replies. Amongst the small group here now I see consensus for the simple question. We can wait for further commentary. Marskell 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that "an entrenchment and an exaggeration"? You just explained that you want to force people with moderate positions to adopt one extreme position or the other (purely for the sake of ensuring that one option receives a majority). How could this result in anything other than inaccurate responses from the individuals in question? —David Levy 19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; Marskell, I think your plan here is very off-base. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

<<< (outdent). This all process was initiated by Jimbo, upon a request to gauge the level of consensus for ATT which he believes was not wide enough. I personally thing that all this process is not useful and that his proposal for discussion and poll was based on lack of detailed information about the aims of WP ATT and resulting work done by the 300 editors that participated in its development. Nonetheless, I want to pursue this process because we need to get an unambiguous response from the community: Do you agree with ATT, or not, based on the facts described at the top of the poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing ambiguous about accurate responses. I do, however, see a great deal of ambiguity in responses derived by forcing people to adopt one of two extreme positions instead of considering compromise. —David Levy 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right! The very fact that compromise positions exist is why I've already decided to change my positition away from relegating WP:ATT to the {{Historical}} dustbin. If the compromise positions are removed, then so is my ability to come to a compromise vote such as I'm contemplating. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The wording must be unambiguous. There's no use having people vote that "yes, I agree that the pages be merged" and later have their vote interpreted as consensus for "Let's accept WP:ATT as it stands as the final version of the merge". It must be clear which one of these (or some other question) is really being asked. Words such as "agree in principle with" and "as intended at" must be avoided because they are ambiguous. One option for a clear question is "Do you agree with merging two or more of the policy pages listed below?" Another option is "Do you agree to accept WP:ATT as a merger of two or more of the policy pages listed below?"

If anyone prefers to include the words "agree in principle with" or "as intended at", please explain your rationale. I think those words need to be deleted. --Coppertwig 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wishywashy language like that will produce misleading results. Any number of people might theoretically agree with the basic idea, but disagree with the current version/process in 50 different ways. Questions 2 and 3 make sense; question 1 doesn't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The compromise can be extrapolated from the answers given to questions 2 and 3, David. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the poll's entire outcome can be extrapolated from the answers given to questions 2 and 3! Unfortunately, question 1 will dissuade some respondents from even considering compromise. —David Levy 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, people voting will understand the implications of not considering the compromise possible by answering 2 and 3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

On this, you and I agree. —David Levy 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to user Pmanderson for coming up with a wording of the first question which is short, clear, to the point, and a nice complement to the other questions:

• Should Wikipedia:Attribution be policy?

Question 2 needs to be clearer, though: "Which pages, if any, should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution?" Someone might vote "yes" meaning "yes, please move the contents of page X into page WP:ATT", and then be surprised to have their "yes" interpreted as "yes, please consider WP:ATT as it stands to represent fairly the contents of page X, which can now simply be demoted." Before the poll, perhaps we need to lay out what process will be followed afterwards. At the moment, the question looks quite ambiguous to me.

If question 3 accurately reflects what's going to happen, then a more accurate version of question 2 might be: "Which pages, if any, should be considered as having been merged into Wikipedia:Attribution?" However, a better way would be to make it clear that there will be reasonable time for moving material from the original pages to the merge page before the merges are considered complete. This would require rewriting question 3, which doesn't seem to allow that possibility. --Coppertwig 22:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But. .. that is not the question that need to be asked, as that was not what was challenged. What was challenged was the merger of NOR and V into ATT. ATT became policy on Jan 2007. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your second comment, what Q2 and Q3 seek to cvlarify is the consensus about how the merger (if at all) should be implemented. If you want nothing to do with ATT, vote NO to all these as per the explanation in that section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm being dense, as it's always difficult to join a conversation in the middle, but I'm having trouble understanding this revert. WP:ATT is policy. Surely the question is whether or not we agree with the merge? The edit summary said (among other things) "see talk", so here I am. Are we trying to change it to vote on whether or not it should be policy? ElinorD (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not being dense. Coppertwig doesn't understand the situation or is pretending not to. ATT is policy, and that's not going to change. V and NOR are policy, and that's not going to change. The only question is: how many pages of policy do we need, and what should the title or titles be? In other words, do you agree with the merge? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Slim. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I've read the arguments here, and it seems quite clear that the poll is not on whether or not WP:ATT is policy. The heat over the last few days seems to have been over whether or not the merge was a good idea. I have reverted back to Jossi's version, which I agree with, but I am open to arguments on the other side. I just didn't find the arguments in Coppertwig's edit summary to be compelling. A "clear, unambiguous, short" phrase can still have the wrong meaning. Coppertwig, instead of reverting again, could you explain on this talk page what the poll is actually about? ElinorD (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be clear to some people that WP:ATT is now policy, but it is not clear to everyone. There are discussions on its talk page that there should be a "disputedpolicy" or similar tag on it to demonstrate its currently uncertain status. I consider its status uncertain, not currently clearly policy. And I don't think any one of us can predict the future.

Even if WP:ATT is now policy, that doesn't logically prevent us from writing the poll to ask whether it should be policy or not; if is now policy and if the poll says it should not be policy, then it can stop being policy.

It's my understanding that the purpose of "merging" policy pages was to reduce the number of policy pages. Having WP:ATT become policy while the others remain policy would be going in completely the opposite direction as far as that goes.

There was no merge tag on the policies to be merged during the long process of writing WP:ATT, and there is no merge tag on them now. If they are to be merged, they need merge tags for a good long time so that people who like those policies and don't want them merged (if there are any such people) have a good opportunity to notice the merge tags and participate in discussion. Policy pages should have merge tags for much longer than what is usually done for mere article pages (where I think two weeks is standard.)

My understanding of the situation is this: There was a proposal to merge pages and to present WP:ATT as the merged page, demoting the other pages and reducing the number of policy pages. Some people agreed to that; some opposed the specific wording of WP:ATT and were ignored; and some were not made aware of the debate due to lack of prominent merge tags on the pages to be merged. Nowhere was a wide consensus developed for increasing the number of policy pages by making WP:ATT policy. This poll can present two options: (1) use WP:ATT as a merge and demote the original pages or (2) demote WP:ATT, i.e. turn down the proposal to merge the pages. Or, the poll can present a larger number of options. It seems a good idea to present a larger number of options, including having WP:ATT as policy while the other pages remain policy. If this larger number of options is presented, then having the first question be about whether WP:ATT seems to me a good way to organize the whole thing -- it seems to fit in well with the other questions and make everything clear. Other versions of the first question that have been presented are too ambiguous.

I oppose vague wording. I oppose the wording "agree in principle with" and the wording "intended" as being too vague. --Coppertwig 00:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I see you've reinserted the words "in principle". I oppose these words because they're vague. Maybe you could help me understand why you want these words there. If the question is "Do you agree in principle with the merger(s) implemented at Wikipedia:Attribution?" and a consensus is formed around "yes", then what exactly would happen? And if a consensus is formed around "no" for that question, then what exactly would happen? Please reply with your understanding of what would happen. I think the questions need to be clear in terms of what would happen. --Coppertwig 01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What would happen would depend on the results of Q3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, we may end up with strong consensus on the merge, and strong consensus on option 3 of Q3, or any other combination. And in any case, a process will need to be define for closing the poll, as per Jimbo's request. That process is not clear at this stage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If what happens depends only on the results of Q3, then we can just delete Q1. If it depends on Q1 too, then please give at least a couple of examples of what would happen depending on the results of Q1. I.e. pick a particular result of Q3, and describe what would happen in the two cases Q1YES and Q1NO. The "in principle" wording is vague and doesn't make it at all clear what would happen. --Coppertwig 01:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am getting really tired, sorry... Maybe someone else would respond to your questions, or better, take sometime to read the discussions in this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I've been saying! Question 1 is redundant and counterproductive. It should simply be removed (with question 3 becoming the new question 1). —David Levy 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I don't see that the current Question 1 serves any actual purpose at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ATT is policy, and that's not going to change. V and NOR are policy, and that's not going to change. My understanding was that Jimbo had called for wider discussion of the entire issue; statements like these seem premature. V and NOR were gone from the map last week, so anything can change. Hopefully broader discussion with more varied input will be encouraged this time 'round. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 1 should be removed or reworded. "In principle" looks like weasel wording to me, and I don't see the point of such vague formulation, expect for creating an appearance of community support for the ATT. Question with real substance would be: "Do you support existence of ATT, as it stands now?". -- Vision Thing -- 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Inactive"?

What's this about options to have pages become "inactive"? Isn't that against the usual wiki way of doing things? Where are the options to have pages become guidelines? I think demoting one or the other set of pages to guideline status would probably be better than making them "inactive". Another way to word it is "inactive or guideline", i.e. not policy but actual fate to be determined later. --Coppertwig 20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Inactive, means just that. It does not imply demotion to a lesser level. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean they would still be policy, but nobody would edit them? That seems like a bad idea to me. If that's what it really means, I think that should be explained better on the poll page.

If the word "inactive" is used in the questions, then a clear definition of "inactive" should be given, perhaps at the top or bottom of the page. However, I think the option of keeping some of the pages as active guideline pages should be allowed as an option to vote for. I favour "inactive or guideline" as wording rather than "inactive". --Coppertwig 22:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please provide a definition of "inactive"? How about an example of another policy page that's "inactive" -- or is it a new thing? How can it continue to be policy if it's "inactive" -- what if it needs to be changed to respond to changing circumstances? If the word "inactive" is in the questions, then a definition of "inactive" needs to be provided to the voters. --Coppertwig 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Inactive" means {{Historical}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Or several other possibilities, including being made redirects to ATT, but {{historical}} is probably best. In general, "not active; not actionable as a policy or guideline." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I was oversimplifying. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot for the clarification. So "inactive" means "not policy". --Coppertwig 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we freeze the design?

We have spent quite a bit on this and maybe it is time to freeze the design? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

God, jossi, that makes sense. But can we freeze the Wiki process? Marskell 21:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Q1, should be worded according to the request made: to assess the level of support for the merger of V and NOR into ATT, not about if ATT should be policy or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The set of questions as a whole assess that level of support. They're designed to complement each other. When you say "freeze the design", do you mean keep changing the words but leave all the little symbols the way they are? Or do you mean stop changing the words? No, we need to keep working on this. We're doing well. It's improving. This is wiki collaboration at its best. --Coppertwig 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not address your spurious 3RR report at this time, but will do after this process of ATT is completed. As for the request to freeze, I did that as we have spent already a good portion of two days working at it. There should be a point in which new editors coming to look at the poll should read ALL the discussions rather than insert new ideas without discussing first. Otherwise this poll will never see the light of day. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is collaboration at its very worst, and your interventions here (Coppertwig) are incredibly unhelpful. As for your suggestion above, none of these pages can be demoted to a guideline, because all are an expression of policy. For the last time, we're deciding only which page we want the policies on; the other pages will either become inactive or will remain as explanatory pages, but they certainly won't become guidelines. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. One of the options is to make WP:ATT canonical policy and have the others still active, but defer to it. At that point, we either have a three level tree: canonical policy/policy/guideline, or the others (in effect) become guidelines to the meaning of WP:ATT.

I do not support that choice myself; but we should be prepared for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the current policy pages can be demoted to guideline, because they all say the same thing! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The option is there, though, in question 3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with SlimVirgin again, for two reasons: first of all, the pages do not say the same thing. You admit this whenever you refuse to revert back to the original wording. Secondly, two pages can say the same thing and one can be marked as policy and one not. For example, I could create a user page with an exact copy of one of the policy pages except for the policy tag. There is nothing logically impossible in doing so. It may even be useful, since one of the pages may later change so they are no longer saying the same thing. --Coppertwig 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please provide a definition of "freeze"? I think we need to keep editing the words. --Coppertwig 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it actually quite likely that if WP:ATT were made "canonical policy" (which sounds redundant to me) that the others would in fact become guidelines, since they will "will remain as explanatory pages", which by definition means they won't be saying the same things as WP:ATT, or they wouldn't actually be explanatory. The pages must all certainly agree, but not conflicting isn't the same thing as "all saying the same thing". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree in principle with the merger(s) implemented at Wikipedia:Attribution?

Let me explain my position.

• I support WP:ATT as it stands.
• I believe, but do not know, that it has the wide acceptance among editors of which {{policy}} speaks.
• If I am wrong, and it is not widely accepted, it is not policy, no matter how many tags it bears.
• I support merger of at least [[WP:V|| and WP:NOR into ATT, and their being marked historic.
• Nevertheless, the question above is weaselworded: unacceptably vague, to the point of meaninglessness.
  • If I am ever polled on it, I will strongly oppose it on those grounds alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the question be more clear. What is the principle? Why not just ask if people, (a) agree with the idea of merging WP:V, WP:OR, and maybe WP:RS, and (b) approve of how this was done at WP:ATT? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure... Give it a go to find a better wording. So far we have not been able to come up with something that stays on for more than 15 minutes before somebody comes and changes it.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Continual change is a good thing, provided the changes are all new; they will eventually converge to something stable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I continue to deplore reversion to this ill-formed question without discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

???? Should some older policies be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution?

That has already happened. WP:V and WP:NOR have been merged into ATT, so this question is meaningless. What we are trying to assess is the level of support for the merger that has been in place since Feb 2007. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

...which is accomplished via question 3 (without forcing respondents to adopt either of the extreme positions). —David Levy 03:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to taking question 1 out entirely, in any form; it is others who consider it the meat of the poll. The reason we are asking any question in this area at all is that Jimbo doubts that what happened had consensus. We must therefore ask, in some way, whether what did happen should have happened. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The beauty of question 3 is that it asks exactly the same thing without demanding 100% agreement or 100% disagreement with what has occurred. It might be true that there was/is consensus for some (but not all) of the changes. —David Levy 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be right on this. I will sleep on it and see if still resonates with me in the morning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution is a merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Do you agree with this merger?

This is one question we could be asking; it is not the only question of interest. That's why we have question 2: to see what older policies should be folded into WP:ATT. I'm getting tired of this; I am tempted to support having Jossi poll his original vague question, watch it get shot down, and see what he does then. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me, Pmanderson, or about what I will do "then". Seems that we have a stalemate on what the poll should be asking. My point is that I did not ask for this poll, Jimbo did. And he asked to gauge the level of consensus for the merger performed at ATT. Should we ask something else than that? Q2 and Q3 gives people the chance to vote for compromises about the future of ATT. Killing ATT outright will mean that 2,000 edits and 5 months of discussions by 300 editors count for nothing in Wikipedia. If that is the case, I want to know it, and I am sure others that invested all that time and effort will want to know as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true, you know. If the drafting of ATT is really superior to that of the other policy pages in their current form, it can be used, even if the decision is not to have the ATT page. I don't think people should be deciding how many pages we have on the basis of "all that good work will be lost if we don't decide in such and such a way". It need not be if the work is really that good. Good drafting work need never go to waste. Metamagician3000 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a poll on whether we should merge or not. If the answer yes, let's have another poll. Polls are cheap compared to policies. - Peregrine Fisher 07:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just OR and V--RS too. And given that we have 2 asking about the three, what's wrong with 1? Marskell 07:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's redundant. If there is consensus for that position, 2 and 3 (1 and 2 as I write) will display it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I approve the disappearance of this redundant question. There is no rational ground to worry about the "disappearance of this good work". The worst that can conceivably happen is that WP:ATT will be marked {{rejected}} - at which point those parts that do have consensus can be added toWP:V and WP:NPOV. Personally, I don't believe that any such rejection will happen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. Hopefully we are getting there. Now, do we need so many options on Q2? Can we make this simpler? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Jossi's changed his mind then I've become a minority and won't revert. Supposing you have three political parties and a survey asks whether you'd prefer a majority or minority for one of them (six options). You wouldn't actually need to ask prior to that "which party do you favour"—but you would ask. You want the simple data first. The questions overlap but aren't redundant. And save the silliness about forcing people to extremes; it's a matter of deriving general level data before moving to more complex responses. As with 3, there's a possibility that 2 will give us indecisive information and we'll have missed the chance to ask 1. Marskell 15:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, I was of the same opinion, but then I realized that the current version will actually give us that same info than the previous version with the Y/N question. This version makes it simpler, and less polarizing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But, I think for the third time now, it's not just gathering data but how it's interpreted afterwards. My guess at this moment is that all will receive consensus (unless Jimbo makes a pronouncement that tilts toward No on one of them and people flock to his position). But suppose, for instance, that all deviate from 50-50 by +/- 2%. Someone could well argue that "I take this as a lack of consensus for ATT itself." But it might not actually be reflective of that. It might reflect people who do favour ATT in principle but are saying no to one or two of the originals being merged, or reflect those who favour ATT as a condensed summary (a terrible idea IMO, but it has been raised). We won't know. Marskell 15:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The closing of the poll will need to be done on a separate process, yet to be defined. Jimbo spoke of a "poll certification" process but did not elaborate. It will be probably something along the lines of an AfD close, in which not only votes will count. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't speak to the concern. Marskell 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you're treating this as a majority vote to determine which single option is the most popular and immediately act on it. It isn't. It's a non-binding poll to gauge the community's opinions. If 28% of people vote to deactivate WP:ATT and the remaining 72% are divided evenly between the other three options (24% each), that doesn't mean that the deactivation option "wins" and WP:ATT is rejected. It means that most of the community supports its existence in some form (and we continue discussing the best way to implement it). Of course, with the approval voting setup in place, people can select multiple options and rank them in order of preference. —David Levy 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is why I've been trying to ask some variant of "Should WP:ATT be policy?" I think it should; and I think ATT has the wide support that policy needs. If we confirm that, no closure will result in its becoming inactive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Attribution is a merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research" is a matter of opinion (unless you stress "a"). A better question would be "Do you agree that Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution?" --Henrygb 16:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that V and NOR have been already merged and made policy last mohth. The question is what should be kept merged, if at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And the key word there is "What should be done." I see no value in insisting on what has been done: if the community agrees it should have been done, the action is ratified henceforward. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I have contributed to this as much as I could. Maybe others can weigh in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm satisfied with the current setup. It solicits the desired information in a simple, concise and neutral manner. —David Levy 17:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying "to determine which single option is the most popular and immediately act on it"? Where did I say we should act on any result immediately? Rather than repeating what I think of possible problems of a plurality result, see here. Didn't mean to split the discussion—often easier to get a direct answer on User talk. Marskell 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Semantics aside, you clearly wish to obtain an immediate majority opinion, even if none actually exists. Again, your fear of "plurality outcomes" is unfounded. This is not an election in which the option with the most votes "wins" and all others "lose." This is a non-binding poll to gauge the community's opinions. If most users support WP:ATT's existence in some form, it won't be deactivated simply because they don't yet agree on one form in particular. Discussion will continue, and we'll work toward consensus. There is no valid reason to polarize the community by forcing everyone to adopt an extreme position. —David Levy 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Polarizing the community" and "extreme positions." I don't understand it—not yesterday, not now. You keep saying "extreme" and I'm truly baffled. Either/or clarifies—it need not polarize. What is extreme about saying you agree or disagree with ATT in principle?

"You clearly wish to obtain an immediate majority opinion"—on the basic question of whether ATT should exist, yes, I do. So what? I particularly want to be able to present a clear majority opinion to Jimbo on whether people find utility in ATT. It's not a position I need to apologize for. I know it's not an election. Jimbo could well ignore everything we come up with. Marskell 19:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing the question in "yes" or "no" form would force respondents to either support or oppose the merger in its entirety. Those are the "extreme positions" to which I'm referring. Many users may prefer one of the compromises, so this would not generate an outcome representative of their actual preferences. —David Levy 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No! That's what "in principle" is for; that's what the plural bracket (merger(s)) is for; that's what the instructions we could easily write could be used for. We can explicitly state "you do not have to support the merger in its entirety." Do you believe ATT should exist? or something like it. There's nothing extreme about it. Are you going to vote for the Liberals or Conservatives? ("Surely an extreme question! Let's not ask"). I'm still baffled.

1. You're still missing the point. (By "in its entirety," I'm not referring to the question of which pages to include.) "Yes" means "Wikipedia:Attribution should replace the merged pages." No means "Wikipedia:Attribution should be rejected." There's no valid reason to withhold the options that fall in between.

2. I don't understand your analogy. I've responded to many political surveys, and I've never been asked such a blanket question. When I vote in elections, I'm not required to select "liberals" or "conservatives." I can mix and match, voting for whichever candidate I prefer for each office (including political centrists). —David Levy 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, question 2 will fully establish "whether people find utility in ATT." —David Levy 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It may well (not) establish it partially and arguably, as noted in the link to Jossi's talk. There is a very good chance that there will be strong consensus on all three, but there is a not insignificant chance that a super-majority approving of ATT in principle will appear as small majorities or even minorities on individual parts of the current Q1. If I were confident aggregates would be properly worked out I would be less concerned. But this is Wikipedia. There is no polling department; there are no market research professionals who parse our polls. And none of our damn polls ever achieve anything because too much is asked in poorly conceived questions. If the three options on the current Q1 come in at 60, 50, and 40% we'll be right back where we started. Nothing achieved; nothing decided. Marskell 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your desire to limit people's options in the hope of creating the appearance of agreement is illogical. Again, this is a non-binding, common-sense exercise, not a majority vote. —David Levy 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Should WP:ATT be policy?" A very good question and possibly one to lead with, in place of yesterday's Q1. Marskell 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Should WP:ATT be policy?" is unacceptably vague. (Does it refer to the page itself or to the concepts expressed therein? Does it refer to the page as currently written or would substantial changes be possible? Would the other pages remain policy, or would they be superseded?) There's no valid reason to ask this question. —David Levy 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"I've responded to many political surveys, and I've never been asked such a blanket question." I've written political surveys, and posed just such questions. As per last night, I don't see our talking is achieving much. Marskell 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• David Levy: I mean, to be more precise, "Should the present text of WP:ATT be policy"/"Is the present text of WP:ATT widely accepted" or any of several other equivalent questions. If that view is consensus, of course substantial changes would be possible, as they are on any policy page - they would, as elsewhere, themselves require substantial consensus. The other pages are covered in the final question, which covers them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The new version of question 1 is partisan and leading

"Which pages, if any, should Wikipedia:Attribution comprise?" is blatantly poll skewing. If any language like this is retained it should become question #2, and be preceded with "If you think WP:ATT should not be made inactive..." since it logically follows from the answers to the present #2, not the other way around. Whether the merge is a good idea at all remains the core question ("This radical change was made without any consensus at all. If people really want this, then they need to make a serious effort to get consensus, not just declare victory and make the changes. --Jimbo Wales 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)"), but has essentially been all but removed from the poll. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The "if any" wording clearly conveys that it's reasonable to oppose the idea completely (and vote "no" across the board). —David Levy 18:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I can see that, sorta, but it has to comprise something; deletion doesn't appear to be an option on the table. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In question 2, deactivating the page (in which case it would become {{historical}}) is listed as an option. —David Levy 18:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it would still have to consist of something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If the page becomes inactive, its specific contents will serve as historical documentation. From a policy standpoint, this would be tantamount to eliminating the entire page. —David Levy 18:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current version of the poll is leading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply putting question 2 before question one would effective solve that problem from my point of view. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Any proposals that have not been explored yet? The previous version was also leading inasmuch as stated that ATT is non-existent, which is incorrect. ATT has been policy for more than one month and its status as policy has not been challenged by Jimbo. What has been challenged is the merger of existing policies into it.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? —David Levy 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Jimbo challenged the change in policy structure, not ATT itself, as it contains within it existing policies of V and NOR whose status as policies are not in dispute (thank god). In his compromise, he agreed that ATT remain "canonical," and V and NOR are "explanatory". Then he suggested to open a wide discussion on the merits of ATT, followed by this poll. What is happening is that a drama has unfortunately unfolded with some people actually challenging V and NOR in the confusion (!!!). A nightmare, or close to it, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much support a straw poll. In the meantime, after an excellent discussion with SlimVirgin, we hammered out a compromise until we can have a fuller discussion. What the pages say now is that WP:ATT is canonical, and WP:V and WP:NOR exist as separate pages to more fully describe those. My big beef with this merger is that we often need to send people to a page like WP:NOR which explains in a rich and persuasive way what the policy is about and why it is a good idea. This involves sometimes saying things which overlap with parts of WP:V. (They are not the same idea!) The combined page provides a handy way to keep policy consistent and have a tight presentation of what policy actually is. The separate pages can be more detailed and understandable.--Jimbo Wales 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jossi and go further: Taking this as an "opportunity" to challenge WP:V or WP:NOR (or WP:RS for that matter) is completely absurd. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with SMcCandlish here. I like the wording "Which pages, if any, should Wikipedia:Attribution comprise?" I have just reverted to it; Jossi had changed it to contain a statement which not everyone agrees with (I don't) and which made it considerably longer; maybe I missed it but I didn't see discussion on this page of that new wording. The "if any" part, plus the options currently given in question 2, allow the option of demoting WP:ATT, so I don't understand SMcCandlish's objection. I'm very happy to come back to look at this poll after being away about 24 hours and seeing it improved even further from yesterday. Short, clear, concise and to the point. Good work, everybody! --Coppertwig 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I think we are talking past each other here. I wasn't objecting to your revert (I do think it keeps things simpler and more open). Was simply commenting that actually attempting to challenge the validity or wording of WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:RS in the course of figuring out what to do with WP:ATT would be entirely out-of-band (other than there is a poll option to completely merge them with WP:ATT, which isn't the same thing as saying aren't policy or shouldn't be policy, they are and will be, either separately or melded into WP:ATT). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to elaborate, Jossi. I was responding to SandyGeorgia. (Note the indentation.)  :-) —David Levy 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As said below and as said by Jimbo, and as stated in the headers of WP:V and WP:NOR, WP:ATT is currently canonical policy. The poll question needs to acknowledge that fact, and not describe ATT as a future merger. The merger is done. What this poll should gauge is the level of support for the merger as implemented, or variations of it as per the question details. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think that question one should go back to asking if "Which pages, if any, should Wikipedia:Attribution comprise" As I recall Jimbo said "Quite the opposite of "so much for consensus". This radical change was made without any consensus at all. If people really want this, then they need to make a serious effort to get consensus, not just declare victory and make the changes. --Jimbo Wales 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)" so as I see it you still have to get consensus for the move. Jeepday 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert, Panderson. I tweaked the question and discussed it in talk. You reverted, though. Diifs: [1], [2], [3], [4] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue which you are not addressing is that fact that WP:ATT already comprises V and NOR and partially RS, and that ATT is as of now canonical policy. That is a fact. Asking the question as if that is not the case is leading and misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi's edit summary belies him. It is true that I reverted, once; but I never promised not to do so. Jossi's other examples are two novel pieces of text, a partial self-reversion, and a compound diff of which the key diff is a move of text from one place to another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that both of us are in the same boat, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait! Something is missing! Possibly this is what SMcCandlish was getting at. We need to allow the option that certain pages will be merged, but that the current version of WP:ATT is not the merged version of them, but something else is.

If there is a convention that changes to policy can't be made without consensus, then the original policies should be the starting point -- not the current wording of WP:ATT, which was made without consultation from those who would participate if merge tags were to be displayed on the policy pages for a reasonable length of time. --Coppertwig 00:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a question that allows the above-mentioned option: "Do you support the current wording of WP:ATT as the starting version of the merged policies?", and tsjtrf has deleted it here with edit summary :Your question is just plain inaccurate: the current WP:ATT is not the /beginning/ of anything, it's as finished a product as anything wiki ever will be" but without addressing my above comment here on the talk page. Please discuss here before making changes. I disagree with tjstrf's statement in the edit summary. None of us can predict the future. WP:ATT was created without consultation from the people who would have had the opportunity to participate if there had been merge tags on the policy pages for which merges were proposed, therefore it is not a finished product but needs the input of those people to be incorporated; there are also other procedural allegations and many people do not agree that there is or ever was consensus for it. The wording of my question may not be perfect, but please fix the wording rather than deleting the question altogether, if I or anyone addes it back in, or else explain why that option should not be presented.

The intention is to allow voters an option which does not exist in the other questions: the option of voting in favour of merging certain pages but without certifying WP:ATT as being the merged version of the pages -- some other document or a (possibly major) modification of WP:ATT might be developed instead for that purpose. If you disagree with my wording, please find another wording of the question which allows that option. My question can also be considered a partial revert back to Henrygb's question about changing the wording of "verifiability, not truth", which does something similar although mine is more general.

Some issues that need to be worked out, either in this poll or in another process, are: Is there support for changing the word "verifiability" to "attribution", for example in the name of the policy? Is there support for having the words "not whether it is true" present without being balanced by the presence of a positive word with "truth" in its meaning such as "verifiability"?

Henrygb's question is:

• "How do you think "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" should be clarified or rewritten?
• 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
• The aim is to increase accuracy and reliability, and the provision of reliable sources enables fact checking
• Neither/both

I support having a question like that. Even better, it should include the option of keeping the words "verifiability, not truth" just as they are, among other options.

If there is support for carrying out a merge process, then anyone who will come and start editing the merged policy after merge tags are placed on the policy pages for a reasonable length of time needs to be allowed to edit on the understanding that WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS are the original pages so that changing back to wording on those pages is a simple revert and quite acceptable and does not require broad consensus first, since there has already been broad consensus for the original policies. In other words, voting in favour of merge should not necessarily lead to the current wording of WP:ATT (or even, perhaps, its name) becoming policy, nor to the wording currently in the other pages necessarily being dropped rather than used to form a merged version. --Coppertwig 14:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"How do you think 'the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth' should be clarified or rewritten?'" is not the issue. It's not the issue in Jimbo's comments; not the issue in the comments on the merge a month ago; not the issue in the discussion on the Community page; not the issue this poll intends to address. The only place it is an issue is in the long, repetitive postings of User:Coppertwig. This crusade of yours is becoming tiresome in the extreme. Marskell 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The only reason this issue is not being discussed on the community discussion page is because that thread was moved off the page -- an action some users opposed. I'm not the only one to raise the issue about the attempt to change longstanding policy wording -- see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 13#It doesn't look to me as if there was a consensus. My posts on all this could have been far fewer and we could all have saved tons of time if users who support the new wording would engage in discussion with me aimed at achieving mutual understanding, and of achieving persuasion one way or the other or compromise or a better solution, and of achieving consensus. Part of the whole point of this poll is whether to accept the new WP:ATT -- which suggests perhaps accepting some or all of its wording. This issue about the new "not whether it is true" wording was definitely part of the discussion a month or so ago; a number of objections were raised on this issue and pretty much ignored when "consensus" was declared, so I don't understand what you mean when you say it was not the issue on the talk page a month ago -- it was an issue there. --Coppertwig 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" has been changed to "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." This was apparently to remove an ambiguity. But I feel many editors take the other interpretation of "verifiability, not truth", i.e. that the aim is to make Wikipedia accurate and reliable sources enable fact-checking. They should be asked about it in the poll. --Henrygb 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I am not allowed to raise this question.[5] Since nobody is allowed to label WP:A as disputed[6] even though it is and has been even before I personally raised the issue some weeks ago,[7] and a poll looking at creating consensus on a policy page is not allowed to ask policy questions, I give up. As far as I am concerned, whatever the result of the poll, there will not be a wikipedia:consensus on this policy because policy questions will not be asked and so there is no point discussing this poll any more. I can be contacted at my talk page if necessary. --Henrygb 21:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You certainly are allowed to raise the question, but this poll is not the correct forum. —David Levy 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Support such a poll question. This change in wording is of fundamental importance to the meaning and purpose of Wikipedia in my opinion. It has generated a large amount of debate but much more debate is needed in order to make progress in gaining understanding, persuasion or compromise, and consensus. A poll question on this part of the wording would be helpful. At the moment, if anyone wants to comment on the issue itself, please keep the debate in one place; I believe currently it's at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. Comments specifically about whether to have such a poll question are appropriate here, I believe. In my opinion, this poll is indeed the correct forum. The poll is about whether WP:ATT is to be accepted as a merger of WP:V and other pages. This change in policy wording is part of what might be accepted as part of the result of this poll; for example, if WP:ATT is accepted as it now stands as a merged version of the other pages, then in effect that wording change would be being accepted. --Coppertwig 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Change in policy is not conducted in polls. Once the ATT tempest is over, you are welcome to pursue a discussion in whichever policy page it is pertinent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note that this is a straw poll, and not a vote. A straw poll is an informal type of voting where the results of the poll have little or no direct results, other than to gauge opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe policy is not changed "in" polls, but the whole purpose of this poll is to help find out what people do or do not want to be policy. So, the question is perfectly relevant. Is there any other reason to exclude it? --Coppertwig 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The change in wording coincided with the merger, but it was not a part of the merger. It could just as easily have been carried out independently (and still could). People might wish to change any of the wording contained within any of these pages, but that isn't the straw poll's purpose. If it were, we might have dozens of questions. —David Levy 23:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

<<<(outdent) The merge, if it occurs, will necessarily involve a change in wording, unless the merge is done by copying two pages verbatim onto one and then letting wiki editors go at the result. Any particular implementation of the merge will involve a particular implementation of wording. That's why there are questions on the community discussion like whether the current WP:ATT is an accurate summary of the other pages. This particular bit of wording has generated a lot of discussion and objection; is there any other bit of wording as contentious as it at the moment? Not all bits of wording need questions. --Coppertwig 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Support such a poll question. The proposed merger is in truth an enormous change in Wikipedia policy formulation. And User:Henrygb's and others' insightful formulation of the needed fix to Wikipedia policy formulation is as much a part of the four month work effort as is the current incoherent merger of traditional formulations onto the highly controversial and divisive Attribution page text. Since our goal here should be to develop a broad consensus on what the Wikipedia policy formulation should be, User:Henrygb's question should be on the straw poll if the straw poll is to mean anything legitimate. --Rednblu 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagee. The qustion isn't particularly relevant in this context, and is a matter for resolution at the talk page of whatever emerges as the controlling policypage. This is not denigrating the importance of the question in any way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this question not crucially relevant to the actual wording of the text that should appear in the final Wikipedia policy formulation? Apparently from the justifications used to defend the wording on the Attribution page, the meaning of Verifiability has been inverted in regard to verifying truth by the text on the Attribution page. --Rednblu 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is crucially important, but as to what the policy says, whatever page it lives at. It is not important at all for deciding what page the policy will live at. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. It has no bearing on the merger itself. —David Levy 00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the question should be asked. Without the question, we will not know whether there is consensus for WP:ATT. From the history and the archives it looks to me as if it the the prime motivation for those editors promoting the merger and claiming "attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" is policy despite the debates. Note that nobody can change WP:V or WP:ATT because they are protected. --Audiovideo 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT is currently canonical policy

As such, question 1 should state the current state of affairs, and not mislead poll participants as is that is not the case. What this poll seeks to gauge is the level of support for the current WP:ATT or optional variations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The current state of affairs is that WP:ATT says it is canonical policy, whatever that means. That is open to dispute; I believe Jimbo doubts it. {{Policy}} states that policy is something which is widely agreed upon.

Personally, I believe WP:ATT has that wide agreement; but I do consider that I may be mistaken. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Jossi can have one, I want one too! Heh. So, here's my personal interpretation of Jimbo's compromise: He has agreed to permit the proponents of WP:ATT to continue to assert (i.e. let WP:ATT say) that it is policy, while he also ensured that the competing documents have been restored to the state in which they also make a (much longer-standing) assertion, and expects that at least for now WP:ATT will be an attempt to be a centralized place for these policy matters with the individual pages remaining more in-depth explorations of them. I find it exceedingly unlikely that the withering criticism he's personally directed at WP:ATT (in his official role, not just as a random Wikipedian) to have dissipated; he's simply leaving it up to the community to sort it out. He directly stated that WP:ATT does not have consensus (direct quote is "made without any consensus at all"), and never retracted that summation (cf. also this poll to determine what consensus actually is).

By definition, it can't really be policy without either consensus or Jimbo's official seal of approval. Given that Jimbo labeled WP:ATT "a really bad idea", "a big mistake", "needs to be reverted immdiately because it is just wrong", "bad policy all around", "not the right way to make policy", "confusion", not "logical" not "sensibl[e], a usurper of the other policypages' "rightful place", a "radical change", "a monumentally bad idea", and not "coherent", the Jimbo seal of approval is obviously absent. All Jimbo has compromised on is permitting the label (for reasons he has not elucidated; I have my theories about what those might be), and Jossi and others have completely mistaken this temporary permissiveness for the seal of approval they are seeking, and have used this interpretation to mold the debate and the language of the poll.

I doubt I'm alone in this interpretation. I think what Jossi and a few others are missing is that absent a direct confirmation from Jimbo personally that The Jossi Interpretation is correct, it is not any more authoritative than anyone else's, and that strident insistence upon any particular interpretation being what the poll text represents is inappropriate. I notice, below, that Jossi's taking a few days off, so this is really directed to the rest of the "ATT Cabal" ;-) who've been using the same interpretation, just much less vociferously.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not alone in this interpretation. Jimbo has made it clear 1. he no longer thinks WP:ATT is a good idea, and 2. he has also (but separately) concluded that it lacks consensus. Yet people here keep claiming that it remains policy just because Jimbo has said he won't declare it dead if, after broad discussion which is to include a poll, it can demonstrate that it has built consensus. Since several of those who have been working most diligently on it believed that it was policy until Jimbo declared that it is missing some essential elements of a WP policy, clearly he and they not only disagree on the value of WP:ATT, but also on what would constitute a consensus for it. If "consensus" meant no more to Jimbo than establishing that those who have put thought and sweat into it for months believe that it is good as is, he would have accepted that verdict already. Clearly, consensus means fresh eyes need to be drawn to the project and they must give it a thumbs up for him to be convinced. All of that has to be straightened out and, I believe, can be -- but not as long as people find it too hard to accept that (WP:ATT as written, and the consensus claimed for it, have been rejected. I understand their frustration and resistance, but we can't move very far forward until it is understood that the task is once again developing a policy rather than protecting one. Lethiere 11:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least {{proposed}} it.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what {{Proposed}} is for; since this has already become [labeled] policy, the template you are thinking of is {{Disputedtag}} (and yes, David Levy disagrees strongly that even that template could apply; we needn't rehash that here.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ATT was policy for a full month before Jimbo's intervention, that concluded on the current status quo of ATT being canonical. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, we replace the policy template with proposed until consensus is reached. There really wasn't much consensus to merge, so?  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 02:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what is disputed, Vishwin60. And that is what this straw poll will try to gauge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And it will be policy in the future (let alone have the undefined status of "canonical" policy) if and only if it continues to have widespread approval. WP:Consensus can change; and asserting that it must always be policy because the minority of users who worked on it say so is one of the easiest methods of losing that consensus. As one of those who both worked on WP:ATT and supports it, I ask you to think again before you keep on with this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just stating a fact, PMAnderson. Until such time when there is no consensus for a policy, it remains so. That is all what I am saying. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is getting to be a bit brow-beating (I won't use the "T" word, yet). I think you are overrelying on a personal interpretation of Jimbo's wording, and you've already made the point about 50 times. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me why the version you reverted from is "leading". I am open to be convinced that I am off. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can reply on my talk page. I am taking this page off my watchlist until Monday. One should know when to disengage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The question is, and has been since I came to this poll, which pages is there agreement to subsume into WP:ATT? It is true, and the intro to this poll says, that WP:ATT was designed to subsume two pages and much of a third; but when asking what pages there is agreement to subsume, the pages should be treated equally. That is a clean and fair question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Should WP:ATT exist?

I think this is another wrong question.

Is anybody actually proposing that Wikipedia:Attribution be deleted? If so, I will support the page being unfrozen long enough to make a WP:MfD nomination; but I am certain what will happen to it: Even the people who disagree with the page will wind up saying, "Don't delete it, mark it {{rejected}}." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many cooks, if it actually says something like that. Last I looked, it said "inactive" not "deleted". As for what "inactive" means it could mean either {{Rejected}} or {{Historical}} depending on the overall results of the poll, I would imagine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it actually made it into the poll for very long, but it is certainly being discussed above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This poll has no validity

This poll has no validity. I suggest you take a poll to establish its validity. WAS 4.250 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And then another poll to establish the validity of the poll that will establish the validity of this poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop right there! How could you even think of doing that without voting about the validity of that poll? Picaroon 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, polls called by Jimbo have no validity? That's a new one. Picaroon 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that WAS was just injecting a bit of humor.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

: ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If this poll does not ask about the change to the policy meaning of "verifiability not truth" that is part of the merge then it has no validity or usefulness. If this poll is simply about the principle of merger and not about policy itself then WP:ATT needs as {{disputedpolicy}} because the policy itself is in dispute. Audiovideo 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

<< If this poll does not ask about the change to the policy meaning of "verifiability not truth" that is part of the merge then it has no validity or usefulness. >> (attributed to User:Audiovideo)

Over 50% of Wikipedia editors reject the current Attribution policy page as being an 1) incoherent statement of Wikipedia policy and a 2) huge change from the previous policies of Verifiability to a ReliableSource with NoOriginalResearch. In that, our current situation, the first simple step is to decide whether or not to give the participants in this straw poll a chance to identify clearly what it is in the current Attribution policy page that is 1) incoherent or a 2) huge change from the previous policies of Verifiability to a ReliableSource with NoOriginalResearch. Wouldn't the simplest approach to this straw poll be to formulate say three clear statements of what it is about the current Attribution policy page that is an 1) incoherent statement of Wikipedia policy or a 2) huge change from the previous policies of Verifiability to a ReliableSource with NoOriginalResearch? The above quote of Audiovideo's observation is merely one example. --Rednblu 17:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it simple

Would people please stop trying to screw up the questions? It begs the question to ask "should ATT replace x, y or z," because it didn't really "replace" anything; it's just another way of writing NOR and V, and so yes there's a sense in which it replaced them, but to use that word suggests it's a different thing. And the question "which of the following should it comprise," apart from being poor English, misses the point about it being V and NOR, and replacing RS, which is too complex to explain in one question.

Can we please keep it simple? Question 1: do you agree with the merge in principle? Question 2: if you agree with the merge, which of the following pages would you like to see kept as inactive for historical purposes? V, NOR, RS. Question 3: if you agree with the merge, which of the following would you like to see kept as active as explanatory additions to WP:ATT?

That's all you need. If the answer to Question 1 is mostly No, the main polices are V and NOR again, and we simply take the policy tag off ATT. End of story. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 1 is ill-formed, and unacceptably vague. It will, judging from the community discussion, not even register the support for WP:ATT, since it will be opposed from several different positions; some of them will take it as endorsement of the process that got us here. I don't really mind that process; others do. If it's still around when I return to this, I will attempt to refine it. I regret reversion to it, as uncollegial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What I think SlimVirgin means to ask by Question 1 is equivalent to a Yes vote on WP:NPOV and WP:V is Question 2, and a vote for either of the first two alternatives in Question 3. Question 1 is unnecessary, and will only confuse matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think question 1 is simple and clear. This is getting way, way too complicated. Also, whoever added the "verifiability not truth" question should leave it out, please. This isn't about what should be in the policy. It's about whether it should be on one or three pages, and what the title(s) should be, no more. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on this page; this text of question 1 is discussed, at length, twice. (As for "verifiability, not truth". thaat question is also ill-posed, and is not the sort of thing q large poll can answer.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. By restoring this question, SlimVirgin, you just unilaterally bypassed a great deal of discussion in which you didn't participate (and evidently haven't read). As noted above, it's redundant and polarizing.

2. Please explain how "Which pages, if any, should Wikipedia:Attribution comprise?" is poor English. The only poor English that I see is your continual use of the word "merge" as a noun. —David Levy 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, why did you revert to older wording for the last question (without acknowledgment or explanation)? —David Levy 03:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And further I note the the "new" version doesn't even provide some options that used to be available. It reduces the possibilities to "no merge, death of ATT" (I think), "merge and death of the others", and "merge and keep but relegate to FAQs the others". That eliminated at least the "merge and keep the others as primary, relegate ATT to something like a FAQ" (maybe others; I haven't been tracking every edit). I think this would be a really radical change to the direction the poll's been going for a few days now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Side note: 'whoever added the "verifiability not truth" question should leave it out' - YES. That was discussed elsewhere and unless something changed radically while I was eating dinner there was certainly nothing like a consensus to add that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The "in principle" question is quite clear, and the rest of the changes were what was making the poll too complex. Let's keep it simple folks, and more on from the constant nit-picking. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's reached the stage where no one can be expected to plough through this talk page. The only thing that matters is that the questions be simple and clear, and that first question is something we need an answer to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

By "plough through this talk page," do you mean "read the discussions through which collaborative changes were made before deciding that I don't like them and unilaterally undoing them without discussion"?

Again, the last question asks exactly the same thing without forcing respondents to adopt an extreme position. We do need an answer, but there are more choices than "yes" and "no." —David Levy 06:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the discussions on which the revisions were based? We're trying to keep the poll simple, and you're complicating it by restoring a 100% redundant (and polarizing) question. —David Levy 06:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The basic question needs to be asked first, before any other questions are bothered with. It's hard to see why this question would be any more "polarizing" than any other, but it's easy to see why it is the fundamental issue that needs to be resolved first and foremost. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the last question asks exactly the same thing. One answer is identical in meaning to "yes," and another is identical in meaning to "no." The only functional difference is the inclusion of two additional options that enable compromise (instead of demanding that respondents adopt one of the two extreme positions or no position at all). —David Levy 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur stronglly with David Levy. I think the simplest thing to do is revert to back to before Slimvirgin belatedly wandered in - not because I think every single edit made since then is bad, but just to get back to what consensus was before the fight broke out, and then start from there again. I've seen this done several times with articles, and it has generally been pretty productive (though a few edits unrelated to the disputed stuff can get lost for a while in the shuffle). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I copied and pasted the unrelated edits before reverting. —David Levy 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Let's go back to this version from three days ago. Oh! Wait a minute! That version has the same opening question as well, "Do you agree in principle etc."! Go figure. I guess you can now "wander" away, the problem has been solved. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to be testy or resort to reductio ad absurdum. I'm not the first to point out that this wanton editing spree has undone a whole day's worth of consensus-building. I'm sorry you came in late, but re-read what I just wrote: I didn't say "editwar because all the new edits are bad", I simply suggested going back a little bit to common ground. Pretty simple really. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Three editors patting each other on the back isn't "consensus building". I've given a link to the common ground. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion's been pretty contentious, actually, and it has of course been consensus-building; I didn't say it was a consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How about addressing the actual arguments instead of continually proclaiming the equivalent of "you people are wrong!"? —David Levy 06:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, that would be far too conductive to cooperation, though, wouldn't it? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop these comments. If you have a succinct argument (stress on succinct), please say. If not, please don't comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. You don't get to determine what I say or how I say it. I was making a succing argument (I don't know what could be more succint than a very short sentence), that could have been expressed in much longer way with a lot more complaint about civility, consensus, battleground and other key words we're all familiar with. I'm not sure why you feel the need to tell other participants here what to do. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Because this page is a disgrace, that's why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that being an opinion others self-evidently disagree with, that hardly seems like a sensible justification for telling others to shut up. <puzzled> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the arguments? We need a simple yes or no to the question whether people support the merge in principle, even if they disagree as to what should happen to the other pages. Native English speakers know what the words "in principle" mean, so what is the problem? You're turning this into an absolute bloody nightmare of pointless, never-ending arguments about nothing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Saying "I find basic English confusing" is hardly an argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is insane. It isn't rational, and everyone has had enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

What are you talking about?! —David Levy 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that. We're saying that the question is redundant (because the last question asks exactly the same thing) and polarizing (because it forces everyone to adopt one of the two extreme positions instead of considering compromise). —David Levy 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what we need to begin with -- a simple yes or no!! Then ask them about options. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it beneficial to force respondents to select an extreme position in lieu of the compromise that they actually advocate? —David Levy 07:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And notably even the very first version of the poll presented three options. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Because we did a merge which was very popular, and we asked for feedback and we got feedback, and it was uniformly positive, overwhelmingly so in fact. I got more e-mails about that than about any other single issue since I arrived at Wikipedia. Therefore, we need to know "did we get that wrong?" We want people to answer that one question: do you agree with the merge in principle? People do know what that phrase means. You are trying to stop it because you don't want there to be a resounding yes, because you oppose the merge. And it's getting very tiresome that you're trying to stop people from answering one very simple question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite: Why does Jimbo now consider 1. that the merger is "not the right way to make policy", and is a "radical change", and that "many editors did not know about ATT", after he has been supporting WP:ATT "in principle" for months? 2. that in order to survive ATT needs first, broader and more vigorous discussion, and second, a wider consensus? Lethiere 12:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. No, I seek to remove the question because it's 100% redundant and needlessly forces people to adopt an extreme position contrary to their actual opinions.

2. I don't oppose the merger. I support a compromise, and I'm actually worried that others who wish to compromise will be compelled to vote "no."

3. I'm acting in good faith (as I'm sure that you are), and your failure to assume this (with the accusation that people with whom you disagree are "trying to screw up the questions") is quite disheartening. —David Levy 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't need a simple yes or no. "Yes" means "Wikipedia:Attribution should supersede the merged pages." No means "Wikipedia:Attribution should be retired." In addition to these possible outcomes, two compromises have been proposed. The last question asks exactly the same thing and allows respondents to select any of these four options. The current question 1 needlessly complicates the poll and discourages compromise. —David Levy 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; we're existing under just such a compromise per Jimbo-in-official-role right now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. That is YOUR interpretation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what's yours? Through discussion, perhaps we can come up with new wording on which all of us can agree. Simply telling people that they're wrong (and undoing all of their work) is far less helpful. —David Levy 07:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's what you're doing! Is it only wrong when others do it, but fine when you do? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

David Levy appears to be making a point of logic ("The last question asks exactly the same thing and allows respondents to select any of these four options") while you appear to be making an assertion of faith in what is best for people, from my POV, as one difference. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? I discussed the changes on the talk page and arrived at agreement with my fellow editors. You simply reverted and proclaimed that we were wrong.

In the spirit of cooperation, I once again invite you to discuss this matter and work toward consensus. —David Levy 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of your interpretation of question 1, please explain what ground it covers that question 3 doesn't. —David Levy 07:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've explained. We want to hear whether people agree with the merge in principle. If you see it as merely repetitive, why not leave us poor fools with our silly repetitive question? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't see it as merely repetitive. I see it as polarizing and counterproductive. —David Levy 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to explain how "Which pages, if any, should Wikipedia:Attribution comprise?" is poor English. Again, the only poor English that I see is your continual use of the word "merge" as a noun (no offense intended). —David Levy 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary merge, n.: An act or instance of merging; a merger. ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See my reply below. —David Levy 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's poor writing. I can't explain why, it just is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See, this is an example of what I mean. What does it matter what I think of the word "comprise"? We can find another word that means the same thing. Why ask three times about it? These endless questions are driving people nuts, and people are staying away from this page because of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Who's being driven nuts? I thought this topic was quite productive until all sorts of hyperbole about insanity, stupidity and tiresomeness started being thrown around. PS: By "this topic" I mean "the subject of the wording of the poll" not "the material under this topic heading", about which I have a radically different opinion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Updated 07:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask three times. I asked twice. You ignored the first instance and replied twice to the second. —David Levy 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You described my English as "poor," and I merely want an explanation of how this is so. In what way is the sentence linguistically incorrect? For example, your sentence "I can't explain why, it just is." includes a comma in place of a semicolon. As another example, you wrote "we did a merge which was very popular." Correct English would have been "we did a merger that was very popular." ("Merge" is a verb, and this is a restrictive relative clause.) I take grammar very seriously, so the claim that I've erred (when I see nothing wrong) is troublesome. —David Levy 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better in general to confine discussions of grammar to problems with the wording on an article or project page, and not to contributions of editors on talk pages. However, it's worth pointing out that "which" is perfectly correct as a restrictive relative pronoun in British English. I'm not so familiar with American English. Fowler wrote that "it would be idle to pretend that" keeping "which" for non-restrictive rel. clauses and "that" for non-restrictive rel. clauses was "the practice either of most or of the best writers." And, as I mentioned above, "merger" is listed in the OED as a noun, although it's certainly more common as a verb. In any case, saying that a particular wording is "poor English" doesn't necessarily mean there's a grammatical error. It could be a question of style. Is it elegant? Squabbles like this one are making the whole page unreadable. It's almost impossible to get involved in the discussion now. I wouldn't even know where to begin. ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel compelled to ask 3 short questions (they are rhetorical and for your consideration, not solicitious of a reply here, though my talk page is always open): 1) How much time did you spend researching that to dig up quotes and citations instead of figuring out which topics on this page were informative or interesting for you? 2) Why did you just post two replies, one lengthy, to a long-dead (at least one day) mini-dispute, between two other parties, that you already think is distracting, with the seeming intent of re-opening it for further off-topic discussion? 3) Doesn't it seem ironic to you to to complain of grammar argumentation, only to largely defend the original grammar critic, by engaging in a rambling grammar lecture? I really don't see the rationale. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You (ElinorD) have missed my point entirely. SlimVirgin referred to my writing as "poor English," and I'm asking her to explain why. I'm mindful of the fact that many differences exist among the various English varieties. Just last night, I informed someone (on this very page) that "judgements" is a correct spelling.

As this is an international website, it's a good idea to use English words and phrases that appeal to as broad an audience as possible. (It often is feasible to replace Americanisms and Britishisms with mutually accepted alternatives.) I cited some specific examples of why SlimVirgin's grammar would be perceived as poor to a speaker of American English. Her elaboration on the claim that my English is poor was "I can't explain why, it just is." (Note the use of a comma in lieu of a semicolon.) —David Levy 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I for one will certainly be put in a vote-No position if the compromise options are eliminated or skewed against. SV, please consider that any number of parties initially opposed to ATT based on the same kinds of concerns Jimbo has expressed might be transitioning to a compromise position. If they don't have faith that their position is being represented properly, or that people are being led away from it by the poll itself, they will almost all simply revert back to "no merge". I know you don't like the compromise positions as much but either would be leverage to do what you actually want to after more consensus later. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The compromise options still exist in 2 and 3. Marskell 09:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't say they didn't exist (in this version); the balance has been lost by restoration of leading questions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just re-read this after a break of about an hour not looking at it at all. The current question #1 really is pointless. Question 2 asks precisely the same question, simply in better detail. This is just silly. Pretending I'm someone who has never seen the poll before, like my grandmother or the guy at the 7-11, I think "argh, why the @#$% are they asking me the same thing twice? Who the hell wrote this? I'm going somewhere else, or maybe I'll leave a smartass answer to express my derision." — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The only "arghh" question that I see at present is Q3. While I understand the options, the less informed may find it confusing. It will take people all of three seconds to understand the purpose of Q1. Marskell 11:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to give WPians a whole lot of intelligence credit; I don't think many would be confused by Q3, but a great many would be really irritated by Q1. Just my take on it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Above, someone writes about the first Q, "Again, I don't see it as merely repetitive. I see it as polarizing and counterproductive." As I seeit, the first question is the question in that one cannot know how to vote on any of the following questions unless one has first made a decision about this. I frankly am not sure what the word "polarizing" means in this context. Several months ago people worked on merging severalpolicies into ATT, and Jimbo has recently called this whole endeavor into question. There are - ultimately - only two positions possible: we do creat a new policy page that incorporates without changing existing policies, or we do not. Finding out whether people are evenly split on this, closely divided, or that there is an overwhelming majority one way or the other seems very practical. I certainly do not see howasking the question could increase any strife about the matter. I just donotsee howit can becounterproductive. On the contrary, we need to make a decision on this question before we can proceed to the rest.Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Marskell 13:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just see any number of David Levy's responses to SV on topic. I would add that the "polarizing" issue is potentially worse than even D.L. says: it not only shunts everyone into either an all-yes or all-no position right at the outset (which could easily skew their more detailed votes later, as in "well, I've already said 'no', so I'd better go for 'no' on everything to agree with myself"), when a large number, quite possibly a majority, will actually hold a compromise position. WP:ATT proponents will likely get a higher-than-realistic "yes" count from Q1, giving them a misleading statistic they can quote out-of-context. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Some editors, including (I believe) some editors who support Q1, see it as endorsing the process by which the merger was originally done. I don't; I'm not sure what it means. My best guess would that it was intended to mean: WP:V and WP:NPOV should be merged into WP:ATT and either become inactive or subordinate to it. But SlimVirgin disagrees. Although I agree with that position, I intend to strongly oppose Q1; I don't like blank checks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Another good way of putting it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there are not only two positions possible; that's precisely the false message that question 1 sends. Two compromises have been proposed. Question 3 asks exactly the same thing, but it allows respondents to select any of the four options (and even to select more than one and rate them in order of preference). "The original pages become inactive. Wikipedia:Attribution serves as a unified policy on their subjects." means exactly the same thing as "yes." "Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive. (Parts of it that reflect consensus are integrated into the original pages.)" means exactly the same thing as "no." The only difference is that two compromise options (reflecting real positions that some users hold) are available.

Question 1 needlessly forces people to adopt an all-or-nothing position (thereby precluding compromise). It distorts the data (perhaps creating the appearance of agreement) by pushing everyone with moderate viewpoints into one of two extreme camps. There might be consensus for a middle-of-the-road compromise, and question 1 serves only to discourage such thinking and obfuscate potentially viable solutions.

People need to understand that this is not a majority vote. It's a non-binding poll created to gauge the community's opinions (whatever they may be) for the purpose of furthering discussion, not an attempt to lump everyone together in one of two groups for the sake of expedience. If 28% of people vote to deactivate WP:ATT and the remaining 72% are divided evenly between the other three options (24% each), that doesn't mean that the deactivation option "wins" and WP:ATT is rejected. It means that most of the community supports its existence in some form (and we continue discussing the best way to implement it). Question 1's inclusion will result in the collection of less useful data, not more. —David Levy 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And as I note above, provide misleading statistics than can be abused out-of-context. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Marskell...you believe that it's a good idea to make it easier for "less informed" users to cast votes without taking the time to read about and fully understand the situation? —David Levy 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• The present wording of Question 1 is hopelessly vague; this point has been made in #Wording of the first question, and elsewhere. It is fairly common to view one's own writing with "Of course it's clear; I know exactly what I mean"; but this is one of the things the Wiki process exists to correct.
  • If this wording has been defended, by anyone, with more than WP:ILIKEIT, I do not see the post; a diff would be welcome.
• I deprecate any discussion of the process before Jimbo reverted the redirects. I think more highly of it than Jimbo appears to; but any question which can be read as endorsing or deprecating that process should be avoided. It is enough to note that it provoked several respectable complaints, and could stand improvement next time. (Does any one disagree?)
• Some editors may be too busy to read the discussion here; but it is undesirable for such editors to begin with a massive reversion, with massive collateral damage. Reinsertion of Question 1 (no matter which form) would have been far less disruptive.
• I deplore the personal attacks on David Levy in this section. I am willing to endorse an RfC on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson, you got like 1,286 characters in this comment, but you didn't make a suggestion. I think what you are trying to say is "you don't like question 1, but you don't have a better idea. Let me propose a change.

* Current "Do you agree in principle with the merger(s) implemented at Wikipedia:Attribution?"

* New? Do you agree in principle with the merging Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources at Wikipedia:Attribution?

signed Jeepday 14:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be clearer, and I've put it in. How does it differ from three yes votes in Q2? (It will also get oppose votes from those who support WP:ATT, but want to keep WP:RS.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Because if you get 70% yes votes on question one, it gives consensus for the move, which meets one of Jimbo's issues. Then it is clearly just a question of how and what parts to incluce in WP:ATT. The reverse would also be true. Jeepday 15:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

NB: 70% yes votes does not automatically equate to consensus. This is a straw poll, not a referendum. If most of the votes have the character of "Yes, Slimvirgin has put a lot of work into this" or "Yes, I'm really tired of this debate" or other nonsubstantive gibberish, and the majority of "no" votes raise substantive issues, one would actually come to the opposite conclusion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Respondents can express exactly the same opinions by answering question 3. —David Levy 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to add my two pence, I agree that the earlier phraseology of the question, "Do you agree in principle with the merger(s) implemented at Wikipedia:Attribution?" [8] was overly vague, since there were a variety of principles involved. The current phraseology, "Do you agree in principle with the merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into Wikipedia:Attribution?" [9] is more specific, but still overly polarising. Questions 2 and 3 address the question while allowing more options. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I added more options to make the question less polarising. [10] — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your efforts, but these new options are extremely vague and would mean different things to different people. As you noted above, questions 2 and 3 already cover the same ground (with far greater clarity and specificity), so why not eliminate question 1 entirely? —David Levy 18:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support removing the question entirely.  : ) However, it would probably be added again, and I feel adding more options is a compromise. Yes, the options I added are vague, but at least they aren't polarising. I would expect that anyone who chose one of them would explain their opinion in their vote (or !vote). — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein has it exactly right (above). First we need to decide if people agree in principle with a merger. If the answer is "yes", then we can figure out exactly should be merged. If the answer is "no", then we're done. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's completely backwards. You can't rationally agree in principle with a merger of two or more things if you don't know what those things are! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Preamble

It seems to me that the preamble needs a good weeding. How much of this background detail do we really need? semper fictilis 03:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This is turning into a bit of a farce. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs weeding in part because SlimVirgin wiped out 24 hours of progress with wording it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Rv is easy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How did I do that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See #Keep it simple. NB: I'm not advocating a total revert, I'm just saying we don't need to have the same issue discussed in two threads. Whether to keep your major changes was already being discussed (mostly in the negative at that time, haven't looked lately) at #Keep it simple already. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanatory page

I would like to put a link to a page where I wrote up the rationale for the new policy page. Does anyone mind if I do that? It's at User:SlimVirgin/Attribution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim, could you move that page to a subpage here? And name it some like "Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Basic comparison" -- tying it to your name may make some people bring up WP:OWN, and then just do a basic-- say 5-10 sentences of what each version has to offer? Like how election ballots do? I think that would be awesome for people who will be coming in droves here to poll. Sort of a nutshell of a nutshell page for all of the polices. - Denny 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I could try that, but the difficulty is that they really are the same. :-) V and NOR jointly say the same thing as ATT. RS was a mess and said a different thing every week. So I'm not sure how I could do a comparison apart from what I wrote there already about the various problems the pages had. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I guess the perceived differences, if that makes sense? It probably doesn't... - Denny 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what they are, that's the thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll come out of the woodwork soon enough. Those convinced that there are differences have been pretty vocal (unfortunately I've haven't been paying attention to their details, because the issue wasn't on my radar, so I can't answer the question myself, other than the "truth" issue, which has been coming up again and again). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vocal but talking nonsense, which I can't even paraphrase because it was incoherent. They can write their own page if they want to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why characterize them personally this way? Anyway, given "And name it some like "Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Basic comparison" -- tying it to your name may make some people bring up WP:OWN", my assuption just above was that you would move the document to such a location, at which point the people with these issues would probably make them clear at it (and perhaps they cannot make them clear, as you suggest; I offer no opinion on that matter). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything that simplifies this mess is good. Jeepday 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be at Wikipedia:Attribution/Attribution explanation now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

POV thoughts here, you asked to put a link to "rationale for the new policy page" but you called it "Summary of the objectives of the merger: User:SlimVirgin/Attribution" and then neglected to mention in the objections "Jimbo said "Quite the opposite of "so much for consensus". This radical change was made without any consensus at all. If people really want this, then they need to make a serious effort to get consensus, not just declare victory and make the changes. --Jimbo Wales 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)" so as I see it you still have to get consensus for the move" and you started with a clearly POV statement "Wikipedia needs one policy page that explains the need to use sources, with one key concept that editors will easily understand — that of attribution." assuming that POV of those in favor of the move is correct. I realize I am mixing both the rationale for the move and the need for a reattempt for consensus or here. But if you are going to give a rational please try and give both sides. Jeepday 14:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See section below (here)! The slot is there, waiting for the other view. Johnbod 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements from all sides needed

To make sense of the issues for those coming late to the debate there should be a small number (2 is I suppose too small a number to hope for) of reasonably short statements by proponents of the different positions, linked to from the poll page. Trying to pick up the issues here or on the Attribution talk page etc is now hopeless. Johnbod 07:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Two is definitely too small a number. I'm aware of something like nine already. That said, it's not a bad idea, though I wonder how one would ensure that one side didn't editwar to make another side's position sound stupid. Slimvirgin is working on a related-ish document, but at this point I don't even know if it will even leave her userspace. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine to link to the document at her user-space, assuming proponents of the merger will endorse the summary. I will add this to the instructions, with a place-holder for the people who object to put one user-space summary too. I would encourage Coppertwig to be the one who does this. If you guys can't agree, then you could fork it, but it would really be good, if you could create one summary document. The benefit of keeping the summary in user space is precisely that it can't be deliberately weakened by someone else. --Merzul 09:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks Johnbod 09:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, but would suggest that (should Coppertwig accept the responsibility) he/she also directly invite other editors with oppose rationales expressed around here to edit it; I do not believe that Coppertwig's counter-issues are the full gamut of the counter-issues. This would prevent the feared forking. There could be additional ones anyway, since there are more than the two bare "yes!" and "no!" positions, such as two basic compromise positions as well (see #Keep it simple for discussion of how they will be represented in the poll), and differences of opinion on whether to include WP:RS in the merge, and so on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us have a little organizational strategy meeting here. Our opportunity is to construct a very clear and concise page that summarizes why the current Attribution policy page is a really bad idea. First, our authority structure matters greatly. That is, we would not be here doing this very important work if our Great Man did not tell us that we had to do this work. I certainly would not be here doing this work because I saw no opportunity for having any positive effect; I would be observing the Wikipedia that I care much about go down the very wrong policy path with the current Attribution policy page. So, for this segment of the work, we need a neutral admin as our authority structure to host our page on which we summarize the fundamental flaws of the current Attribution policy page, where the fatal flaws seem to be 1) incoherent statement of Wikipedia policy and a 2) huge change from the previous policies of Verifiability to a ReliableSource with NoOriginalResearch. You may have other ideas of what the fatal flaws are in the current Attribution policy page. The point of such a summary page would be to get your ideas stated clearly, but it might be best to narrow the items to three or four key and clear points. Is there a neutral admin who would volunteer to merely host and administer in UserSpace a page on which we could construct several clear statements of the fatal flaws in the current Attribution policy page. Any admin that is on the line about the so-called "merger" would be ideal, in my opinion. But maybe someone has a better idea. What is next? --Rednblu 22:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm honoured by Merzul's nomination and by Rednblu's kind words in another section. Other users may wish to nominate other possible moderators at this point. I'm willing to act as moderator if that is desired and if I'm satisfied with the arrangements. I would try to set aside my personal bias to help produce a document that sets out the anti-merge positions in a balanced and concise way. --Coppertwig 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No. If you want someone to moderate, it should be one that is not involved in the crafting of this poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the idea of a moderator is strange. To moderate what? SlimVirgin did not ask any moderation to write her summary of the ATT rationale. Nobody is stopping you from writing an essay about your views. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he means the term rather informally. SlimVirgin generally appears to represent the largely unified pro-merge position; I don't see anyone who is for the merge saying they don't think their view is represented. The anti- or why-merge positions are several, and distinct, so more than one person is likely to want input in it. If the people actually writing the document want someone to informally moderate them, that is their business. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Throughout these proceedings, let us please allow all of our dear friends, particularly Jossi, express exactly their feelings, judgments, and emotions. And let us realize please that Jossi's expressions are merely Jossi's feelings, judgements, and emotions. Let us consider them exactly in all of their entirety. And then let us proceed with our work. What is next? --Rednblu 22:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and write up your "feelings, judgements (sic), and emotions" as it pertains to ATT, and let the community judge these on their merits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And same with SV's counter-essay. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "(sic)" notation is unwarranted; "judgements" is a correct spelling (particularly in Commonwealth English). —David Levy 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chairman Coppertwig? --Rednblu 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with jossi on this. Coppertwig is an involved party, and hence not eligible to moderate or mediate on this. Also note that the Mediation Committee does not believe that mediation is appropriate for policy discussions, see WP:M#What_is_mediation.3F. (Yes, I know mediation and moderation are different, but we don't have a Moderation Committee.) — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chairman Coppertwig? --Rednblu 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm genuinely interested in a summary of your case, but instead of more discussion here, I would really like to see one succinct and coherent document, like the one produced by SlimVirgin. If you guys could handle this in Coppertwig's userspace, e.g. User:Coppertwig/Attribution, then I'm sure Jossi will accept linking to it. I'm not saying you are forbidden from discussing things here, but everyone has stated their arguments at so many places so many times, it would be so much more helpful if you guys focused on producing one document that we could link to, and then I would finally understand your objections. --Merzul 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone just start writing, sort out where it will be later. You don't need a moderator unless there's an argument to moderate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not moderating or mediating between pro-merge and anti-merge sides of the debate. Rather, I expect to create a user page within a few hours (perhaps with title "User:Coppertwig/Stability" -- open to suggestions) and invite certain other users (i.e. those against the merge or against the way it's being done in one way or another, even those whose views I disagree with) to edit the page, under certain restrictions such as 3RR. I have a right to create a user page and to allow others to edit it. I expect it will be quite suitable for linking from the Poll page under "Other statements". I will probably reserve the right to place restrictions on users editing the page, at my discretion. I may create other user pages as well, and there may be links from the main user page to those as well as perhaps to other user pages others may create. I'm open to suggestions about these details from users who are against the merge in one way or another. --Coppertwig 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Use User:Coppertwig/Attribution. It is already redlinked above and that will turn into a blue link the moment you create it.  :-) I would strongly suggest doing that right now and let Rednblu and whoever else is interested from the not-ATT camp start working on it. Don't introduced process that isn't needed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, in reply to Rednblu: We're all equals here. Too much deference should not be given to any one user. You're contributing some very good points about how the policy applies to biographies of living persons. Everyone's opinion is important. I'll be relying on all the collaborators to help collect information for the page and help write it, and I'll be relying on people, rather than deferring to me, to bug me about anthing I need to do differently. --Coppertwig 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I will behave. :) This is serious business. I would not want to detract from that. --Rednblu 21:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I created the page User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy and invite users who are opposed to the merge, or opposed to some aspect of the merge, to edit it according to rules on the talk page of that page. The intention is for there to be a link from the Poll page to this page under "Other Statements". --Coppertwig 22:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest moving it or copying it (and its talk page) when it is done over to Wikipedia:Attribution/Attribution opposition to match SV's Wikipedia:Attribution/Attribution explanation, and give it an essay tag with an WP:ATTCON shortcut to match WP:ATTPRO. The two finished pieces should be paired so that the incoming pollster has a balanced view of the issues and the equal weight of the positions in the poll (having one of these remain a userspace essay with no shortcut would undermine that balance.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your attempt to get clear titles. And thanks for getting us to think about the final page name early. I speak only for myself. I have absolutely no opposition to attribution. I don't think anybody here has any opposition to attribution. So it would be wrong to label this "Statements from all sides" page as any form of attribution opposition. "Stability of policy" is a working and accurate name because, in contrast, the current Attribution policy page is a humongous inversion of the prior Verifiability, Reliable source, and No original research policies. Perhaps, you can help us think of a better name for the "Stability of policy" page. Let's think about it. There is plenty of time. This whole process with take months. Meanwhile, we will work on the content of that page. I have been plowing through the four months of vociferous arguments against this so-called "merger," and it will take all of us a while to get three or four clear and obvious statements. --Rednblu 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. You are correct in deducing that my goal here is to ensure equal representation. At this point in the debate I'm not taking sides any longer and lean toward a centrist, compromise position. I.e., I'm more concerned about the poll being fair and useful than about any particular option on it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) On reviewing various policies and guidelines I have the impression that essays are written by a single user or by all users, not by limited groups of users. For this and other reasons I've decided the user page will be edited by myself only; but input is welcome from all users on the talk page of the user page. When it's finished I plan to move it to policy space, as was done with SlimVirgin's essay. I've put similar messages at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Page for creating collaborative expression of arguments against and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion#Summary of Conclusions.... --Coppertwig 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

canonical vs definitive

Just a thought but I had to go look up the meaning of canonical maybe definitive would be a better word? It seems to me that canonical might be a theological word that not all Wikipedians are familiar with. Jeepday 12:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was also worried that not all Wikipedians might understand canonical.  : ) See Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Canonical. (Yes, I know you already saw that. The link is for others who haven't.) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we want to imply that other policies are not definitive? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If we made WP:V and WP:NOR definitive, but not WP:ATT, then WP:V and WP:NOR would be normal core policies, with WP:ATT having a status similar to WP:5P - something which explains policies, but is not policy itself.

If, on the other hand, we made WP:ATT the definitive policies, then WP:V and WP:NOR would probably be guidelines, further explaining WP:ATT but also subordinate to it. This could cause some confusion in building consensus, as people might build consensus on the guideline pages only to be ignored because they didn't do so on the ATT talk page, but that could probably be figured out. (Why not just move the conversations, for example?)

So no, it doesn't mean that things like WP:NPOV aren't policy, it just refers to which pages would be subordinate to which other pages in this grouping, if we kept all of them.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... if WP:ATT is kept as the definitive policy, with WP:V and WP:NOR as more in-depth explanations subordinate to it, perhaps WT:V and WT:NOR should be substed into WT:ATT, to prevent the problem of people being ignored because they suggested something on the wrong talk page, and also as a way to break up discussion. (WT:ATT is very hi-traffic, so it might be good to break it up.) — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, the use of "canonical" here is a bit arch; it is imported from fandom. I don't care either way, but no one is seriously implying any religious overtones. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. [11] — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT says canonical, as do the cross-references. We can agree to change that, but I think this poll is stuck with it., unless we {{editprotected}} the change. (I would prefer to remove it; we have policy and guidelines; we don't need "canonical" or "definitive" policies. If something is policy, it is policy; it not, not.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe that Jimbo used or was quoted as using the word, but it doesn't mean it is a designation like "Policy", "Guideline", "Essay", "Rejected" or "Historical". The wording already installed on all these pages makes it clear that ATT (for now) has canonicity per the Jimbo compromise, so the word itself needn't be bandied about. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggested changing the word at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Canonical_vs._definitive_.28or_another_word.29. You all are encouraged to express your own opinions. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think cannonical is actually more correct than definitive... definitive has connotations of being "complete", "done". Cannonical on the other hand implies "approved" and the policy that is in place.Blueboar 01:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 3

In my view, main question here is Question 3, and we should give it its due weight by placing it first. However, I don't understand this formulation from it: "Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive. (Elements that reflect consensus are integrated into the original pages.)" There shouldn't be anything in ATT which isn't already in the original pages. Wasn't that the stated purpose of ATT - to combine original pages without changing anything? -- Vision Thing -- 14:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are changes (I believe improvements) in phrasing, and discussions which are (I believe) statements of present practice not explicitly stated in the source pages. Which of these have consensus support would require more discussion if 3d passes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe that your explanation will be helpful to others too. -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Jimbo Wales

Looking at Jimbo Wales's comments on Wikipedia_talk:Attribution I can't find where he commended "very good work done by people laboring on ATT". Also, why there is no mention of his opinion that "Verifiability and No Original Research are conceptually distinct", "very different concepts" and that "radical reductionists who see them as really being the same thing are, in my view, badly mistaken"? I think that it is important to present his views correctly and in full form, especially because there is an option in the poll to make the original pages inactive. -- Vision Thing -- 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

These comments were made before ATT was explained to him. This was his last communication at talk page of WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much support a straw poll. In the meantime, after an excellent discussion with SlimVirgin, we hammered out a compromise until we can have a fuller discussion. What the pages say now is that WP:ATT is canonical, and WP:V and WP:NOR exist as separate pages to more fully describe those. My big beef with this merger is that we often need to send people to a page like WP:NOR which explains in a rich and persuasive way what the policy is about and why it is a good idea. This involves sometimes saying things which overlap with parts of WP:V. (They are not the same idea!) The combined page provides a handy way to keep policy consistent and have a tight presentation of what policy actually is. The separate pages can be more detailed and understandable.--Jimbo Wales 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The "very good work done by people laboring on ATT" comment was made in the wiki-EN-l mailing list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Link, please. Let's have the record in front of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this one came after:

I would argue that WP:ATT is more maintainable, but at the price of being a significantly worse nomenclature. While policies like WP:V and WP:NOR are interrelated (as all of reality is interrelated), they are significantly different ideas and radical reductionists who see them as really being the same thing are, in my view, badly mistaken. When I say that something is original research, and when I say that something is unverifiable, I mean different things by those statements, as I am focusing on a different kind of deviation from good editing. WP:V and WP:NOR serve a valuable function in focusing on different sorts of things which come up. Reducing all policy to one thing is just not going to be helpful, since not everything is the same thing.--Jimbo Wales 05:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[12] -- Vision Thing -- 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Jossi has a highly pesonal interpretation of what "Jimbo Said", that is as favorable to WP:ATT as possible to extract from what Jimbo actually said. See #WP:ATT is currently canonical policy for a very different alternative interpretation that is at least as plausible. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop polarizing the issue, SMcCandlish. That comment was made before Jimbo had the opportunity to listen to the rationale of ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not polarizing anything. I believe you are misusing that word. I am pointing out that the personal interpretation you keep bringing up again and again and again, in overflowing detail, and which you are trying hard to infuse the poll and the entire debate with, is simply one interpretation, the one most favorable to you and to ATT. Also, the fact that some (not all, BTW) of what I quoted predated later messages by Jimbo is immaterial, as he did not retract or contradict any of it, he simply changed his decision about what to do for the time being and moderated his tone a little.

PS: Please stop being so aggressive. I barely refrained from bringing up your combative, controlling and browbeating attitude in the WP:AN wheelwarring debate today. Don't make me regret the decision to assume you are simply a little stressed right now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no wheelwarring. That is what I mean by polarizing. You are indeed polarizing the issues at hand, and I have the right to bring that to your attention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Other admins (at least two) at WP:AN appear to disagee with you (the ironic thing is, I actually tried to deflect some criticism from you to another party, because I thought you weren't the appropriate target, but I guess you didn't notice that.) Please note also that I didn't say "Jossi is wheelwarring" here, I noted which debate at WP:AN I was referring to; it is a long and oft-changing page. I too have the right to bring to your attention that some of your behavior here is disturbing to me, and I've done so, and, well, that's kind of that. I don't feel a need to belabor the points any further. The fact that you characterized me as "polarizing" is especially ironic to me, given that my principal issues (see #Keep it simple) with the Jossi/Slimvirgin/Jayjg direction of the poll wording and layout is precisely that it is polarizing. :-) But I'm not particularly offended, really. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And please, do not push me to tell you more about what I think of your behavior. I would prefer to keep my assessment of your behavior for after this debate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure we'll both have lots to say about each other's behavior if we still feel strongly about it at that point, which hopefully actually won't be the case. I think this will require as much effort on your part as mine (cf. accusatory terms like "disruption" and "polarizing" directed at me personally rather than criticism of my edits or positions on their own merits or perceived lack thereof). For my part, I will attempt to engage you in refutory debate a lot less, if you think that would help. I'm not sure what if anything else with regard to you specfically that you want. My 4-days-running issues with templates and protections are drawing to a close, and my focus is now on the poll and the community discussion, which is I believe what you want. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Give it a break, would you? This is not helpful. Drop it, move on, and let the debate unfold unencumbered by all that stuff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm trying to agree with you that we'll be more collegial and cooperative with each other. I don't understand your interpretation at all. But I'm not asking you to explain it. I am very happy to drop this, move on and get back to the policy debate. Just a bit mystified by your reaction. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My problem with this poll

The wording on the third question is horrible. The way it is phrased, the first two choices are YES options and the last two are NO options. It, however, is theoretically possible to vote Yes on 1 and some of 2 and then support an option that contradicts your voting pattern (and there will probably be at least one troll that will do so). One might be able to phrase them into two options, which then makes the choice dependent on the consensus of the previous two.

The sub-description of Question 3 also makes no sense ("You can vote for any of these options or mark them as your first choice, second choice, etc."). If you support the first two you cannot support the last two at all and vice versa (thus the "etc." in the ranking makes no sense). If it was narrowed down to two options, then it would be a clear yes/no issue.

Another problem that arises is if the answer to question 1 is YES, but 2 gives no majoraties at all due to no consensus on what to merge. Then the vote would be to merge, but nothing would actually be merged, conflicting the first decision. Similarly, if a consensus is achieved on 1 and 2 and it is close, it is theoretically possible for those people to be split on the first two choices in question 3 and for the people against to be united on one choice. In that case, one poll would lead to the first two poll decisions would be overridden.

Either each question needs to go one at a time, which would take a while, or it needs to be reworded. Otherwise, the decision would have to pass all of the 3 questions (eliminating the need for Question 1) in order to actually be passed, meaning that if the consensus in the poll wasn't achieved in ONE place, the whole thing fails. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, people could provide conflicting responses to questions 1 and 3, which is another good reason to eliminate the 100% redundant question 1.

2. On the contrary, the instructions for question 3 make perfect sense. I happen to support the second and third options (which are not, as claimed above, diametrically opposed). This is not "a clear yes/no issue," and there is no logic in pretending that it is one.

3. You're over-thinking this poll's ramifications. Again, it is not a majority vote. It will have no binding outcome. You're correct, however, that question 1 will provide no data on what to merge (or, for that matter, what function the new page should serve) and that it's entirely needless. —David Levy 18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes/no overly polarises the issue. the third option of the third question [13] is more of a "mostly not" than a "no", for example. In question 2, [14] if you answered "yes" for WP:V and WP:NOR, but "no" for WP:RS, that would be more of a "mostly" than a "yes", assuming for the third question you picked one of the first two options. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur with both of you that question 1 as a simply Y/N question is polarizing and useless. I'm not sure I agree with the big "scale" of options added to question 1, but I at least went and made it a scale per say, a stepwise range. Given contention here it will probably be reverted reflexively by someone before I even submit this post, but at least it'll be in the edit history. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the scale of options is a compromise between a yes/no question and removing the question entirely. I would support the latter, but it would be even more likely to be reverted than the scale of options. If the scale of options is reverted, the question might need an m:Polling is evil option, popular in any poll!  ; ) — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The compromise to give a scale of options sounds like a reasonable improvement to the idea removing Question 1. I everyone can agree, however, that Question 1 is completely useless as it is right now. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 01:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If only it would stay.  : ( Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the scale is better than yes/no, but the entire Q1 is just pointless. The Y/N version must go, regardless; the only reason to keep it is to push a POV that skews the entire poll. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've long thought that on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship we should have "Mostly admin," "Mostly not admin" etc. It's so needless to "polarize" the community. Similarly on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion why has no "half-delete" option emerged? It's just terrible to make people choose. Marskell 12:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

On WP:RfA we have weak supports and opposes, perhaps there should be separate sections for them. If the developers would go along with it, perhaps we could give admins different combinations of deletion, protection, and blocking priveleges.

On WP:AfD, we have other options besides keep and delete, like merge and redirect, or just redirect. There have also been proposals for soft-deletion, like m:Pure wiki deletion system (proposal). This would be great for articles that are bad, but might have potential to become better.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I knew it was WP:BEANS as I posted, but couldn't resist. Marskell 14:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you were serious. m:Pure wiki deletion system (proposal) is serious, and I know it's at least technically possible to give admins certain tools but not all of them. I was serious, at least. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome Orgy

Where's {{orgy-asperger's}} when we need it? Hey, it takes one to know one! Fondly, Butseriouslyfolks 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Jeebus!

This is the butt-ugliest page evah! What are you guys doing? It's horrible. So much boldface, everything all over the place.

Can we not just have a simple list of questions? This is close to demented and as good an argument for not designing things by committee as could be imagined. If sent to this page to vote, I think I would run shrieking for the wikihills. Grace Note 05:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It won't seem so bad when there are 100 comments in it; the headings will be very helpful. The problems with the structure and wording of the poll are far, far more serious. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the structure is bananas. I will laugh my nuts off if someone votes yes to question 1 and then yes to only one of question 2. Grace Note 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Avoid arguments in header info

Tjstrf added this sentence "more than 2,000 edits to the page itself, and more than 5,000 edits to the talk page by more than 300 editors)" here with the edit summary "(It's an attempt at refuting the "no wide consensus" argument.)" I object to this sentence being included on the grounds that arguments should go in the pages linked to for that purpose, not on the poll page itself. --Coppertwig 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is useful information, alongside Jimbo's comment and SlimVirgin's summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coppertwig, but I am more concerned with the wording of the questions and their options. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The words "in principle"

Tjstrf has re-added the words "in principle" here. I don't like those words because I find them vague and ambiguous. SlimVirgin says the meaning is clear. SlimVirgin, the meaning is not clear to me, so please tell me what the meaning is. I think people may vote "yes" meaning "yes, I want to merge the pages but not with the particular wording currently in WP:ATT", and their vote may later be misinterpreted as support for "yes, the current version of WP:ATT or minor modifications to it should be accepted as policy." Which meaning is the correct one? I do not see broad support on this page for use of the words "in principle". Are there other words with the same meaning that are more clear (to those of us who find "in principle" unclear) that can be used instead?

I object to the question "Do you agree in principle with the merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into Wikipedia:Attribution?" being included at all, even with minor changes in wording such as removing "in principle", because the other questions cover the same ground and no-one has given any example of how a consensus for question 1 one way or the other would affect the outcome given that more detailed choices are laid out in the other questions. Please give examples of how question 1 would affect the actual outcome (i.e. what would happen) or explain why you want to include a question that doesn't affect the outcome, before re-inserting "in principle" if I or anyone deletes it again. --Coppertwig 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What if we added a "merge but rewrite WP:ATT" option to question #2 "Which pages, if any, should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution?" [15] In addition to deleting "in principle", of course.

For question 3, "Which of the following arrangements would you prefer?", [16] we could just add an additional option (or perhaps more than one), which involve rewriting WP:ATT.

Question 1, "Do you agree in principle with the merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into Wikipedia:Attribution?" [17] should be converted back to a scale. [18] Actually, question 1 should probably be removed entirely, but I think a scale would be a compromise.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, for question 2, how is "merge but rewrite" different from "conditional yes"? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How many more words need to be exchanged? This has been discussed at length already. Bringing back the same objection again and again, is not productive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The same counter-intuitive objection. What is so confounding about "in principle"? "Yes, I want to merge the pages but not with the particular wording currently in WP:ATT"—then in principle you want to merge the pages. "Yes, I want to merge the pages but I'd like the background of the page to be flourescent pink"—then in principle you want to merge the pages. "Yes, I want the main merge of V and NOR but I'm still iffy on RS"—then in principle you want to the merge the pages. "No, I believe the three original pages are just fine"—then in principle you do not want to merge the pages. All this page has become is one red herring after another. Marskell 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to discuss and present our own arguments, rather than just vote in a "me too" fashion, but Marskell has expressed this so well that all I can say is "me too". ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

m:Polling is evil#Polling_encourages_false_dichotomy discourages yes/no votes, and reccomends adding more options. If you want to merge WP:V and WP:OR but not WP:RS, then in principle you agree with 2/3s of the merge. If you want to merge but want a complete rewrite, then you agree with merging but not WP:ATT. In addition, there are multiple "principles" involved - shortening policy, simplifying policy, synthesising policy, centralising policy, etc. One might agree with some but not all of them. Also, those who want to keep WP:ATT as a condensed summary subordinate to WP:V and WP:OR agree with having a merged page, but not with that merge becoming the definitive policy. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And my grandmother used to recommend brushing with baking soda. Essays on Meta are just that—essays on Meta. The words "You do not have to support the merger in its entirety to vote yes" were specifically added to address the main point of your concern. Marskell 15:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The essay on meta is highly relevant. The words "You do not have to support the merger in its entirety to vote yes" seek to get the appearance of total support from anyone who even partially agrees. People who partially agree should pick an option about partially agreeing, not vote as if they agree completely. Why do you object to additional options like "mostly agree", "partially agree", and "mostly disagree"? Or at least an m:Polling is evil option? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has asked us for a poll. I realize how fond people are of quoting from, or just saying the words "polling is evil," but it's something of a moot point right now.

This whole thing has become so damn repetitive, I hesitate to post another long explanation, but here goes. Polling research questions can be broadly divided into three groups: open ends, scales, and either/or. (These can be further divided: on some open ends, the interviewer will literally try to transpose everything said to paper or screen, while on others they'll have a non-read list that they try to slot things into). Either/or includes Yes/No and Agree/Disagree questions, of course. The arguments presented here that either/or questions are somehow wrong, "polarizing", unusual, or out-of-keeping with polling practice are plainly wrong. Polls routinely do this: "Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements..." It gives you clear data and you proceed from there to work out the nuances.

What happens on Wiki polls is that poorly designed scales are used, which become open ends post-hoc. Four or five choices are offered; these get refactored into eight or ten choices; people stomp around yelling "polling is evil"; people post first, second, third, and mu, choices etc. And nothing is achieved. There is a chance this will happen to question 2, and an even better chance that this will happen to question 3. If the basic question 1 is not asked we'll all have wasted our time. If you don't like the instruction wording, suggest an alternate. Marskell 15:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As above, "me too". ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed "scale" of responses to question 1 is highly impractical, but the fact remains that question 1 will not supply any useful data. If a respondent answers "yes," it will tell us nothing about the extent to which he/she approves of the merger (covered by question 2). If a respondent answers "no," it's possible that he/she might support a compromise (covered by question 3). Question 1 covers absolutely no ground not covered by the other questions. It will accomplish nothing other than cluttering the page, discouraging compromise, and generating misleading statistics.

Your concern that people might dilute the poll by throwing in a bunch of additional choices (including "polling is evil") is valid, but that's just as likely to occur with question 1 (as we've witnessed). —David Levy 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Great post, Marskell. I think you've captured the issue perfectly. Let's have a clear, actionable poll here, not some nonsensical poll with 1,000 options that every types "1st choice", "2nd choice", "13th choice", after which no-one can possibly know what was decided or agreed on, or where consensus lies. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Actionable"?! By definition, a straw poll is not actionable. This is not a majority vote. —David Levy 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be realistic. Of course it is. Wikipedians will take action based on the outcome of this poll. If you're just looking to discuss this, without having any sort of real world implication, please take it to a private message board. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I suspect that the above exchange stems more from mutual misunderstanding than from actual disagreement. Of course the poll will significantly influence the issue, but it isn't a binding majority vote. (We don't base policy decisions on majority votes.) —David Levy 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes we do. We had a vote for 3RR, so now tagteamers get to shut out minority voices. Votes with Jimbo involvement are generally taken as binding because the KoolAiders will enforce them. Grace Note 02:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

KoolAiders? And who are these exactly? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an email if you are genuinely confused. If you are trying to create a conflict, tough luck. I decline to indulge you here. Grace Note 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You used that word, not me. I sincerely do not understand what do you mean by that and who you refer to as such. You are welcome to email me, but as you used this term publicly, it would be useful if you could explain what do you mean by that term and who you decribe as such, here. Don't you think that is a fair request? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(<---)KoolAider = True Believer (as in naively accepting the party line) WAS 4.250 06:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the solution is not to add a bunch of staggered options to question 1. It's to throw it out completely. We're trying to keep the poll as simple as possible, and the other questions will solicit exactly the same information with far greater accuracy and specificity. —David Levy 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but without giving a rational explanation as to why. Please read Marskell's post above. Option 1 is the key; do people agree with the merge in principle or not. If the answer is "yes", then we can work out the details. If the answer is "no", then there's no point in proceeding further. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a rational explanation: this is not a binary issue. People who favor a compromise do not agree with the merger in principle. Forcing them to either support it or oppose it is counterproductive.

Setting aside the issues of accuracy and fairness, you've yet to explain how question 1 isn't 100% redundant. What data will it provide that question 3 won't? —David Levy 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any rational explanation. The merger was a merger; there is no "compromise" position, either you favor some sort of merger or you don't. The decision is precisely binary. And question 1 is the primary question; if the answer to that is no, all subsequent questions are redundant, so we should get the most important question (and the one which was of concern to Jimbo) answered first. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you claim that there is "no compromise position"? Two potential compromises are listed in the poll.

Is your point that both compromises would still be considered a "merger"? If so, I see where you're coming from, but that doesn't fit everyone's interpretation. To me (and several other posters), a "merger" implies that the original pages are superseded, so the question asks whether we should carry out that plan. If someone advocates a moderate outcome, he/she might vote "no" (because he/she doesn't "support the merger in principle"), thereby voting down WP:ATT in its entirety before any sort of compromise can even be discussed.

I previously changed the question's wording to ask whether people "agree in principle with the existence of the Wikipedia:Attribution page in some form" (which I believe conveyed the meaning that you intend), but this didn't stick.

Of course, you still haven't explained what data question 1 will provide that question 3 won't. —David Levy 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that the 'in principle' question is crucial, and is arguably the only really important question in this poll, as it most closely reflects Jimbo's goal in having the poll. It will also give us a good feel for the community's overall sentiment regarding this issue. Crum375 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well: ""a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

...which is not accomplished by lumping everyone into two piles. You expressed agreement with this (and removed question 1 from the poll). —David Levy 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify. What is not accomplished, and to whom are you referring as "you"? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing Jossi. You inserted your reply above mine (and I've moved it down to the correct location), but the indentation remained intact. —David Levy 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. There is one primary question; all else is detail. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears as though this disagreement stems from differing interpretations of the question. (See above.) —David Levy 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Puppy concurs, per Crum375 - 'in principle' is quite clear, as SlimVirgin states - I don't want to be rude, but I find the concern that it might be misunderstood or not understood to be tenuous at best. Perhaps if someone doesn't understand that concept perhaps their English is insufficient for editing the EN Wikipedia? One may certainly agree in principle, with minor reservations or concerns, and this is precisely what we are attempting to determine with this poll. I fail to see how removing the only unilaterally relevant question is remotely helpful in moving forward. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Even Wikipedia:Voting is not evil agrees that, "Voting on a yes/no option generally doesn't work; it is more useful to find a compromise between the extremes." How can you "assess the feelings of the community as best we can" if you force people to pick between extremes contrary to their actual feelings? —— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "in principle" seems useful...without it, there's no way to interpret a "no". Without it, a "yes I like the merge, but I think it needs an extra comma" and "I hate everything about the merge" are both "no". The point is whether people think a merge is useful or not. "In principle" achieves this. Without it, we might as well just vote up or down on the current language. Guettarda 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What about more middle positions, like, "I want WP:V and WP:NOR merged, but not WP:RS." That is about 2/3 agreement, which should not be described as a "yes", or a "no", but rather a "mostly". What about middle positions supporting certain pages being merged, but all pages being kept active, with certain pages being definitive/canonical. These middle positions do not fall under "yes" or "no", as merging often implies replacing as well. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is dealt with in subsequent questions. If one does not agree with any sort of merger, which was Jimbo's primary concern, then we need to get that sorted out right away. If one does agree with some sort of merger, then the details can be worked out. The "in principle" question does not preclude working out the details; indeed, it opens the way to doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I understand how more options will prevent you from doing that. People who completely disagree would still be able to vote "no". If you get a lot of mostly, partially, and mostly not votes, you know you have something to work with, but still have to work out the details. And people who completey agree could still vote "yes", of course. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you get lots of "mostly", "partially", "mostly not", "only on Tuesdays", "I'll have 2 from column A and 1 from column b", "if you send me $5", "voting is evil", "mu", etc. type votes then you'll have no idea what to do. There's no point getting bogged down in the usual wiki-poll mush; people have to take a stand one way or the other. Once that's clear, the details can be worked out. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has suggested "only on Tuesdays". There are serious moderate options between "yes" and "no" for people to consider, as I have explained above. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As it's already been explained many times a) what can go wrong with scales and how badly Wiki does them; b) why there is nothing extreme about a yes/no question ("Do you believe ATT should stay as is or be deleted?" is extreme—asking whether you agree with it in principle is just the opposite); c) how Q1 asks what Jimbo has requested we ask; d) how the existence of Q2 and Q3 to unpack various options answers the concerns...I see little point in continuing to debate this with Armedblowfish. Sorry Armedblowfish, but I think you're "accidentally trolling"—disagreeing for the sake of it and not hearing the half-dozen people who have already answered your concerns. Marskell 18:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

;_; Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My attempts to wade through this page are discouraging, but Marskell's posts are very helpful. (Thanks, Marskell.) So I want to state for the record that I support the "in principle" wording. ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with Jay. We should only be asking question 1 in this poll. Once we've ascertained whether there is in principle support for the merge, then we can bicker over what form it should take. The other questions are going to be moot if there is no support for a merge anyway. Grace Note 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg too. He's just being realistic. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree too. ElinorD (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we move or remove votes once they've been added?

Say a straw poll opens, and UserX decides he wants to vote for an option not listed, so he adds it and votes for it. Is it allowable to move or remove UserX's opinion?

The only relevant guidance I can find on this is in Wikipedia:Straw polls, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, and of course m:Polling is evil. (All essays.)

Wikipedia:Straw polls#Creating_a_survey says, "Once started, the questions and wording in the survey should not change. However, if someone feels that the existing survey is seriously flawed, this is typically an indication Step 2 was not completed properly." Step 2 is "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." (By that standard, we might never have a straw poll....) A new option would not count as changing the question, but it would count as a new wording. So, apparently it would not be desirable for a new option to be added during the poll. Contrarily, m:Polling is evil#Polling_encourages_false_dichotomy suggest adding additional choices, though it does not specify whether this should happen before or after the poll is open.

Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks#When_to_refactor.3F says, "It might be better to not refactor if there is any kind of voting going on. Tampering with comments that are attached to votes may be perceived as in some way tampering with the vote itself. There is also the possibility that refactoring will make disreputable users think that it's ok to change someone’s comments and so abuse this policy. Of course bad edits by people abusing the policy may easily be reverted." At the top, it also says "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI (emphasis original).

Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages stresses that it is important to preserve the original intent when refactoring.

Sorry, I don't mean to wikilawyer. However, if new options cannot be removed once the poll is open and people have voted for them, I don't see the point of removing them now.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I imagine the poll once launched will be watched like a hawk by... many, many people, as it will be linked with an announcement (I hope for the duration) in the Watchlist header. Any shenanigans will be undone probably in a race or personal attacks removed (NPA still applies to polls, I'd hope!!). Once it goes live it will have been a week plus so the vote shouldn't be changed with more options, and no one can say they "didn't know" since the watchlist header is pretty obvious to let everyone know. - Denny 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, I was assuming that UserX did not make any personal attacks, simply added a new option to express his opinion. (RPA just happened to mention a situation involving polls, and personal attacks are probably a more extreme situation than new options....) So are you saying that just personal attacks should be removed, or new options as well? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you not taken part in many polls here? I think you'll find the wording, number of options and so on very flexible, particularly with such a poorly designed poll. I urge you and the others involved in crafting it to ask question one only, as simply as you can, and then ask the others at another point. Grace Note 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Change to location of summary explanation

I moved it to be under Project space, under this ATT page, with a clean copy of SlimVirgin's page in User space. It seemed like it was a more appropriate location. - Denny 16:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it with {{Essay}} so as not to confuse noobs about what it is, and added a shortcut for it (the name is a lot to type or remember). PS: I believe you copy-pasted it, not moved it, and forgot its talk page material; I copied that over, too.) The shortcutt is WP:ATTPRO (and of course the upcoming essay from the other side would eventually be WP:ATTCON. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Revised question #1.

I just put in a revised version, see:

Do you want to have Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources merge into Wikipedia:Attribution (keep in mind that all of the content/policy of the three old policies exist in the new ATT policy? A "yes" here indicates you support a full merger. A "no" response means you oppose full merger. If you are "neutral," you can specify that also. If you support a partial merger, see question #2.

Why can't it just be this simple? If they support a partial, that is what question #2 is for. - Denny 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny, I think I understand where you're coming from, but you just created a massive question by inserting what is more properly a notice. I've just added some wording as a "special note." Marskell 18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... I think that note does the trick. - Denny 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

DennyColt, I hope you realize you just massively changed the nature of the poll and made it even more illogical than it already was. Question 2 is emphatically not just for people who don't have an total-yes or total-no answer; two of the options in Q2 correspond to those two positions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that it's been reverted. Please don't re-revert. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't my intention to muck it up... I was trying (ham handedly, unfortunately) to streamline things... - Denny 22:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted, and I wasn't intended to be yelling at you or anything. I said "please" :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Would everyone please be careful to at least respect WP:3RR when editing the poll questions. Some users have been doing far too many reverts in too short a time. (Note: It doesn't have to be returning to a completely identical version to count as a revert. Adding or removing even a very small number of words can count as a revert even if you do other changes at the same time.) --Coppertwig 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any violations today. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. I think that people who don't fully understand WP:3RR should be mindful that if this happens:

• User1 write some "brilliant" thing into the poll (or takes some "stupid" thing out of it)
• User2 reverts it (rv1)
• User1 restores it (rv1)
• User2 reverts it again (rv2)
• User1 restores it again (rv2)
• User2 doesn't revert it yet again (would be rv3)

this does not mean that User1's edit is good, has consensus, or that someone else won't revert it. If the following next happens:

• User3 reverts it yet again (rv1)
• User1 restores it yet again (rv3)

Then User1 has reached their 3RR limit, but no one else has. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Refactored for correction. 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is, at least half a dozen of us (me included; I was probably the first one) have gone up to four reverts at one point. Twenty-four hours goes by mightily showly on Wikipedia. But this isn't an article, and we're slowly working things out - no one's gonna be blocked. Picaroon 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that 3RR only applies to articles? People could be blocked if someone was ticked off enough that they go to Admin Noticeboard and complain about it. I've seen people blocked for 3RR on policy/guideline pages, templates, and various other non-articles. I think "the point is" that people shouldn't be editwarring. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That first bit is putting words in my mouth. (Well, characters at my fingertips in this context?) I noted that this isn't an article not because it excuses people from 3RR but because more than three partial reverts per day doesn't matter as much in Wikipedia space, especially when everybody is working in good faith towards the same goal. More than I can say for most revert-warring in the article space. Picaroon 22:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference

I removed the reference to Jimbo's wikien post because it is really out of place and over-the-top. The message details already specify everything this reference says. However, I've been reverted, apparently because this is more, um, convenient? Comments regarding the necessity of this are welcome. Picaroon 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is important. This debate has been very, very contentious. Being able to ascertain that Jimbo did say what he said and did so from an official standpoint, not just as a commenting Wikipedian, is important. It took me over half an hour to find that message, and I know what I'm doing. The average "I'm just here to edit articles" user would never find it on their own at all. NB: I'm not the one that added the reference in the first place, all I did was link to it and properly format it (and footnote it so that it is out of the flow of the text). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I was clear enough. I replaced the reference, ie, the <ref> tags and such, with a direct link. I'm not talking about removing the link, I'm talking about the format in which the link is presented. Picaroon 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I don't care all that much. Evidently someone does, probably for the reason I mentioned (it's distracting to have the stuff in the middle of the flow of the passage. The footnoting system exists for a reason.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we cut the crap?

And stop nitpicknig about stupid things like 3rr, or a syllable here, or why that one consonant that you don't like actually implies a personal attack, etc.? And focus on deciding how to close this circular debate to put the poll live? - Denny 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I refactored the 3RR thing to get rid of the nitpicks. I'm not sure what you mean about te syllable/consonant bit, but am in general agreement with you that people haven't been talking much about the poll (self included sometimes.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was tossing the consonant/syllable bit as an ad hominem to mock the ad hominem onslaught that is this page since yesterday. It's like some people are heck bent to only have the following be the extent of their language skills here and on related pages: "Voting evil. 3rr! Vote invalid! Principle! Principle! Principled votes invalid on 3rr is evil!". It was getting tiring... - Denny 22:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. <handshake> And sorry about the 3RR blather; what was intended to be a "look, it's really simple, quit fussing" example turned out to be a goat...roping. I hope the refactor isn't reverted by someone who feels overly YOYOW. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The poll will go live after the discussions are completed. I would adventure and guess that it may take a few more days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Request: spacing between instructions/first question

Could we please put in some dead/neutral space between the end of the instructions and the first question? It's a silly, small thing, but I think it would be helpful for readability. With the... unorthodox structure of the poll (big numbers) it all looks muddled now. - Denny 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Better yet (or in addition), remove the weird numbers. They are not helpful in any way. Wikipedians generally are pretty competent at counting to three. If someone demands numbers just do it as ==1. Question 1's text here== — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say "in addition" and leave the number debate to others; I'm fine either way (and think they are nice, in and of themselves). I'm gonna add the spacing in--I think it just helps. - Denny 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the numbers may become helpful when there are large numbers of votes, but I don't feel strongly about whether to have them or not. --Coppertwig 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I redid them as numbers in the headings. They've lasted that way for a little while. I guess that's a good sign. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig opinion?

What does a personal sandbox of an editor do in the header of this page? Reverted ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The page User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy is open as a collaborative page where all users who oppose any aspect of the merge can contribute to a balanced, concise document laying out the arguments, to balance the "pro" arguments in the other document given, so that poll voters can read concise for and against positions. I believe the link to this page has consensus among the users who are opposed to the merge; see the "Statements from all sides" discussion above. Please do not remove it again. --Coppertwig 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add links to your personal pages, which apparently only some editors are allowed to edit. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreement of three users is not consensus. What makes you think that your opinion, or the opinion of three other users is any different than the opinion of all the editors that are participating in the discussion? This is an outrageous lack of tact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that you are also in violation of WP:CANVAS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are you saying is in violation of WP:CANVAS? User Jayjg? If you mean me, what exactly did I do that you think violates it? I need to know the specifics or I can't do anything about it. I don't think I did anything like what's described in WP:CANVAS.

You are canvassing for votes, as you did at the talk page of WP:ATT. That is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he's not. He asking for some likeminded people help him write something. If SV had asked you and Blueboar to help write her bit, that wouldn't have been canvassing either. Let's not be silly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that a recent version of the poll contained a link to a page in SlimVirgin's user space, which I was under the impression I was not invited to edit. The link to a page in my userspace is similar. --Coppertwig 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's page represents the views of these hundreds of editors that labored at ATT for four months, and explains the reason for that effort. Your personal opinion about that effort can and should be expressed in the community discussion page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Whose views SV's page represents is indeterminate; no one has commented on it. CT's page will represent the views of a number of opponents of SV's stance. Simple. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And I moved that page to the Wiki project space with a copy of it (good catch on someone moving the talk over, sorry I forgot!). The only "Names" that should be on this poll are "Jimmy" and "Wikipedia". - Denny 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No shit! (re: your last sentence) I think that was either the first or second thing ever said on this talk page. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Which anybody can edit.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed both from poll until the Coppertwig and various others' piece is out of userspace; then poll can link to both. Why fight over a temporary (non-)issue? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone reverted, but I don't care right now, and sorry I bothered. When the "Stability of policy" piece is no longer in userspace, then it might be an issue. I think we all have better things to do for the nonce. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Copper just violated 3rr himself. I am not going to report, someone else can. - Denny 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not bother with it. We have had enough. A link to that page can be posted in the community discussion page, alongside all other editors' comments. This polarization that some editors are trying to push is not useful and in my view, disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive has a well-known, defined meaning at WP. Look at the definitons: #1 is really non-operative here, either that or virtually all of us are "tendentious" (WP:TE confirms this); we are all coming from a POV and advocating it, which is to be expected at a poll and in the debate on how to set up the poll. #2 doesn't apply; this isn't an article. #3 does not apply to Coppertwig, but certainly does apply to some other editors around here. And #4, ditto and then some. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take the time to spell my username correctly. I don't think I violated 3RR: not unless someone had added a link to the collaborative statement before I did, and two consecutive edits by the same editor are counted as two separate edits, and deleting certain words counts as a revert. I don't think anyone added a link to the collaborative statement; and my two edits were not only consecutive but within about a minute of each other. If consecutive edits are to be counted separately for 3RR, I reckon we'd have a lot more violations today. I count two reverts almost 24 hours apart. --Coppertwig 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is truly unbelievable... Read your own' reports on 3RR, and the wording you yourself used. Unbelievable chutzpah. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur on that point. Everyone needs to cut it out with the 3RR stuff. I tried (and failed badly) at chilling that particular discussion out. <sigh> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page. The amount of edit warring going on by a lot of people who should know better is quite frankly ridiculous. This is a discussion the community needs to have, and I hope this can be worked out shortly. Having the discussion and poll is a good deal more important than its exact phrasing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless it's a pity you left the page protected in its state after the balancing statement (see section above) had been removed. I asked for pro & anti statements, as a confused latecomer to the debate, two days ago (section:statements needed from all sides, above) and the need for these seemed to be widely recognised - I had not seen any comments against having these until Jossi's interventions today. Given the current heated climate, I suggest you unprotect long enough to either remove the link to Slim Virgin's statement or to add one to Coppertwig's page, to avoid the appearance of partiality. Johnbod 03:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What is so special about "Coppertwig's page"? He can make his comments in the community discussion page as have done all others. The page you refer to is not SlimVirgin's page. It is an essay that anyone can read, and edit, in which the rationale for ATT is succinctly expressed. "Coppertwig's page" is his personal page in which he is stating his views, and in which he has imposed special rules about who can edit, and who cannot edit. There are not two sides: That is a disruptive, divisive and polarizing viewpoint that contravenes all what I know Wikipedia to be, and it is highly disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For now it is Coppertwig's page, but hopefully it won't be forever, and then this minidebate should be compelete different. If it's not, then something will be very off-kilter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: To clarify: Despite the fact that I did something reactionary after it was first removed, I agree it should have been removed for now (i.e. while it's under one party's control). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I protected the page as I found it. I have no idea whose version it was on, and I'm not endorsing any current version with protection. Discussion should continue here as to what should be included or not, hopefully consensus can be reached quickly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pages are always protected in The Wrong Version.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's being very hopeful indeed. But the situation here is hardly the usual WP one, since the slots were deliberately created for two opposing statements, one of which remains, while the other has been removed. Johnbod 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion and count how many statements are there. This idea of "two sides" is inherently wrong and inaccurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I belatedly concur. The "opposition" did in fact appear to be coalescing to produce one essay counter to SV's, but I am skeptical of that eventual outcome at this point, and the shortcut setup work was premature and possibly a mistake. Trying to be too "helpful" is not always a good idea... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When it is no longer a userspace essay, then take this up again. "Well, SV got hers in before it was in wikipedia:space..." complaints won't be helpful here. That was a mistake. I was about to revert it myself when DennyColt fixed it a different way. Arguing further for it right now in its half-baked present state is kind of pointless. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The userspace thing is only half the issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's burn that bridge while we're crossing it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to remove all links to various peoples' views from the poll, and just include such links in the Community discussion somehow? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I was about to start a betting pool on when that would happen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo just changed it to semi-protected, with a note worth reading in the edit summary, FYI. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Don't respond"

May I suggest that the instructions explicitly say: "Do not directly respond on this page to opinions you disagree with; discussion should take place on the designated talk page. Comments on this page should be limited to votes, accompanied by short statements if necessary." I see the potential for editors to go through and respond directly to every vote in opposition to their own. CMummert · talk 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: To respond to Jossi's and CMummert's !votes — hell yes. :-) God(s), what nightmare that would be! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support discouraging threaded discussion, but I see no reason to limit what people write in their own votes. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I.e. "short statements if necessary"? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine - I was just mirroring the current instruction "Vote for your preference(s) by typing # ~~~~ and a short comment if needed.". By the way, I see that {{TOChidden}} is on TfD, so maybe it shouldn't be used here to avoid confusing people who aren't familiar with TfD. CMummert · talk 04:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that instruction should probably changed. I think comments along with votes are a good thing, as the whole point of the poll is to attract more people to share their opinions, in my opinion. Perhaps "and a comment if desired"?

The TfD might close soon enough anyway, so it might not matter.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the TfD; it doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance. The only justification for delete so far are "I don't like it", "the template has a fixable consistency problem", and "we've seen two users allegedly abuse it in two articles". <snort> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not put RFC rules in place? Make your vote/statement, but you can't reply on the main page. That's what talk is for, right...? - Denny 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I only participated in RfC twice, as far as I can remember. The first time, people definitely did respond to the opinion I added. The second involved Essjay, and that was non-standard. We had separate user opinions, followed by lists of users who endorsed those opinions. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. It would be prefectly "legal" to refactor "I didn't bother reading the rules" commentary to the talk page. Both ideas seem to be the same thing really, but explicitly telling people "use the talk page for chatter" will defuse any idea they are being told they can't raise whatever burning issue is eating at them. Simple and painless. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WAS' changes

Where was the discussion of this? "Some" and "no" do not make a pair. Marskell 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to include "yes" under "some" than to include "some" under "yes" or "no". — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 11:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that "Do you agree in principle...: Yes, No, Neutral" are more than enough and address Jimbo's request. In fact, I could live with just Yes and No. Anything else just tends to clutter the issue. Depending on the results, we can then have further discussions and/or polls, if needed. Crum375 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What about partially? Even if you don't break partially up into degrees (mostly, partially, mostly not), partially still can't fit under any of those. Partially isn't the same as neutral. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 11:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That said, it would be best to have all three middle options, so that people leaning in one direction won't be taken as being split down the middle. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am not sure whether or not there is any point in removing additional options, see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll#Can_we_move_or_remove_votes_once_they.27ve_been_added.3F above. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's incredibly frustrating to see people continually arguing about the wording of this question without even addressing the arguments as to why it's 100% redundant and should simply be eliminated. —David Levy 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

David Levy, I agree that it is redundant at best (if more options are added), and polarising otherwise. However, adding more options is the closest thing I can see to a compromise. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Such a "compromise" doesn't help at all. It merely converts the question from leading to confusing and the answers from misleading to meaningless. —David Levy 12:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. People who support the question won't seem to accept having additional answers. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because the additional answers are hopelessly vague (and could never be reasonably interpreted to mean anything in particular). Instead of attempting to water down question 1, we need to explain why it's inferior/redundant to question 3. It appears that arguments over the wording are distracting people from the real issue. —David Levy 12:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 3 allows people to express their view on all of the possibilities (or at least all the possibilities we can think of) as to where to proceed from here. Question 2 should have a "conditional yes", by the way....  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to explain question 3's benefits to me.  :-) —David Levy 12:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See below. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 1 should be removed entirely

See here for the current question 1.

• Question 1 is overly polarising. Some views people hold are more like "mostly yes", "partially" and "mostly no". Forcing people to vote for extreme conditions other than the ones they actually hold is misleading and will not help guage consensus.
• Although the above can be fixed by adding more options, no one seems to like this compromise. People who vote for middle options may do so for different reasons. So, while no longer misleading, since people who hold different views will be grouped together, and this won't help gauge consensus either.
• Questions 2 (with a "conditional yes" option added) and 3 together will allow people to describe the responses of "yes" and "no" to question 1, as well as many other more moderate choices. As far as I know, allowing people to accurately and precisely express their opinions is the only way to guage consensus.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We already had this discussion elsewhere. In my opinion, question 1, asking (paraphrased) 'do you support the ATT merger in principle', is the clearest and simplest way to find out the community's sentiments about the situation and to address Jimbo's request. Everything else is redundant and confusing, in my view. Crum375 12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We have gone over this ad nauseum. So, apparently there is just disagreement. But enough people think the first question is a good idea that it has to stay. If you do not want to, you do not have to vote on the first question. But for those who do want to vote on it, we keep it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Then at least add other options so the rest of us can accurately (if not precisely) express our opinions on it without adding additional options during the poll. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to establish consensus for the question, not against it. —David Levy 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, we have had this discussion elsewhere. No, we haven't resolved this dispute. People's sentiments aren't simple. The questions should be as complex as the wide range of views possible. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. Anyone who doesn't want to vote on it can skip it. ElinorD (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that a person who does not hold a distict yes-or-no answer on the question should:

1. Express an extreme view contrary to their actual opinion, or
2. Not express their opinion in that question?

Why shouldn't people be permitted to accurately express their opinions in all questions?

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please give people credit for intelligence. They all understand what 'support in principle' means. We allow them to add comments in a separate section if required, to explain their own particular interpretation. Crum375 13:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I haven't even been bothering with the "in principle" argument. I am talking about the wide range of views which cannot be expressed with the current choices, and the fact that even if more choices were added, these would still be imprecise.

"We allow them to add comments in a separate section if required" Does this mean we can at least add an "other" section?

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In the current instructions, we say: "For further comments use the assigned 'Additional comments' section." Crum375 13:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The "other" section would be for votes that don't fit under the present choices, not threaded discussion. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally would prefer threaded discussion to go in the Talk page. Otherwise the poll page would be strangled with edit conflicts due to heated debates, while people are just trying to vote. Crum375 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that threaded discussion should be separated from the actual votes. Would it help if such an "other" section said, "This is for votes not described by the above choices, not threaded discussion"? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But advocating one of the compromises is not "supporting the merger in principle."

Please look at the options listed under question 3. The first is identical in meaning to a "yes" vote. The last is identical in meaning to a "no" vote. The two in between are just that. What do we stand to gain by asking people exactly the same thing but forcing them to adopt one of two extreme positions? —David Levy 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging people who don't agree with either of the two extreme positions to "skip" the question does nothing to address the data's inaccuracy. That's like holding an election, allowing only two candidates to run, and announcing that anyone who favors a different candidate can simply skip the vote. —David Levy 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you get rid of Q1, Q2 becomes a loaded one, because it doesn't give people the option of saying "no, there should be no merger". So if you eliminate Q1, the poll pre-supposes the merger. Guettarda 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question two contains the phrase "if any," which clearly conveys that it's reasonable to oppose merging "any" of the pages. People can vote "no" on all of the options, and I wouldn't oppose restoring the explicit explanation of that fact.

And again, question 3's last option means "no, there should be no merger." —David Levy 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Question 2 allows you to say "no" for all three, meaning you do not support any type of merger. It should also have a "conditional yes", for votes dependent on the outcome of the third question. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything that's needed to be said, has been said. That the odd words "extreme" and "polarizing" are still at the center of this debate show it isn't covering any new ground. Can we please move on? If anything needs attention right now, it's Q3. Marskell 13:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with question 3? Are there other options we haven't thought of? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't move on. There is no clear consensus, and no one has actually addressed these concerns. Question 1's proponents have continually claimed that it's important without explaining why. Again, what pertinent information can it provide that question 3 cannot provide? —David Levy 13:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I will pose questions re Q3 in another thread when we finally shut this one down. Something like eight people agreed with the explanations I gave you last night re Q1, but you're repeating everthing as if you've read nothing. Marskell 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

People have expressed agreement with both sides of the argument. From my perspective, the question's proponents are "repeating everything as if [they've] read nothing" that I (and other opponents) have written. You keep writing things to the effect of "we need a yes/no answer" without explaining why or addressing the question's redundancy. —David Levy 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have answered why, repeatedly, and so have others. I'd link but it's already sitting on the page. Those expressing agreement included Crum, Jayjg, Slim, ElinoreD, Guetterda, GraceNote, Slrubenstein, and KillerChihuahua last night. All that's happening here is that you and Armed are posting a lot, which gives the appearance of a lack of consensus. Marskell 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are others who have expressed disagreement with the yes/no wording of the question. In #My_problem_with_this_poll, Pious7 [19] and SMcCandlish [20] expressed disagreement with the yes/no wording. WAS 4.250 recently removed the options and made it open-ended. [21] Blueboar expressed an objection to yes/no options. [22]

I could probably find more examples. Should we hold a poll over the acceptability of the first question? Or is it pointless since people could add new options once the poll starts anyways? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, Coppertwig, Jossi, Pious7, SMcCandlish, Vision Thing and WAS 4.250 have objected to question 1 in some manner. I'm not certain that this is a complete list (and added a couple of usernames from Armedblowfish's reply that I'd overlooked). Where's the consensus?

Furthermore, most of question 1's supporters have provided no indication that they've even read the arguments against it. On the surface, it does appear to be a logical and elegantly straightforward question to ask, so their attitude is understandable. My frustration comes from the fact that most of them are countering arguments that aren't being raised (such as the one about people being confused by question 1's wording and the one about people not realizing that "supporting the merger in principle" doesn't mean supporting the exact text that currently exists) or not addressing the arguments at all (and providing no indication that they're even familiar with them). I'm still waiting for someone to explain what pertinent information question 1 will solicit that question 3 will not solicit. —David Levy 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi agrees with Q1 at last check, and Coppertwig is a troll; as for WAS' edits today, I have no idea where they came from and found them unhelpful as they arrived without a peep. All I've seen, in the main, is Armedblowfish and SMc flooding this page with repetition (this exact thread, for instance) and your support of their position.

Your argument about redundancy has been addressed: a) that there is over-lap is not in-itself a bad thing—polls do it all the time; b) it is possible that a robust consensus for Q1 will appear as a marginal consensus on Q2; c) Q1 most closely resembles the question Jimbo has asked to present; d) there is a good chance that Q3 will be refactored to the point of being useless. Don't tell me you haven't heard these arguments, because they've been repeatedly posted. Marskell 15:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy is okay, if it's not harmful, which I would argue that question 1 as currently worded is. As for b, if that majority is reached by forcing people to adopt extreme positions other than the ones the actually agree with and lumping together votes of people who don't actually agree with each other on the issues, I would not consider that a consensus. It would be bad if it appeared there was a consensus when there was not. As for Jimbo, he can comment in this thread himself if he wants to. As for Q3, you said you would start a new thread on that eventually, so I'll wait. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A yes/no question is extreme. How many times have you repeated this inanity? Really, I'm at a laugh or cry point. I'm not going to start another thread, because responding has become too exhausting. I'd actually suggest we make final tweaks to instructions and so on, and take this page live. Marskell 15:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You keep quoting the word "extreme" out of context. No one is claiming that question 1 is extreme, nor is it being used as a derogatory term. We're referring to the two non-compromise options as "extreme," by which we mean "farthest from the center or middle" (not that they're unreasonable or bad).

I'm disheartened by your desire to "take this page live" despite a clear lack of consensus. I'm not revert-warring or pushing for my preferred version to go "live," so can't we attempt to arrive at some sort of mutually acceptable compromise? I've attempted to reword question 1 for fairness (without adding additional options), and I'd be more than happy to try again with your assistance. Can we please cooperate instead of fighting? —David Levy 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. When did Jossi indicate a second position reversal? Jossi, is that true?

2. I can't divine everyone's motives, but referring to anyone as a "troll" is not helpful, nor is ignoring other editors entirely (and claiming that only Armedblowfish and I object to the question).

3. I'm not arguing that the redundancy itself is bad. My point is that if question 1 were asking something not asked by one of the other questions, it might be useful enough to justify its flaws. But it doesn't ask anything not asked by question 3. It merely asks exactly the same question with fewer choices (thereby disallowing compromise).

4. Question 2 isn't the one to which question 1 is redundant. Question 3 is.

5. From what I've read, Jimbo requested that we gauge the community's opinions regarding the appropriateness of the merger and the fate of WP:ATT. Where did he indicate that we should limit the community to two diametric choices?

6. Yes, I read your argument about question 3 being refactored to the point of being useless, and I pointed out that the same thing could just as easily happen to question 1 (and already has). —David Levy 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will respond to one, as representative. "Where did he indicate that we should limit the community to diametric choices?" They are not diametric—"keep as is or delete," are diametric—and your concern only makes sense if Q2 and Q3 do not exist. How many times do we need to go round this circle? I want to take this live not to freeze at my preferred—this is not my preferred: I think Q3 is badly constructed. I want to go live to cease arguing over non-sequiturs. Marskell 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we please not quibble over terminology? My point is that "yes" means "WP:ATT replaces the older pages" and "no" means "the older pages remain active and WP:ATT is retired." That's many editors' interpretation, at least. I (and others) want to remove the question, but I'm offering to work with you on revising its wording instead. Are you unwilling to even try? —David Levy 16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) David Levy, Marskell and others have explained why they support question one ("it's simple" and "the instructions say you don't need to agree completely to vote yes" to name a couple examples). However, I have not found these arguments convincing, as I have explained. (People's opinions aren't simple, and partial agreement, especially the "mostly disagree variety", isn't the same as support, and categorising it as support is misleading.) — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Those weren't the only, or even principle, arguments suggested. It's 300+k, but please read above. Marskell 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know they weren't the only ones, I was giving examples. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone, just anyone.... can a simple proposal be made about the poll that we can all sign off? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If my interpretation of relevant guidance is correct, if the poll went live and someone added a new question or new option along with a vote, it would be bad form to remove the question or option, and subsequently their vote. (With the possible exception of personal attacks, which isn't what we're talking about.) Anyway, if that is the case, it might not make sense to remove the question or additional options for it before the poll goes live. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

additional comments

What is the difference between the additional comments section here and the page Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion? What sort of comments are intended to go here rather than on the discussion page? CMummert · talk 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave it there as an escape valve, perhaps? Disallow long comments in the vote section,; disallow inline replies to votes, and leave a space for those that want to make a point during the vote.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Polls are intended to encourage people to express their opinion, aren't they? I agree with disallowing threaded conversation in the voting sections, but why should we disallow long comments along with votes? Editors may feel the need to clarify their position to reduce the likelihood that their vote is misinterpreted. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A call for reason

Is it only me, or is all this snowballing out of all proportion? What is going on? Why the drama, the polarization, the intensity? Can we all for a moment think what is best for the project rather than what is best for one's opinion? What this discussion and poll was designed to be is to gauge opinion. It is not a vote. By looking at the community discussion page, one can see that there is little consensus for anything... The core policies of Wikipedia, that is, NOR, V, NPOV 'will not change, and that is a given. All what is being discussed is if there is merit in having one page to represent these policies. What concerns me most is certain actions and comments that are diminishing or attempting to challenge our long-standing content policies, or to create divisiveness and polarizing the community. Let's not allow that from continuing to escalate. It is not good for the project, is disruptive and totally unwarranted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was actually going to post that there does appear to be consensus for the V-NOR merge on the discussion page; not incredibly robust, but discernible. Is there any reason not to take this live, sooner rather than later? Marskell 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been six days since this started, and the commenting in the discussion page is slowing down. We can propose to open the poll 28 March at 0:00 UTC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I will ask Seraphimblade to unprotect this page and see if it remains stable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Duration of poll? Seven days even? - Denny 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems minimal. If the poll is still encouraging discussion is 7 days, I would reccomend letting that run its course. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pre straw poll straw poll for Q1

To determine which version to use, as this seems to be what its come down to now. Everyone seems to support one or the other, so lets see what honest concensus is here. If you endorse it, say-so here. Lets go with what has concensus. Lets run this till tomorrow 16 24 hours from when I posted it? Polling evil (yes, yes, we KNOW) etc. comments are not helpful in this scenario. For sanity's sake, lets limit it to these please...

Q1 Straw poll duration

(Please post any replies in a new section of the talk page to keep the Q1 poll easy to get to for people coming in!)
Straw Poll for Q1 concensus was initiated on March 27, 2007 @21:30 UST and runs as agreed upon then to March 28, 2007 @22:00 UST (24 hours).

Updated Q1 straw poll duration

As the original 25 hours ran out without a clear concensus, going with the 'extended' option:

Run Q1 poll to April 1st, 2007, 22:00 UST and move it/lock it at the TOP of this Talk page. Whatever is the clear concensus on 4/1/07 22:00 goes live at 4/2/07 00:00.

No concensus has raised any significant objection to this, and some concensus is starting... to form for Q1 as of 3/29/07 03:00 UST. - Denny 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This leaves us two hours between closing this pre-poll and taking it live. Is this enough time? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To copy/paste stuff, do basic housekeeping, and a bunch of pages getting semi-protected? Easily. - Denny 23:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You, Sir, are an optimist; you are assuming that there will be no issues on the wording once the basic choice is made. I think all of the options have been called biased by someone, and Option 3 has three subchoices. From your mouth to God's ear, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha, optimist, yes. I meant the 2 hour window to set it up would be enough though. ;) Not overall time to GET to concensus. - Denny 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Section that was here moved to Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Leave_straw_poll_at_top_of_page_when_live.

Note: the original poll duration section, as outdated, was removed to de-clutter the page here.

---

Option 1 - Short version

A super-basic, no frills, Yes/No/Neutral option.

A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option1Demo

Endorse

1. ≈ jossi ≈ (I'd accept a "Partial, briefly describe" as per Marskell) (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. ElinorD (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Blueboar 12:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Crum375 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Guettarda 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Marskell (I'd accept a "Partial, briefly describe" option in here) 18:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
8. 1st choice upon reconsideration. Update: Still support in light of this change. - Denny 18:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
9. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
11. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Short and up to the point.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse conditionally

1. Actually, provided that we also include something in the range of Q3/Verbose version, this would be acceptable. Without that, it is likely to attract opposition on several inconsistent grounds, fail, and leave us stranded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This does not include my opinion as an option. This would force me to either not express my opinion, join a category contrary to my actual position, or add another option while the poll was live. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Nor would it express either of the two I'm contemplating. Given this choice I would be forced to vote "No", despite that not accurately reflecting my opinion. Are WP:ATT supporters listening? Force us into a corner, we oppose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 March 2007.

   Oppose. This offers no quidance to the chief purpose of any straw-poll: advice on "What do we do now"? Where do we go from here?" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Forces users to choose between extreme positions, but I prefer it to Medium version. -- Vision Thing -- 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   I would support this option, if question 3 is added for clarification of views. -- Vision Thing -- 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose, per most of the above. Indeed, this would force me to vote "no," and I truly don't want to. —David Levy 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
5. As much as I love simple, this will get us nowhere as you cannot boil down a complex issue into a yes or no question and expect a useful answer. This is like voting Republican or Democrat; well, I don't like either one, but this one is the better of two evils. Also, what is the point of having a neutral vote? If someone doesn't care either way, then they will not vote in the first place, which makes it a waste of an option.--Jorfer 02:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
6. The policies are important and different enough that if the only choice under this option is combine or not, the poll is too restictive. -- Avi 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
7. I don't like that Option 1 doesn't ask whether WP:ATT is policy, which seems to me to be the most essential question. Knowing how many people support WP:ATT "in some form" is not likely to be helpful, IMHO. TheronJ 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
8. This is an important issue and if there is a merger we need to get the merged policy right. That isn't an option with Q1 in this version of the poll.MichealT 19:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

   This is this user's fifth edit in Wikipedia

9. Jimbo's comment about merging WP:NOR and WP:V was, "...they are significantly different ideas and radical reductionists who see them as really being the same thing are, in my view, badly mistaken. When I say that something is original research, and when I say that something is unverifiable, I mean different things by those statements..." I've read nothing that decisively refutes this observation. Forces choice without accurately reflecting views. Lethiere 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions and comments

• I wonder how the supporters of this version can seriously expect this would remain once it went live, considering the exclusion of certain options. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• This page and the related stuff was on the original Watchlist notice for nearly a week. No one can say they didn't know to come here and weigh in... :) - Denny 03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Without an "other" section, what do you expect editors whose opinions aren't covered by those options to do? The only way for such editors to accurately express their opinions as votes would be to add another section mid-poll, if we pick this version. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • And how long do we leave the Window open? Till the last ten minutes of the poll? See: Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll#Statements. Thats been there for 2+ days. It exists... if everyone starts adding stuff, mid-stream, ok, fine--lets let everyone decide then. It always happens anyway usually. Once the poll is live I ain't touching it except to RV vandals and put my own support down in whatever form once. But for NOW, we need to get a working poll. Hence this Q1 pre-poll... - Denny 03:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Hence, I am not sure if there is a point to preventing the options from being available in the first place. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know if I'm typing in another language. :) The options are there, but if concensus doesn't endorse THOSE options for the start of the poll... putting this silly structure in was an attempt to get people to actually work on building concensus rather than talking over each other. They're there. Convince people to endorse them/accept them. Q4, and Q5. If they don't have support, that doesn't mean someone is denying anyone. It means people maybe don't WANT them in. - Denny 06:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Option 2 - Medium version

A more verbose option, called by some editors the 'medium' option. Has two Yes options for implementing ATT, No, and Neutral.

A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option2Demo

Endorse

1. 2nd option ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. 2nd option. - Denny 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
3. 2nd option. ElinorD (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Yaanch^Speak! 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC). People, lets remember, this is a poll. Not a place where a person has 200 options where they can express their exact thoughts on the issue. Es la verdad. Yaanch^Speak! 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Blueboar 12:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
6. 2nd option. Crum375 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
7. 2nd option (medium) If we include too many flavors, we'll end up with an inconclusive smorgasbord of opinions. However, I also see little point in having a "Neutral" vote. Even if some oddballs do take the time to vote neutral, how will those votes count? Freederick 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This does not include my opinion as an option. This would force me to either not express my opinion, join a category contrary to my actual position, or add another option while the poll was live. In addition, two kinds of yes and one kind of no isn't exactly balanced. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Worst of both worlds. :-) Still polarizing (though less so), but still does not accurately gauge opinion. Clarification: This is my next-to-last choice, short version being last choice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Updated: 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Unbalanced. -- Vision Thing -- 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose. Splits the yes vote, gives equal weight to a bad and little talked about idea that was never the intention of WP:ATT. Marskell 18:54/19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   Firstly, this is not a majority/plurality vote, so "splits the yes vote" is an irrelevant concern. Secondly, your opinion that an idea is bad is not a valid reason to withhold the option from the community. Otherwise, what's the point of holding the poll when we have you to tell us what we should do? —David Levy 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

5. This doesn't let us vote for getting it right, it forces a choice between bad and worse.MichealT 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

   This is this user's fifth edit in Wikipedia

   To address your new additions:

   1. What you mean "little talked about"?! We've been discussing the possibility of such a compromise since Jimbo raised it.

   2. This is a wiki. The page's creators don't control it, and their intent isn't sacrosanct. The community, not you, gets to decide whether an idea is good or bad. —David Levy 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

6. What is the point of having a neutral vote? If someone doesn't care then they won't vote in the first place. It seems like a waste of an option to me.--Jorfer 02:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

   If we don't include it, experience suggests it will be added during the poll; and someone will vote on Q2 and be neutral on Q1. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

7. Still not enough options. -- Avi 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Mis-focuses on wrong options. Lethiere 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Option 3 - Verbose version

A verbose option, with two Yes options to accept ATT, two to reject with different conditions, and Neutral.

A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option3Demo

Endorse

1. 3rd option - Denny 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. This is the only one which accurately includes my opinion. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   I'm still endorsing this, but now that the option to restore the third question and get rid of the first question entirely has been added to this poll, this is now my second choice. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Also: Stripping the yeses and noes is fine with me, although at that point I see no reason not to just remove this question entirely and use the former 3rd question, which is my first choice anyways. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

3. This includes my opinion, and it is balanced (two yes, two no, one neutral option). -- Vision Thing -- 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
4. This is a fair and balanced compromise. —David Levy 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
5. 2nd choice; first is below. Support per nom. Just kidding. I think this adequately assesses the available options and will provide a realistic if not 100% accurate account of what the community actually thinks about the issue. Dang, why didn't we do this two days ago? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Updated 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Second choice; my first choice is below. Alternatively, strip the Yesses and Noes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Per Septentrionalis's elaboration (further below) on the "strip the Yesses and Noes" point, I would definitely support that, if long version is the consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

7. Second choice-This does a good job of representing the different views of the community.--Jorfer 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. this is skewed to rejecting the primary aim of ATT. You have one answer that supports the current merger, and three options that negate it. Totally unacceptable≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I assumed neutral wouldn't hurt or hinder. So it's 2 for, and 2 against and balanced for ATT to stay live at least. - Denny 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Three of the options mean that WP:ATT survives, and only one means that it doesn't. —David Levy 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   No, you do not get it. You are basing your understanding on the wrong premise. We do not need 4 policy pages. This is not about balance of questions but about what is best for the project. Do you really want to have 4 policy pages, or just one? That is the question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Some do in fact want 4 pages. This has already been discussed at the community discussion page and elsewhere. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   I don't want four pages myself; but the way to do that is to vote against the option that goes there - as I will, not to suppress it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Purpose of this poll is to find out what editors think what is best for the project. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

2. LOL. This is truly awesome. Marskell 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Per Jossi. Skewed to have one option supporting the merge and three negating or opposing it. ElinorD (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   Again, three of the options mean that WP:ATT survives, and only one means that it doesn't. These are distinct possibilities under discussion, and the fact that you dislike two of the potential outcomes is not a valid reason to withhold the community's right to consider them. —David Levy 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Blueboar 12:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Prefer option 4 -- Avi 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
6. yest another version that carefully avoids giving the option of doing anything other than accept the new version or reject all idea of merger. We need the a poll that alows people to say "a merger is good but the current merged form is not quite right". MichealT 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Too confusing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Still can't find my preferred choice here. Lethiere 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions and comments

1. I don't see how this has one option in favour of WP:ATT and three against it. In the first two options, WP:ATT becomes canonical/ruling policy, with the other pages as inactive or merely explanatory guidelines. In the second two, it doesn't, and it may stay active as a summary page with about the same status as WP:5P or it may become inactive. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   Three against the merge, not the policy. The second option results in both WP:ATT and the other pages remaining policy, which will continue the rule conflicts and sync problems the merge was trying to address. - Ehheh 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   No, I don't think you understand. As far as I know, no one wants all three pages to remain policy. In the second option, WP:V and WP:OR would be guidelines subordinate to WP:ATT just as Wikipedia:Content forking is a guideline subordinate to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   'The old pages should remain active' is vague enough that it could include everything remaining policy. I see that the demo of this version of the poll isn't worded that way, though. Much better than what's currently at the top of this section. - Ehheh 17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   How about this? [23] — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Option 4 - No question 1

The most complex proposal, which actually asks us to decide which ultimate fate for the policies in question we prefer. Originally, there was a Question 3, which was eliminated by concensus. This proposal essentially replaces the idea of a binary Yes/No Q1 with the original Question 3, making the poll about what status is preferred for the policies.

A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option4Demo

Endorse

1. This is my preference. For example, I support WP:ATT, but find both the first and fourth alternatives here acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. This is the best option.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Question: would this allow to vote 1st option, 2nd option and so forth? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   • Yes; that line seems to have gotten lost in the edit conflicts while I was trying to copy it without breaking the poll format. Now fixed; thank you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Definitely my first preference; revising earlier !vote. As has been said for something like 3 days, this makes way, way more sense. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Second option. -- Vision Thing -- 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
5. This or the "verbose" version would be fine. —David Levy 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
6. I really want to Endorse this process, including this level of discussion and this evolving straw poll methodology, which I hope will continue and evolve further into better processes for the future. So perhaps I should more accurately put an Endorse line under each of the five options here. But I will enter my Endorse line here once for each of the 5 options. I put it here under this option because, in my opinion, this option accurately labels quite well many of the categories under which the editors can sort their comments without having to interject very many of their own Qn line headers. --Rednblu 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
7. First Choice-This does the best job of representing the different views of Wikipedians on the matter.--Jorfer 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Most representative option. -- Avi 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
9. I strongly support this option -- it captures all possible opinions re: WP:ATT's status. -- TheronJ 14:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
10. This is the only option that makes sense to me, the others are simply too confusing to vote in, and will end up with ambiguous results that editors will just argue over. --Minderbinder 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Too confusing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Finally see an option I can support. Best wording yet. Lethiere 05:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. this is better than any of options 1,2, and 3 because it at least gives people a chance to say that there's some good in teh merged form but the merged form isn't all correct - that's so much better than options 1,2, and 3 that I won't oppose option 4. The trouble is that the only way to say that with thios version is to reject the merger and put thegood bits of the new page into the original 3 page mess, so I'm not prepared to support it either. MichealT 19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm of the firm mind that at the core of the Q1 needs to be an element of "stays" or "goes" for better or worse, since thats what it seems to be coming down to... - Denny 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose. Denny actually says it well above. Marskell 18:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Denny. ElinorD (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Crum375 02:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions/Comments

• Question: Can someone put the last version of Q3 up here in this section as the alternative? Going AFK a long while. - Denny 22:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Erm, was that intended to be an oppose, or should we put that in a comments section? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  It was a question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, the last version with question 3 is this one; but I may have missed a reversion in there. Denny, if you meant to oppose, please put the header back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  In response to Armedblowfish's edit summary question about what the above Q/A was removed: Please see the edit summary. :-) Long version: Pmanderson/Septentrionalis refactored his original text to make the question from Jossi and the response to it moot (and in fact confusing if one didn't pay very close attention). I refactored the entire thing out as useless to later readers, and suggest that it still is. If you agree can you please unrevert, and remove this response in the process? I think this makes perfect sense under WP:REFACTOR, and we don't have a YOYOW policy here. Though again (as said in both my major refactor edit summaries, feel free to disagree and I'll just take your word for it.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Option 5 - Guettarda's hybrid version

Guettarda's version of the poll, it includes verbose questions about the nature of a merger that people support, as opposed to binary yes/no/neutral questions.

A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option5Demo

Endorse

1. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Guettarda 18:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
3. question 1 gives a choice B that seems to me to be the only sensible way to go. None of the other options for the poll allows anyone to support the idea of merger without swallowing whole the present version of teh merged policy. MichealT 19:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
4. ElinorD (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. I supported 4, but this one actually includes my preferred option. Lethiere 05:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Such vague options would not solicit any useful data. —David Levy 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Unfortunate oppose despite supporting ATT myself. Skews it too much in favor of ATT. - Denny 14:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Strongly oppose I would like to support WP:ATT, but if this question goes live, I will be compelled to oppose it as far as possible. This offers no possibility of expressing my views on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose -- Vision Thing -- 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   Weak oppose I like some of the changes here, but some of the options are a bit confusing. Rewording might help, but that would probably bring this closer to the above option of restoring the original third option. At the same time, I support the addition of the "other" and "Voting is evil" options. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Too vague--Jorfer 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Too confusing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Option 6 - Hierarchical version

A bit late, but this is a simple attempt to first get an answer to what at least I want to know: should we deprecate V and NOR in favour of a single policy. It is perhaps a bit confusing that question 2 depends on the first answer, but the results will be more clear, and I think it is important to distinguish objections to the merger and to the actual wording of ATT. Finally, since WP:RS isn't a crucial issue here, what should be done with it can perhaps be decided after we know what to do with V and NOR.

A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option6Demo

Endorse

1. Merzul 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC). I have this feeling I will be the only one, but at least I'm brave. :)
2. Several editors have supported the position that there should be a merger but the present text of WP:ATT is not it. Question 2 here should be asked (as Question 3) if any of the other options passes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. I could support this. - Denny 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Elegant.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. My 2 preferred options have disappeared again. Lethiere 05:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Which are they? If they can be worked in they should be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions/Comments

Feel free to edit it, I wasn't very happy with any of the current polls, so I thought I would suggest something I more or less like. --Merzul 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And in case somebody wonders why I didn't post this incredibly brilliant suggestion earlier :), then rest assured I have followed the debate here quite carefully, and so this is mostly based on what has been said here, it's a standing on the shoulders of giants kind of thing <-- that was a sucking up to get some more votes kind of thing. Good night. --Merzul 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to prevent editors who support a merger from voting on what happens if there isn't one? They still have valid opinions. (And conversely, those who oppose a merger may still care which merger passes.) We could make Merzul's Q2, "If there is a merger..." and so on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, my brain doesn't work right now, so I trust your judgement. Please go ahead and make that change. Then there are three (in principle) independent questions, and its no longer hierarchical. That's probably very good, except the name doesn't fit :) --Merzul 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted. We can tweak the name; it only appears on the two links and the header on this page. But it still fits; only one of Q2 and Q3 will matter, depending on how Q1 comes out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, and you're right it's still a bit hierarchical, but it is probably less confusing now. We'll see how people like it. The reception has been 3 times better than expected so far :) --Merzul 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Why don't you leave that up, for say, 16 hours? We had a good consensus yesterday for a simple version. The "consensus" appearing tonight for these poorly-conceived mixed scales is at best partial.
Or maybe we should spike the poll. Just a thought. Marskell 21:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

16 hours works for me. Spiking it... I disagree. We need finality/a gauge of concensus - Denny 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There was absolutely no consensus yesterday. I'm shocked that you would make such a claim. —David Levy 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday qua yesterday, there was consensus. There was like nine people v. you and AB. I was only underscoring that you can't claim general consensus given the last two hours. Marskell 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You know darn well that numerous other editors expressed disapproval of the previous wording. —David Levy 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that the page was protected for hours, and Jimbo-in-official-capacity issued a stern-ish warning. Fer foak's sake, let's not be so revisionist we look silly. NB: I was one of the numerous others on virtually every point that D.L. raised yesterday. It's curious that one ATT proponent says I'm "disruptive" and otherwise basically implies I'm making too much noise, while the other doesn't notice my presence at all. Highly curious, that. They can't both be right. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean, 16 hours, counting starting when the poll starts, and then remove options which people have not voted for, if there are any? I guess, although 24 hours might be safer to cover everyone's time zones. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Switched to 24, with the theory that whatever has concensus will be live version come poll day. - Denny 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What? I'm sorry, I misinterpreted this. I thought Marskell meant to leave these up for the first 16 hours of when the main poll went live, and then remove options that no one voted for.

As for which one has consensus/majority, I'm not sure what will happen if the poll goes up in a version that does not include options for everyone's opinions.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... once the main poll goes live it should not be changed for options. Ever. I meant that this straw poll ought to run 24 hours. - Denny 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen people add options mid-poll before, most commonly "voting is evil", although I've never seen options removed mid-poll. Also, take this poll, for example. Someone added an option to get rid of question 1 and restore question 3 mid-poll. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, true, but the Poll Poll will be a huge site-wide deal. Anyone making anything beyond cosmetic tweaks will get RV'd left and right (as I would hope). - Denny 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing votes after they've been added, just because they created new options, seems rather like an attempt to prevent people from expressing their opinions in the poll. I hope people would not do that. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Or people rv'ing others who are trying to accurately express their views without harming anyone else will get rather plausibly ArbCom'd by the revertees for vote tampering. Ths is not Controlipedia, remember. I think it is near-100% certain that more than one party will "Polling-is-evil" this poll; let them. No one can rationally have a serious disagreement with some wikipundits adding a spot to complain at the bottom. If I had a scale of 1-100, with 1 being the most important, on which to rate WP issues, someone adding a PIE section as a point (note not a WP:POINT since it wouldn't actually disrupt jack-squat), I would rate that as about #24,594. Not an issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda's section

None of the above. All of these are designed to bias the poll towards rejecting the policy. They are all unacceptable. Guettarda 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All of them let people decide whether to adopt or reject the policy. Can you explain why you disagree with that? - Denny 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it biased? It allows all options I can think of, provided question 2 is kept to discuss which pages, and assuming people note any conditions in their votes. I can't see how it prejudges the issue. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda: Your suggestions will be most welcomed. A pair of fresh eyes would be really' helpful We are stuck, as you can see... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed more eyes are needed, and welcome! to Guettarda. But how are we stuck? I think the minipoll-on-poll is very clearly laying out what the opinion ratios are. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 1 - yes/no/neutral

Most people don't vote neutral - it says "I don't care". Yes says "I endorse what was done". A certain proportion of people who support some of the goals of the merge, but not all, will vote "No". That will inflate the no votes, biasing the poll to reject the move.

Option 2 - Yes (supercession, non-supercession)/no/neutral

This just splits the yes votes. In addition, it makes people focus on supercession, which some people will see as radical. Again, it pushed people toward voting "No".

Option 3 - Yes (supercession, non-supercession)/no (active/inactive)/neutral

This one shares the problems of the first two (making the choices too stark), but it also pushes "no" voters away from no, because it makes them think of shutting down the page.

All of these options also hurt the discussion by polarising people up front. Most people are not going to come here with a clear understanding of what is going on and what is proposed. They should not be faced with poll questions that push them in one direction or another. Guettarda 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On the same token... we can't get questions that are more 'neutral' than this. The poll should be about what people want, unbiased by advocation if possible... right? It seems like there was no concensus at all until I threw out my neutral question changes... - Denny 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) Thanks, Guettarda, then what do we do? What do you propose? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes we can, we can strip the "Yes"'s and "No"'s from the verbose version. That makes assumptions which I know to be false by introspection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My basic point is that we shouldn't be asking people "vote yes or no", we should ask "what do you think". Guettarda 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If words to the effect of "poll to change policy" come up, people are going to come here on edge. There will be a lot of information at the top of the page, and even more links. Most people are going to skim past them to the point where they get to vote. So, with very little knowledge, they will be faced with up/down questions. People are going to vote on their gut rather than their head.

If we want to guage opinion in a reasonable manner, we need to ask a series of questions that assume ignorance. That's the first thing. The options must be presented in a "friendly" manner, and we need to rely on the questions to educate without biasing things one way or another.

The page starts off with a very terse "familiarise yourself with the debate" (Go and do your homework!) The first one is fairly clear, but has far too many words. The only thing that jumps out at me is the quote on the right about "everything must be attributable". The main point is squeezed into a box. The text is too squeezed - my eye slips past it, I got back, it slips past it again. No good. And that's all I see on one screen (never assume anyone scrolls). So many of the people who are diligent enough to click through won't read the discussion. The "Jimbo's comments" (yeah, who is this Jimbo again?) Too many words, diffs, all I get out of it is the headline This merger is a really bad idea). Finally a pointer to a 329 kb debate. Mmmm..no.

So, with little explanation, BAM! Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution? How the heck do I know - I'm just here to do my civic duty by voting, I'm not here to spend a month sorting through a debate.

Q1 needs to spoonfeed far more. 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:

A Support the merger of the three pages [I think we need some word better than "pages"] in the current form

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

C Support maintaining the current [pages] in their current form

D Have some other opinion (just vote here, discuss in the discussion section)

E m:Voting is evil (sucks for you, we have been told we have to take this poll)

Q2 If the pages are merged [this allows people to participate even if they say no to the merger] should they include:

Vote in the appropriate section,

Wikipedia:Verifiability yes

no

other (please express your opinion in the appopriate sectiong)

m:Voting is evil (sucks for you, we have been told we have to take this poll)

Wikipedia:No original research yes

no

other (please express your opinion in the appopriate sectiong)

m:Voting is evil (sucks for you, we have been told we have to take this poll)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources yes

no

other (please express your opinion in the appopriate sectiong)

m:Voting is evil (sucks for you, we have been told we have to take this poll) Guettarda 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I read Jimbo, we can consensus on m:voting is evil; but if we do, unless the discussion is an extremely clear endorsement of WP:ATT, Jimbo will then revert to the old policy structure - so the real problem is that that option is almost redundant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but people are going to vote that option - if there's a poll, people will vote that way. The question is whether we should add it up front and let people know that this poll is going to happen whether they support polling or not, or whether we want to wait until someone adds it because once it's there, people will vote that way. Guettarda 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I support adding more options to Question 3, or alternatively the verbose version, such as "other" and m:Polling is evil. However, I think all of the options in question 3 should be available as separate options. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that Guettarda's prediction is plausible (I think it is very plausible), I have no objection to specifically adding a PIE section. Has been added before by several others already. I don't care much, either way, since if it is absent, someone will add it later. If people editwar over that addition in mid-poll, all hell will break loose. The option will appear either way, because a substantial number of WPians feel strongly about that meta-issue (pun intended). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil as an option is meaningless since Jimbo asked for this, and since it's going to be the most public poll for policy since... what, someone said 3rr? It will stand... I don't know how much more leading the whole thing can be after that header basically lays it all out repeatedly. The purpose of the poll also isn't to endorse or not endorse ATT, or the merger, or anything. It's to gauge concensus on it. The problem with having a million options and even somewhat spoon-fed or leading options is that someone will have a problem with it. You want them in... so that the policy isn't biased against ATT. Someone wants a 7th, 8th, 9th option for whatever reason. This is the problem--everyone wanted a specific thing, and the debate has been going on for days with no forward action and only backward action. Having very simple, stripped down questions is the only fair way as the poll should not lead people in any way. All the pro/con stuff (in fact, mainly pro) is all up top in the header. Our job isn't to ensure that ATT goes as policy solo, goes in as policy with 4 pages total, goes away altogether, or anything. It's to give people the options, as Jimbo asked. My suggestion that everyone seemed to like was to give everyone the MOST COMMON LIKELY OPTIONs, based on what people here were saying, and a place to put in their own feedback at the bottom.

If the policy sinks or swims (I hope it swims fully myself) it does. If it ends up only 80-100 of us support it and ten times as many don't... well, c'est la vie. Thats the wiki way. I think we should go with the variants on the original compromise that everyone seemed relatively fine with, and not fork more and more and more each time one person disagrees however... loudly. No offense. - Denny 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "meaningless since Jimbo asked for this" — I don't quite buy that, because Jimbo isn't a god :-). He's important, and has some trumping authority, but it is OK for the community to disagree with him, and he knows this and often acknowledges this (I saw on the mailing list the other day a comment something like -paraphrase not quote! - If the community every comes to a consensus to remove me from my position of authority, I hope they understand the consequences and really think it through. I don't think we'll be offending him or making a mistake if we collectively tell him he's made a mistake on this point or that. Honest. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: No one has proposed 7+ options. Hyperbole does not help anything. — SMcCandlish (updated ver.: — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC) )

Sorry, it gets tiring when every little thing is dissected by everyone to get closer to the end result they are ultimately after (which is human nature, but still tiring). - Denny 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood; that wasn't meant as a barb, but as "let's not, and go this way instead". :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried Guettarda's version. Do not know if it will be accepted, and I need a break from this now. It has been an exhausting exercise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that each lone new dissenting voice (no offense again to all) shouldn't be able to completely suspend movement forward at this point... - Denny 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Much progress has been made here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My proposal isn't about the number of questions, it's about how to ask the questions. The point is that we need to ask the questions in a way that's non-prejudicial to people who are clueless. The old questions are likely to push things one way or the other, and that's not right (even if they push things the way I want them to be pushed). Guettarda 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If no one complains, I'd be fine for the current live mix of yours and the consensus version to fly. - Denny 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with suspending things is that they go fast. It looked ok this morning, it's only when I got back to it this afternoon did I see all these changes - and trying to see which version I favoured I realised they all had the problem of pushing the voters one way or the other - especially people who haven't had months to think about this issue. Guettarda 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth I'll live with the live version. - Denny 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright; what do we do if the live version fails to achieve consensus, as is not unlikely? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say deal with that then, and not sweat the stuff we can't foresee. - Denny 23:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll live with the live version as well even If I have some misgivings about it. I encourage others to put aside personal preferences and accept it. Maybe it is not the best option, but is the best we can expect given 5 days of back and forth. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Live version is biased towards ATT. Best solutions are "Verbose version" and, perhaps more acceptable to some, "No question 1" variant. -- Vision Thing -- 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the "live" version was designed to be biased, but the wording is hopelessly vague. It wouldn't provide any useful data. —David Levy 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Five options is PLENTY

As Jossi suggested in a comment, lets limit it to one of these FIVE. It conceivably covers every single possibility. - Denny 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no binary question option that allows people to choose whether or not ATT should supercede whichever pages are merged into it. That's the only option I'd support, right now, as I strongly believe it is the right way of asking this question. JulesH 08:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there some way to make the middle options clearer?

To the best of my knowledge, no one is suggesting that WP:ATT, WP:V, and WP:NOR all remain policy. (If I'm wrong, whomever wants that can add a new section for themself when they add their vote, but I doubt it will happen.)

The two middle options are this (ignoring the issue of WP:RS, which was never policy anyway):

• WP:ATT becomes policy. WP:V and WP:NOR become guidelines subordinate to WP:ATT, just as Wikipedia:Content forking is a guideline subordinate to the policy Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research remain policy. Wikipedia:Attribution becomes a condensed summary with status similiar to Wikipedia:5 pillars, or in other words no official status except that which it inherits from what it summarises.

Is there a concise way to make it clear that the middle options do not mean all three pages being policy?

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Q2 covers this. Jimbo (from my reading) was concerned about them all merging/some going inactive, etc. Q2 in turn puts that out to gauge concensus. Unless I am misreading you. - Denny 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What? *confused* This is not about the second question/which pages are merged, but the first question/what happens to the relevant pages (including or not including WP:RS). Some people seem to think that the middle options, in which all pages remain active, would mean that all of the relevant pages would be policy. As far as I know, no one has suggested that. There are things in between policy and inactive, like subordinate guideline or summary page. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See this. [24] — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Full mock ups for five versions

Per Jossi's suggestion, I made FIVE full mockups of each option, linked off each section in the poll. Check them out:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option1Demo
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option2Demo
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option3Demo
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option4Demo
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option5Demo

thanks, - Denny 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Propose to open poll at 00:00 UTC on March 28

... and to keep it open for 7 days until April 4 00:00 UTC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. We still need to reach consensus regarding the wording.

2. I strongly suggest that we not open the poll until after 1 April (because there's going to be a great deal of disruptive nonsense on that day). —David Levy 17:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that we need to resolve the wording, but I would argue we have beaten that horse to death already. Time to give up personal preferences and find a compromise. Having a deadline, would encourage compromise. As for April 1st, the whole project is in alert as we have done other years, and we do not stop editing because of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, I'm more than willing to abandon my personal preference in favor of a compromise. I'm just not sure that we'll be ready by 00:00, and I don't feel comfortable setting a start time until after we've agreed on the wording.

2. I'm not suggesting that we stop editing on 1 April, but we could spare the community some aggravation by not having this high-profile poll overlap the inevitable shenanigans. The last thing that we need is another wrinkle. —David Levy 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. So lets endeavor today to complete work in the poll' wording. All arguments have already been made. Given that you have been involved since the beginning and now all the viewpoints expressed, could you propose a compromise version? That would be very useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have previously suggested adding more options to the question (mostly, partially, and mostly not). Imprecise, but it covers the wide range of opinions, at least. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rush to judgment? Not a good idea. The current poll page is in terrible shape and will mean nothing; the current text of the poll page does not even make sense. What does "Do you agree in principle . . . ." mean in plain English? Apply that poor construction "Do you agree in principle . . . ." to any decision of your life; that concatenation of syllables will not assist you in 1) perceiving the options or 2) comparing the benefits of the options. --Rednblu 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Five days of discussion is not rush to judgment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And if the poll is in "terrible shape", help fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just readded: "If you do not support the merger in its entirety, any of "yes", "no" or "neutral" may be appropriate," which was intended to address earlier concerns. The one thing we need to establish is what to do about refactoring—1 and 3 may will see it. I don't see April 1 as particularly serious. Marskell 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Another "thing we need to establish" is consensus regarding the wording. We aren't there yet.

2. The above instruction doesn't make sense to me. Each response should mean something specific, and that seems to indicate that the answers are interchangeable (and largely meaningless) for some people.

3. As for 1 April, I can only say that the last couple of years have been ridiculous, and we shouldn't have yet another big thing to worry about on that day or during the polling. —David Levy 18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I don't have any concrete suggestions yet; I am watching closely the progress and work here. We're just not there yet, in my opinion. --Rednblu 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think it's too early. Few issues are still not resolved. -- Vision Thing -- 18:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And those are? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The wording on number 1 that everyone is up in arms over. Read my next section... - Denny 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wording, and comment by Jimbo that you keep removing. To what timestamp are you referring? -- Vision Thing -- 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove it, I moved it up to the chronology. Jimbo's last comment was the one the prompted this poll. All other comments were prior to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the timebeing, let's move it back 24 hrs: live at 00:00 UTC on March 29. There is never going to be consensus in the sense of unanimity, and there will always be something unresolved. I think 3 is problematic, for instance, as it holds the second option equal to the others when no one is really talking about it; I actually think of all the questions, that should be the open end. But interminable arguing is not much fun. Given that there is consensus for something like question 1, perhaps someone could suggest other alternate wording in the thread below. Marskell 18:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Idea for consensus (redux, long)

I seem to think we've established that Question #3 is quite fine, as no one is screaming about it or editing like mad on it and it's options now. Question #2 seems to be very stable, which leaves just question #1. The point of question #1 honestly DOES seem to be: "Yay or nay overall?" There is nothing wrong with asking that in an absolute sense like that, depending on the option that Question 2 actually represents. Question 1 may be all that some people feel the need to answer. Myself, I support the full merger. So, for me, I would simply say "Yay" on #1, and "Yay" on all three options under #2. Done, and done. Now: consider, what honestly is the point of the in-principle? I support the ATT idea, but I suspect that the in-principle is being included as a way out for the ATT developers... in case the poll for some reason shows the overwhelming majority doesn't care for merger, to perhaps come back around later with another idea. I think this is unneeded and couching the poll quietly in favor of the idea of ATT, if not the specific policy itself. Simply not right--and this is speaking as an ATT supporter!

On Question One

Why not just replace this:

1. Do you agree in principle with the merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into Wikipedia:Attribution?

With this:

1. Do you agree with the merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into Wikipedia:Attribution? If you support a partial merger, select 'Partial Merger' and see question #2.

Add a "Partial Merger" option under #1.

Summary

A mock up is here now: Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Dennyideamockup

Yes, I know that means having instructions in there. So what? That's a simple, straightforward, can't-be-confused or misintepreted question. If people support a more complex solution of a partial merger, that is what Question #2 is for. If they support none-of-the-above, well, they have ample oppurtunity to make that clear between #1 and #2 and #3. The status of pages desired at conclusion of the poll? Question 3.

"This a good idea? Or not entirely? OK, then look at #2. What about what to do with the policy pages after? Look at #3." Simple, linear... in fact, I'd wager that this simple change... will make the poll completely NPOV while not endorsing ANY side of the debate in any way. It's a straight: What do YOU think? scenario then, favoring via the questions neither endorsing, nor the idea, nor much of anything beyond what people enter... as answers.

If everyone is confident in the strength of their policies, and policy arguments, no one should have any problem with the idea of this, I'd imagine... - Denny 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But if someone supports a more complex solution, they shouldn't have to skip any questions entirely. Unless you want to group anything other than full support under "no", which would be the opposite problem as grouping anything other than full opposition under "yes". Or can we add more options along with this wording change? That question is more clear, at least. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am trying something similar, I think. Let's keep going. I am digging through the four months of arguments to get a "Statements from all sides" page. And the basic question seems to be something like the following: "Do you think there is a need to simplify into one page the policy on Verifiability to a Reliable source with No original research?" I do not have a concrete suggestion yet. --Rednblu 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't need something that complex, Red. Replying to both: They skip nothing. I just edited my idea so that #1 is YAY, NAY, and PARTIAL, GOTO #2. Look up. That covers ALL bases neutrally. - Denny 18:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise to move forward, I would accept Denny's proposal. Regarding to "Statements from all sides", please see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion in which editors are making their opinions known. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I put it here: Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Dennyideamockup for anyone who wants to see what it could look like. - Denny 18:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, looks like a good compromise to me. Thanks, Denny. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GOTO #2 (and don't leave your opinion here) isn't skipping? Why not have a section for "partial"? If it makes a difference, you can put "no need to explain here, we'll look at your answers to the other questions" in the instructions, although I don't know why that would be necessary. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

if someone supports it fully, then they really don't need to answer anything else but #1 ("adopt it all"). If they oppose fully, they don't need more than #1 ("reject it all"). Either all in, or all out in that case. If they want to get fancy, they move down through the poll. - Denny 18:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But then we'll end up with a statistically invalid sampling (because a substantial segment of the community will be excluded from one question but not the others).

How about splitting the "yes" response into "yes, and the merged pages should be superseded" and "yes, but the merged pages should not be superseded"? That way, proponents of compromise would be covered too. —David Levy 18:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bingo, THAT is perfect. Updating the mockup. - Denny 18:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But... is not that already in Q3? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More confusion of principle and outcome. What about: "Do you agree with the mergers at Wikipedia:Attribution? Yes / No / Partial (briefly describe)" and drop 2 and 3, leaving perhaps one open-end "How should it be arranged?" Marskell 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated Q1 per David Levy suggestion

Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Dennyideamockup:

Question: 1. Do you agree with the merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into Wikipedia:Attribution? If you support a partial merger, select 'Partial Merger' and see question #2.

• Yes, and the old pages are superceded by ATT.
• Yes, and the old pages are NOT superceded by ATT, but supplement it.
• Partial Merger.
• No.

Leave Q2 as is, Nuke Q3. Eh? - Denny 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That would work. I already nucked 3 in your mock up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Yep, good call, you got me on the edit conflict. - Denny 19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A mish-mash. No thx, on this end. And is two arguing for the four pages? Who is still arguing for that? Marskell 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The poll notice on Watchlists will be seen by thousands+ people for seven days. Just giving it out there. And a mish mash, but the whole thing has been that anyway. Q1 now supplants Q3's with two options rather than the four there before. More streamlined, same end result. - Denny 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 3 is what Question 1 should be. It includes two middle options regarding keeping all pages active but only some canonical, plus an option for people who think WP:ATT would be good after a substantial rewrite, and of course your extreme WP:ATT replaces other pages and they become inactive and WP:V or WP:NOR stay policy and WP:ATT becomes inactive. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Q3 is still there, but simplified into Q1. If ATT needs a rewrite, that can happen later. This whole process was to adopt or not adopt in some form. - Denny 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Q3 is pretty bad right now. It's offering "neutral options" that no one is seriously arguing for. Below, I suggest an open end. Marskell 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I am seriously arguing for one of the so-called "neutral options". — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're arguing for a lot of things, AB. Where's is the thread where people are seriously arguing for keeping all four live? (A stupendously idiotic idea.) In the absence of serious argument in that regard, why are we suggesting it? Marskell 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest

Q1: Do you agree with the mergers suggested at Wikipedia:Attribution?

• Yes
• No
• Partial (briefly describe)

Q2: Which arrangements would you prefer? [open ended] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marskell (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I will accept this compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How will be able to assess the answers if these are open ended? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The seven days won't be the end of things, is the idea. We get the basic question done (with partial offered as a compromise, given debates here) and we let the arrangement discussion be organic. Marskell 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of moving forward, I would go with Denny's compromise version, which I have copied to the main page. Take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That basically wipes out the tremendous progress that we just made. "Partial" would be interpreted to mean "only some of the pages" (which excludes the other compromises). —David Levy 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I just moved, David. Can't move back at all? What are the other compromises? Four policy pages? The most insane idea floated here? That 300 editors wasted six months to create more work for themselves?

Denny's compromise version is just another poorly designed scale (though the effort to move is appreciated). Marskell 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any proposals on how to avoid that, Marskell? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down, Marskell. We're all trying to compromise here, and referring to other people's opinions as "insane" is not helpful. —David Levy 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To jossi, yes, the proposal is above. If there is a large group of people arguing for four live pages it will come out in the open end.

To David: it is insane. *Shrugs*. Ask Slim, or anyone else who's been in this since October. The idea that V, NOR, RS and ATT are live is the worst possible outcome of a process that was meant to make our policies consolidated, maintainable, and precise. Marskell 19:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not four policy pages, one or two policy pages (depending), and two or three subordinate guideline or summary pages, with a clear heiarchy. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only respond with the following:

1. The above attack is hurtful and uncalled-for, and Armedblowfish's description is far more accurate.

2. If the community agrees with you, you have nothing to worry about. —David Levy 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What attack? I see the apparent "compromise" as advocating four pages, which is insane (or horrible or stupid, or whatever you like). AB is describing "one or two policy pages"—I don't understand. The people arguing for one are arguing for a merge in its entirety. Marskell 19:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so now my opinion is "insane," "horrible," and "stupid." Very nice.

Please let me know when you're ready to resume discussing this in a civil manner. —David Levy 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am discussing it in a civil manner. An attack is calling you stupid, not an opinion of yours stupid. I have friends who follow astrology, and I think astrology is the stupidest idea going. How about, "the idea is very very bad because it means I and 300+ other people have wasted a good portion of their editing time for the last six months in order to make wiki-life harder, rather than easier." Is that an attack? No. So come on, now. Marskell 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. If you honestly believe that the above posts' tone was remotely civil, I don't know how to address that.

2. Again, if the community agrees with you, you have nothing to worry about. You aren't trying to withhold an option that you fear may prove popular, are you? —David Levy 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe the above was civil; I was commenting on the content, not the person. In fact, I'll repeat it (with just one adjective, which sums up the others): I see having four pages going at once as a truly horrible outcome. Really, and truly. We can move to other threads, I suspect. Marskell 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, well I guess "two or three subordinate guideline or summary pages" is advocating for four. Yes, I find this insane. Not an attack to say so. Marskell 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys... concensus, consensus!! Look at this. We're nearly done. My change now makes every possibility possible, if enough people suggest it. All bases covered. But we need a basic structure, and the basic structure there now is why this began in the first place... - Denny 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To explain, I mean one of the following situations:

• Wikipedia:Attribution becomes the ruling policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are downgraded to subordinate guidelines. Wikipedia:Reliable sources remains a guideline in one form or another.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research remain the ruling policies. Wikipedia:Attribution stays as a condensed summary, with about the same status as WP:5P. Wikipedia:Reliable sources remains a guideline in one form or anther. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowsfish, see my last addition to the poll. Any eventuality if supported is now covered. - Denny 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Late change for "other ideas"

There we go, ArbCom style. 500 words, responses go on Talk. 500 words so someone doesn't clog the Poll with a 9,000 word essay or new Policy page. Whats the meat of your statement/idea. People can always espouse more on talk. I think that covers now every possible scenario imagineable. - Denny 19:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If we have the open end at the bottom as you describe, why clutter the first two questions? Maybe very simple one, some options (but tight) two, open end three? Marskell 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because if it needs some structure that even an idiot can interpret, or else everyone is going to keep on arguing in circles over every last syllable and we'll launch the poll in time for Christmas otherwise. And having the open area at the bottom is fine, since now any good, bad, insane, or shockingly brilliant idea can be heard. This'll be... what, the most public, open decision on policy by the community in years? Every base is now covered. - Denny 20:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will add that I've been dredging my brain for the right "existential" question on ATT:

• Do you support the intention of ATT...
• Do you believe ATT should continue to exist... (sounds stupid, but that's sort of the question)
• Do you believe there's utility in ATT...

I dunno. Marskell 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

* Do you support renaming WP:ATT to WP:SOURCESAREAWESOME, except when controversially deleted because of no evil polling?

We can't cover every base in the poll itself; we'd have dozens of options. Best of both worlds. - Denny 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting all of those! I was thinking we could brainstorm one initial question. (You're using the "creation of" now, which is a little iffy). Marskell 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that was David simplifying more. FWIW it reads as what it is, really: do you support ATT? Which is what it comes down to in the end here. - Denny 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Do you support ATT? That's very close to what I think the initial question should be. Up-and-down. I'm suggesting at the same time, that two "yes" options and a "partial" option confuses the question, because you have a mixed scale. Marskell 20:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are there.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I mostly concur; the improvements in the last half-day are vast, but I agree with Marskell that the "creation of" language isn't it. It's actually really weird; it seems to be asking whether going to the Wikipedia:Attribution redlink once upon a time and clicking on "edit this page" to create the first version was a bad idea, which is certainly not what we're here for. Other than that quibble, this looks remarkably better than it did last night. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Tweaked to read, 1. Do you support the policy merger into Wikipedia:Attribution? now instead. March 29, here we come. - Denny 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I really like it the way it is now. Can we please please keep it like that? :) --Conti|✉ 20:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm good either way, David RV'd me. :) - Denny 20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't answer "Yes, but the old pages should supersede the new one" be added to Question 1? -- Vision Thing -- 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Other options" section at the bottom. We limited it to just the most likely common scenarios for the main questions, or else we'd never get this done - Denny 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To me that scenario looks more likely than "Yes, and the new page should supersede the old ones". How can we say what is more likely scenario? -- Vision Thing -- 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on what the page concensus here... thats all we have to go on, is the sample. Unless a significant number disagree before the poll date, no reason to abort... - Denny 20:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution?

Good one, Conti. - Denny 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Notification of Poll

It looks as if we are nearing an acceptable compromise version... good work folks. I know it was not easy, and you have my thanks if no one else's.

Once we do have a final version, the next step is to determine when to open the poll and when to close it. Given that part of Jimbo's concern about ATT was that the merger might have taken place without proper notice and community involvement, I think it is vital that we now advertize this poll at every step. Just as we put all sorts of notices about the discussion page everywhere we could think of (including on the watch lists)... we should do the same with the poll. In fact, I think we should start with a notice that says: "The Poll will open on <opening day> at <time> and last for <number> days." Post this at least 24 hours ahead of time... then when the poll does open, again post notices to say "The poll is now OPEN for voting, and will close on <closing day> at <time>".

The one thing we definitely don't want is for Jimbo to come back to us saying lots of people complained that the poll opened and closed without their knowing about it. Blueboar 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You seen the watchlist notification? :) Maybe for the first 24 hours of the poll when the notice changes, we can include a discreet but impossible to miss graphic for it, then just go to all text for days 2-7. - Denny 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the announcement: This poll will open on March 29 00:00 UTC and will close seven days later on April 5 at 00:00 UTC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone uninvolved make the announcement? Or Jimbo just because this poll is being made at his request. I personally don't feel we are ready, and having a strict closing time might not be helpful. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The announcement will just go up on the Watchlist header at the magic time. Having a fixed closing date/time will be good so that every last person who screams "not yet!" can't make a stink, and so it has finality... - Denny 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for poll wording

See Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Armedblowfishmockup. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Armed Blowfish, I think your mockup leaves out the most important part... The whole point of this poll is so that we (and more importantly Jimbo) can find out IF this merger has community support. That has to be a binary yes/no question (or at most, a tri-part yes/no/partial question). I understand that you think we need a range of options to cover all bases, but we have to ask that basic question or we don't address Jimbo's main concern. Blueboar 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just think of "The original pages become inactive. Wikipedia:Attribution serves as a unified policy on their subjects." and "Wikipedia:Attribution remains as the canonical policy, but the original pages remain active to describe the concepts in greater detail." as two different kinds of "yes", and "The original pages serve as the canonical policies (or guideline in the case of WP:RS), but Wikipedia:Attribution remains active as a condensed summary." and "Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive." as two different kinds of no, and there's your binary, except with different degrees of yes and no. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We do not need any more brilliant ideas... We have had all ideas already discussed. Let's move on by agreeing to a compromise version as per Danny's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current compromise. Thanks, Denny! —David Levy 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Date of opening poll

Are still disagreements about starting the poll March 29 00:00 UTC? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is wrong to start with the current poll text. --Rednblu 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Rendblu's (edit conflict!) comment above (the "current" poll text has rarely lasted more than a few minutes...), I tend to agree with David Levy's earlier comment that waiting until April 2 would be wise. If this is "advertised" as much as I think it will be, it would be a top-10 April Fool's Day vandalism target. We've all (I think) agreed that it's really important to limit people's effective ability to rant and add comment-on-comment-on-comment on the poll to make it actually possible to parse it and determine the outcome. I think this rationale applies even more strongly to avoiding the utter bollocks monkeywrenching edits that would (I predict) absolutely certainly occur on 2007-04-01, some of them carefully crafted to not look like vandalism. (A secondary effect of course is that legitimate but poorly phrased votes could be deleted as apparent vandalism). A few extra days isn't going to kill anyone. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I support current version of the poll I don't see the reason for hurry. Aren't we having this poll because merge was preformed without enough community input and discussion? -- Vision Thing -- 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus to proceed

Is there concensus to go ahead? Or to abort? If we don't set a motion now... to go or hard stop, we'll endlessly debate just about that. Speak now, etc. - Denny 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but we're getting there. Abort? Certainly not. I second the motion (I guess it is Jossi's, ultimately) to proceed, with the caveat that this does not mean freeze the text of the poll. Tweaks need yet to be made. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I forked the new thread immediately below because it seemed to raise completely different issues; I believe what this thread was for what determining whether there is consensus that the poll is getting solid enough that proceeding is possible, and on some kind of schedule (not necessarily the one that Jossi or David Levy proposed, just that arriving at one is feasible.) If this fork was a mistake, feel free to revert, including refactoring away this note. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of answers

Two yes, two no answers is not what we had agreement for. Sorry. Back to square one, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That was not the compromise, David. That was last minute confusion added making this a joke. Two Yes answers, and two no answers? Changing the wording of the question? No, sory. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was satisfied with the two "yes" answers and one "no" answer." Why didn't you simply revert back to that? —David Levy 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As you type that, do you not see the potential error? Two yes answers and one no answers? How is that a well-designed question? Marskell 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it allowed people to express their actual opinions (including the one that you seek to suppress because you believe that it's "insane," "horrible," and "stupid," and you want to protect the community from itself). —David Levy 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see that you did, but now Marskell has decided to overrule the entire compromise. *sigh* —David Levy 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

David, it's incredibly ironic, after three days of arguing with you, that you feel expressing opinions consists of dictated answers. What if I just want to say yes? LOL. Marskell 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What if I don't? —David Levy 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Really David, I've got a smile on my face. I've heard so much yip-yap about how blood will flow in the streets if we ask a yes/no question, and it's just soooo cool that you've actually removed the one option I wanted: yes. I just wanted to vote yes, and then wait and see how debate on RS develops. LOL. So cheers to (a lack of) simplicity and shitty polling. Marskell 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the two "yes" options precisely matches your position. And guess what? Now there's an option that matches mine too! An utter travesty, I know... —David Levy 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No David, "The new page should supersede the old ones" does not support (the new, little twinkle in my eye) that it's possible to leave RS as is. Marskell 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of which pages to include is covered by question 2. —David Levy 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact that I can't give a proper answer to the only thing I'm decided on. I mean c'mon! I can't give the basic yes I want to give? A yes to WP:ATT? Christ. Marskell 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can give a proper answer. You want WP:ATT to supersede the pages that it subsumes. That's an option. And astonishingly, I can express my "insane," "horrible," "stupid" preference! —David Levy 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it funny when the shoes are switched? I'm sorry my friend, you're splitting the Yes question says to me: "all three or ATT as a supplement". Just the divisions I've heard bemoaned for the last three days. And it's clever isn't it? Despite no real argument for it here, let alone alone the six months people have worked on it, the horrible idea of ATT as supplement is being given equal weight in the primary question. But whatever. Keep at the poor design. Marskell 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean the "insane," "horrible," "stupid" design? —David Levy 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did pick one and stuck with it, in the interest of brevity. I said it was horrible. Perhaps you can tell me why it will be good? Why eight pages (four main, four talk) is going to help Wikipedia? Marskell 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If all of the project pages remain active, we needn't have a separate talk page for each; we could use Wikipedia talk:Attribution alone (and redirect all of the other talk pages).

The advantage, in my opinion, would be that while we would have a page containing concise documentation of the relevant concepts, we also would have individual pages with expanded descriptions (which would be handy for citing in specific situations, particularly when someone doesn't understand one of the individual elements).

But I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to allow the community to decide. If most users dislike the idea, it obviously will fail. So what are you worried about? That they won't dislike the idea? —David Levy 22:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll notification on the Watchlist header

I propose the following simple plan:

• Day 1 (hours 0-24): Non-dismissable notice (so no one misses it or can later say they did). Small graphic to get your attention.
• Days 2-7: Dismissable notice, text only, no graphic.
• Day 7+: take down the notice altogether.

Once consensus is 'decided' however that goes for the policy, another 24 hour non-dismissable notice announcing it, and done. - Denny 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking this image on the header:

For the first 24 hours on the left side. I am not good at making pretty... boxes. Could someone whip up a demo? - Denny 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Non dismissible notice? This means you'll have to forbid people from editing their monobooks. (Best of luck with that.) If people don't want to see it, they shouldn't have to. Picaroon 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean with no "dismiss button" on the header itself for the first day. :) - Denny 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sample graphical template:

Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll. : )

Sample nongraphical template:

Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll.  : )

I will see if I can figure out how to do the dismiss part, or someone else can add that.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sample graphical template with smiley instead:

Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll. : )

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Middle version (no graphic), and no smileys (graphical or ASCII) in any of them. Smileys indicate something is a joke or was meant humorously and that is not the case here. Yes I'm a big meanie. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My intention with the smileys was to make people feel they were welcome to add their opinions, and spread good will. Some smiles can be more serious than humour. But if you don't like them, it's not a big deal. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a matter of "like"; I'm coming at it from a usability angle. A long time ago smilies (of the basic sort; there are literally hundreds of variants now, with their own nuances) could mean any number of things, but since the rise of IM, they generally equate to "JK!" or "LOL!". I think the wording can convey what you want to. The wording job you did on the merge template at WP:RS for example conveyed that very well (note that I kept it but removed the ASCII-smile in the proposed variant). Something like your very encouraging wording in that template would work marvellously here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this one for when we go live? It's the same code as on the front of the Poll page and will show as a white background on the Watchlist page. After Day 1/24 hours, we would just drop the graphic and add a "hide" button. - Denny 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As requested by Jimmy Wales, a poll is now underway in regards to the WP:ATT policy. Please review it, here.

Stop! Look! Think! (and then cross)

Ok, stop for a minute. No poll at this point in time please. We've managed to create a huge mess. We are going to need time to tidy up that mess first.

Starting a poll in this situation is not helping anyone get anything done, and can only cause more mess.

I'd like to at least postpone the poll for a week or two until we (which includes several mediators) have gotten the initial mess sorted out.

--Kim Bruning 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) People are holding polls about poll content. Do you really think a poll would be useful at this point in time? ;-)

Hello, Kim. You may want to read the copious discussions before attempting to jump in the fry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course! --Kim Bruning 23:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We should hold a poll on whether or not to go forward with the poll. But first, we need a poll on whether to continue the pre-poll poll. If you disagree, we can put the matter to a poll. —David Levy 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I do not know how do you have the stamina to be humorous after all of this.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Polling is ev--oh wait. - Denny 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I'm somewhat confused as to what's going on. Jimbo Wales is the person who recommended that particular poll option to me ^^;; . --Kim Bruning 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jimmy's concern was that unless people had the three relevant policy pages and the handful of places it was posted on their watchlist, they would have no idea this was coming. Even admins didn't know... so... the roll back by him and request for a poll. I had pitched the idea to do a Watchlist notice, which everyone liked, except for so far an extremely small but vocal minority. The thinking was that this way, no one can say they aren't informed. The poll especially when live will need to be advertised thus, so that regular editors can all contribute, and again, so... no one is left out. Or else next month or next year someone will say, "WTF? WHEN DID ATT HAPPEN?!" and so on. Having it 'in your face' for a week is a small price to pay for getting the job done right... - Denny 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the Mediation Cabal, but the Mediation Committee does not mediate in disputes over what policy should be. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Independant and mediation cabal type mediators, yes. --Kim Bruning 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Kim's poll notification/scaling concern

I've had the poll notification deleted. The mediawiki software is not designed to handle a poll of this design at that kind of scale. We will either need to make do with less participants, or we will need to redesign the poll. --Kim Bruning 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's concern was that people didn't know about this, and it touched all of article space. Having it on the Watchlist is the only way to relatively 'guarantee' that all users will see this and know of it. - Denny 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I need to talk with Jimbo yesterday. ;-) --Kim Bruning 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Had the merged project pages been tagged, far more users would have been informed. Doing that this time should suffice. —David Levy 23:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet has been resisted tooth and nail as if it were somehow controversial. Please see talk page topics near bottom of WT:V, WT:NOR and WT:RS for attempted resolution of this issue. All it needs is some "yeah, this is OK by me" from people on both sides, and the issue just goes away. How awesome would that be? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There were lots of comments even by admins saying that they had no idea about this policy coming down the pipe--if they don't have the relevant policy pages watchlisted, they won't see such a notice. The only guaranteed way to do this so that every conceivable person this affects will see it is to put it on either the Watchlist header, or on the sitewide header... - Denny 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone had thought about the database issues. I know there are some bugs with simultaneous submits that cause edits to get deleted. Is that what you are talking about? CMummert · talk 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

<cynical>It would a good stress test to find out if those bugs are all out now ;-) </cynical> --Kim Bruning 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OT: Unless they were fixed very recently, they aren't. This happened to me less than a week ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 2007-03-27T23:58:57.

I have also seen evidence of a lost-edit effect this week, and a lingering database bug seems like the most likely explanation. CMummert · talk 00:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted on the tech village pump to ask a dev or three to weigh in on tech issues about scaling. - Denny 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If one is to judge by the number of participants in the community discussion page, I do not think that we will have such massive participation in the poll as to be concerned about scaling issues. Only a small subset of contributors will be interested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The main scaling issue would be one of people getting edit conflicts all the time. If there's also bugs... well, yoiks... but not the main problem :-) --Kim Bruning 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a minor subpoint, there are several other things that point to the poll being held in too hasty a fashion. I'd like to buy some time to figure things out.

In other news, I'm not sure I can get a hold of Jimbo Wales, btw, since he appears to be in Japan at the moment. :-/ --Kim Bruning 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to reduce edit conflicts

On the poll page, could we put the questions, as well as the comments section, on different subpages? We could then subst those into the poll page. I know it would be 3 more pages for us to have on our watchlists. However, it might cut the edit conflicts to 1/3 the frequency they would occur otherwise, and it would reduce the size of the page we'd have to deal with when we did have edit conflicts. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Subsections works great. But how many people do you expect to have participating, over how many days, and how many sections do you have? Will there be any surges early on or late? How many edits per minute at peak load? Guesstimates are fine. You need to at least be able to make your design scale to at least the max expected load.

But if you expect a large load during a poll, perhaps a poll is not a good idea. But that is for later too.

All these things are minor points. I need time to clear out some messes, before this poll actually causes a big fight to happen for no reason. It might even (still) be possible to reach consensus before a poll is held (and that's what I'm hoping for) Is there any particular reason to hurry that I need to know about? --Kim Bruning 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no objection to taking our time. I can't estimate the load, though.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, as this is coming up on half a year, there won't be concensus either way without Jimbo's requested poll, Kim. - Denny 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on no hurry. At least two of us have (specifically) urged waiting until at least April 2 to avoid April Fool's Day vandalism (which can sometimes be pretty subtle and thus hard to detect, and/or confusable with weird but legit votes.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a 4/2/07 start will hurt at all. - Denny 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(Note that polls don't make consensus. They can only be used to measure it. --Kim Bruning 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC) )

Voting Is Evil?

Why would be put Voting is Evil in a poll. Voting is Evil is simply an essay that some people wrote about how they prefer not to vote. Were here to make a poll, not to try to discourage it. If someone feels that voting is evil, then they should not participate in this optional poll that has no power anyway. Yaanch^Speak! 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's there because it will be there. It's a given that someone will add it. It gets added at every poll. Guettarda 04:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Put it in now, instead of editwarring over its addition later, mid-poll. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Having taken a break from this page, I have a modest proposal: Three questions:

1. Q1: Short Version (above)
2. Q2: Which of these four pages do you think should be combined
   • WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS

     With a note: If WP:ATT is included in the combination, the combined page will start out as WP:ATT. If it is not, the combination will have to be written

3. Q1:Verbose version, without the Yesses and Noes, which are in the first question.

Unless this is immediately shot down, I will probably do a draft to see what it looks like, in which case I will add a version link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can WP:ATT be merged with pages from which it was derived? —David Levy 02:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a longer break, PManderson? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! Yes. I see it. Good eye! New breakthrough! This poll structure acknowledges the actual relationship of the four independent slices of the policy problem. No wonder none of the prior poll structures worked for us unless we just gave up! Without acknowledging the actual four independent slices of the policy problem, we can never reach a working consensus. I was not even close to seeing this! Congratulations! At least this poll structure does not force a four dimension reality into questions limited to three dimensions. --Rednblu 12:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I have overestimated the symmetry here; I shall do a craft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think we need any more proposals. Enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats u=is up PManderson? The version you just changed was stable for 12 hours, after editors agreed that it was a good compromise. Please, if you want to change it, propose it in a sandbox. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Where was it agreed that it was a good compromise? I left it alone because the pre-poll poll was ongoing (so it didn't really matter what was on the project page). —David Levy 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the poll to which Jossi is reverting, and thought it clear that the pre-poll poll did also. It offers no way to clearly express my views, or several others. His persistent reversion remains uncollegial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose the "live" version (which clearly lacks support), but yours is even worse (no offense intended). —David Levy 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a draft; I'm not offended. If you can be specific about what's wrong with it, maybe I can fix it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply below. —David Levy 15:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A proposal: For the record

The proposal was presented in this edit. I copied that page to my UserSpace at User:Rednblu/Attribution/Poll and merely fixed a link so that I could look at the complete proposal. --Rednblu 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been a WEEK

Let's wrap this up. It's been a full week and slightly then-some. Seven fricken days. With layzers on their heads. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: If it takes two weeks to write a really fricken simple poll (layzers on its head or not), there is no poll forthcoming that is worth contemplating at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

exactly. We had a version yesterday that had support. let stick with it,. Enough brilliant ideas, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Either that, or this scenario. for the Q1 straw poll. - Denny 15:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Draft

This draft clearly needs work, although it is intended as a straight combination of the Simple and Verbose questions above. Which questions seem unclear, Mr Levy? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Q1. Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution?
Yes.
No.
Neutral.

The remaining questions deal with the combination of some of the four existing pages to a new combined page, either Wikipedia:Attribution as it now stands or some other. The pages to be combined are the "old pages".

Q2:If pages are merged, what should the combined text be, for right now? The present text of Wikipedia:Attribution Some new page to be written later Do not merge

Q3. Which pages should be merged? [Vote in the appropriate section, "yes" or "no".

(UTC) =Wikipedia:Attribution

Yes.

No.

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Yes.

No.

Wikipedia:No original research

Yes.

No.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Yes.

No.

Q4: How should the new, combined, page be related to the old pages from which it is merged? The meaning of "new page" is determined by Q2; the meaning of "old page" by Q3.

The new page should supersede the old ones.
Old pages should remain active to supplement the new page.
The new page should remain active as an explanatory summary.
The new page should become inactive.

Largely equivalent to "do not combine" in Q2.

Neutral.

I literally don't know what 3 is asking (and question 2 was incomprehensible until you just reworded it). I've already explained that I don't understand how WP:ATT can be merged with the pages from which it was derived. —David Levy 15:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see one possible position (and I think some editors would support it) as: there should be a merger, but not to the present text of WP:Attribution. Q2 (above, not on the project page) is an effort to measure the strength of this; but I've taken it out for now.
• If there were a merger to an as yet unwritten page, WP:ATT can be merged into it or not. Whether WP:ATT can be merged to itself or not is a purely verbal question, which I thought this draft avoided. (I would say that doing so is trivial; Mr. Levy that it is impossible; but both are questions of definition.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it's very important to stress that this poll does not pertain to the pages' exact wording. That's a separate issue.

Secondly, I can barely wrap my mind around the idea of asking users whether WP:ATT (which already duplicates the text of other pages on the list) should be merged into a hypothetical page that doesn't exist. I still don't understand what you're trying to ask. —David Levy 15:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then we don't need to ask it. See #simpler draft below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just a slight tweak on elements from the listed five Q1 formats. Please consider one of those in the already ongoing straw poll. We need concensus. Slight remixing isn't the problem--those 5 basically encompass every possible scenario. - Denny 15:04, 28 March 2007

Actually, it (intentionally) includes two of them, in an effort to offer something to everybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

...but my point is this new draft is basically going to be the same end result as the above ones. It's not substantially new or different. All the above ones are basically... the archetypical questions. We've already gone over that we can't conceivably offer something for everyone as everyone has an agenda. And we can't keep adding an infinite number of alternate options to the straw poll of the straw poll or else we'll have a straw poll to determine if more options should be added to the pre-poll straw poll and so on. Eventually... we just need to say, "OK, these are what we got". - Denny 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an effort to offer something to the people who consider the verbose version verbose; for those who think that worthwhile. My willingness to do is declining. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Simpler draft

This version reads:

===Q1. Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution?

• Yes.
• No.
• Neutral.

===Q2. Which pages should be merged into it?

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

====Wikipedia:Verifiability

=====Yes

=====No

====Wikipedia:No original research

=====Yes

=====No.

===Wikipedia:Reliable sources

=====Yes.

=====No

===Q3: How should Wikipedia:Attribution be related to the old pages from which it is merged

The "old pages" are those which are agreed on in Q2.

• The new page should supersede the old ones.
• Old pages should remain active to supplement the new page.
• The new page should remain active as an explanatory summary.
• The new page should become inactive; no merger.
• Neutral.

Comments?

That's virtually identical to the setup that we just rejected and moved beyond. —David Levy 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that we have turned this as much as it could. People are looking at the poll as if it is the end of the world. It isn't. The poll will simply provide data upon which something will emerge, and that is neither' the status quo, or a massive change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence my asking that we simply go with the Five Options we have up top, rather than putting forward another series of remixes. Unless their is a super-majority saying "WE LOVE ATT!" or "WE HATE ATT!" in it, it won't have super-significance. And if a super-majority goes either way, well, there you go. We'll have proven concensus. - Denny 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been shot down. Option 4 above is widely supported, and opposed solely on the grounds that we should have a yes/no on WP:ATT. If someone wants Option 1 also, fine by me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What has been shot down? That a super majority of people endorsing something in the poll will have merit or something else? The two leading Q1 poll options are about even in support. I am confused... - Denny 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The proposal made by this section. What else? Please refrain from revert-warring when confused. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The basic justification for including a "yes"/"no" question is that we need to protect the community from itself by suppressing the "insane," "horrible," "stupid" compromise options that users might be foolish enough to prefer. —David Levy 16:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like concensus is turning out different than I expected up on the poll-poll. No one has objected to my extension idea if it isn't clear, so looks like common sense now says a 4/2/07 launch of the main poll based on the... concensus that stands at the end of 4/1/07. - Denny 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Scenario

Scenario: Two thirds vote for some sort of merge with one third wanting to merge Verifiability and No original research and one third wanting to merge Verifiability and Reliable sources so there is a majority for a merge but only Verifiability has a majority wanting it merged so ATT becomes just a copy of Verifiability. Just thinking out loud. WAS 4.250 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not speculate, neither on the results of the poll, nor on what these results will influence in regard to ATT and related pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, let's not plan, just charge. Option 4 (and 3) avoid these problems. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, lets move on. Seven days of discussion is way over the top and hardly "just charge". I am not happy 100% with the current version either, but we need to know when to stop and accept a compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version is a useless mess, and I see nothing remotely resembling consensus in its favor. —David Levy 16:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am outa here, then. If this is the state of affairs, that we cannot come to an agreement on a simple poll in seven days of discussions, I can only imagine the total confusion and chaos that will ensue when we try to understand the result of the poll and apply these. Ciao, ragazzi ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Right behind you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. This is farcical. We can't decide policy by a poll. We should be asking only if people support the merge. If you get into issues of whether they want this or that to be merged, what if we end up with yes, they want NOR to be merged, but not the other two? We're begging for meaningless results with this question, because only one of us (so far as I know) has professional polling experience, and he has been driven up the wall by this conversation, unsurprisingly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith or mere incompetence?

I received the following message on my talk:

Please stop adding sections, unless you have decided to buck all concensus and ignore the Q1 poll. Also, you can be reported for a 3rr violation.

This makes two errors of fact:

• my last edit here was to install option 4 of that poll, which is the only one on balance supported, and the edit summary so marked it.
• All my edits today, with one exception, have been novel combinations of text (and I have been content to see some of them reverted; I wanted text to link to.

I have some difficulty squaring this with WP:AGF. If this wording goes live, I shall vote and comment accordingly. Please restore Option 4, or present some argument that it is not the consensus of the poll. Option 3, although acceptable to me, and preferable to the present text, is too widely opposed Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we wait so that we can get a clear concensus? Option 4 seems to be pulling away for people supporting it, which is fine--I will bow to concensus happily, as everyone should. But why rush it at this point? - Denny 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you bow to consensus? You can bow to a majority, but never to a consensus. Oh dear... --Kim Bruning 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean if concensus seems to be not what I would personally desire, why would I fight it and make a big stink? It's called teamwork/working with others. :) - Denny 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been hawking the idea of the straw poll-poll to finally sort out the Q1 concensus for going on two days with quite a LOT of posts along the way on other topics, and not one person has bucked going with that to get some final resolution on the Q1 matter. As many people have seen/posted my idea to let it run out the 25 hours, then go to 4/1/07 if concensus wasn't still clear, I took it... as endorsement of the idea as no one is opposed to it. It seems the fairest way. If my preferred option (#3) isn't the one to go live, thats life, and I'll live happily with the concensus. Thats what I mean by bowing to it... why fight a pointless battle? - Denny 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am finding this really hard to follow. Could you please create sandbox pages for each one of the proposed polls so that it would be easy to understand? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Gimme a couple minutes. - Denny 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done; each option has a live full mockup now. - Denny 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Denny. Very useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

00:00 UTC March 30

Just to be clear, it's not live tonight? Marskell 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Option 1 or Option 2 seem to be gathering the most support. Don't think we are ready for launch and yet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you ignoring the "oppose" votes? —David Levy 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. Just that Option 1 is gathering the most support overall, comparing with the other options, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If an impartial observer were to actually weigh the arguments (instead of simply counting the votes), I suspect that he/she would arrive at a different conclusion. People are literally arguing that we need to suppress options because they're "bad" (so the community shouldn't be permitted to consider them). —David Levy 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And actually, Option 1 is the closest of them all to what Jimbo asked, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but my interpretation is no more valid than yours. As people have continually cited Jimbo's wishes, I've e-mailed him and requested that he clarify them. —David Levy 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be coming out clearest. We need to decide on a "refactoring rule": how to avoid having ten options created? Marskell 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What do yo mean, Marskell? I do not follow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean for the straw poll-poll? I put up over 24 hours ago that we should go with those given time frames... and the limit of five (endorsed by Jossi for the no-new-options) and no one opposed it. The five themselves pretty much cover every possible angle. Maybe we just declare that at this point, after all the other stuff, it's been narrowed down to this? That seems fair. It went from a zillion ideas to a 'lot', to five, to one, and live, with people to input all along the way. At some point though the community has to shut doors or we'd never get anything done... - Denny 20:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A notice saying "Do not add additional options here. If you believe your opinion is not covered by these options, please either vote for your first choice among them or leave a message in the Comments section at the bottom of the page." might help. --tjstrf talk 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Denny is talking about the internal poll to decide which version we should use out of the 5 options presented.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of what tjstrf is replying to: whenever the questions go up, how do we stop two or three or four options turning into six or nine or twelve options? "Do not add additional options here" is the right first step. Marskell 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. "Do not add additional options here" will not work; and we should not do it if it would work. We are trying to find out what Wikipedia thinks; trying to prevent Wikipedians from proposing options which the dozen of us have not considered is un-wiki. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Including all of the pertinent options in the first place is the right first step. —David Levy 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess that we should wait till 4/2/07 and let the poll-poll run out. I don't think there will be clear concensus tonight... - Denny 20:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Marskell suggests, on my talk page, that we combine Option 1 with an open-ended question 3, presumably of some such form as "How should Wikipedia:Attribution be related to the pages merged into it?" This is a reasonable approach. I would like the four possibilities discussed in Option 3 or 4 put into the header, as an account of proposals; so people can tell what we mean; but this is optional. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If we are aiming to achieve consensus, I think that is a way to go. -- Vision Thing -- 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Do not add additional options here," sounds like preventing people who hold different opinions from voting, unless you have an "other" section for votes. I don't think that's enforceable, once the poll is live and people have added votes to those additional options, which is why the "short version" and "medium version" would be unlikely to last long if they went live. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In the instructions to the open end we can point to discussions of possibilities, in order of weight where they've occurred.

Regarding disallowing additional, it was un-wiki of Jimbo to ask for this to begin with (we aren't a democracy right?); if we're going to give the man good answers, I think we should deliberately remove refactoring. Marskell 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To AB specifically, there'd be an open option. You can type what you like there, and we should, organically, allow it be refactored. Marskell 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What you advocate is a primary question containing only the choices of which you approve, accompanied by a secondary area for people to express contrary opinions in a disorganized manner that prevents the straightforward compilation of useful data. —David Levy 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So, for question 1, there would be an "other" option? What do you mean by "allow it to be refactored"? Do you mean adding subsections to the "other" section? Or tampering with votes? Or something else I am not thinking of? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To reply to AB, I'm thinking of the yes/no, which has clear (or at least the clearest) approval now as first, and a true open end as second. "Do you support ATT?" Followed by "What arrangement do you prefer?" The second would have no options at all. We'd be tight on avoiding refactoring (i.e., adding, changing, splitting, removing options) on the first, but be open to it on the second. If clear patterns emerge ("I see a lot of users favour an arrangement of this sort, so I'm going to make a headline to group them...") we'd let it happen. Marskell 21:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Example: people informally split into groups on the threads on the Community discussion. We'd let that informally happen on the open end I'm suggesting. Marskell 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really want it to be yes/no, try "Do you support ATT being policy? That would split the line down the middle between the two middlish options. It would be grouping people with different opinions together, though, so I'm not sure how useful that would be statistically.

Also, there are advantages to a 1st/2nd/3rd/etc. choice system, such as allowing people some say as to what happens if their first choice is not chosen. This is part of the reason I still support Question 3 over the verbose version. You could make that pseudo-open-ended by adding an "other" option. However, a purely open-ended question would be acceptable, I guess. Why don't you add a mockup for it to the poll at the top of the page?

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Pseudo-open-ended" sums up everything that's wrong with Wiki polls and Wiki pollsters. I'm taking the suggestion as rejected. Marskell 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I said I purely open-ended question would be acceptable. Not my first choice, but first choices don't necessarily make compromises. I'd like to see the wording before I finalise my opinion, so go ahead and right something up. Oh, what would happen to the "which pages should be merged" question in your version? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 2

Why are we having question 2? If this is just a poll about yes/no support to the merger, it shouldn't be included, and if this is also a poll about future look of policy pages, then we should also include question 3. -- Vision Thing -- 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 2 has been argued over the least. I think it good. Q1 (not the current Q1, but the one supported at the top of the page) will provide the broad "do we keep going/do we stop" answer—Q2 will tell us which pages to keep going with. Or, to loop back to an old point, Q2's specifics will be important if we have broad consensus on the general Q1. Marskell 22:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What he said. Q2 has been stable and is the least contentious, since it's also the simplest by far. "What merges in?" You really only have three options conceivably possible, so we have nothing to fight over! ;) - Denny 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming that broad consensus on Question 1 will be in support of the merger. However, if majority of answers are going to be no, then Question 2 will be useless. So practically, by allowing only Question 2, poll is showing a bias toward support of the merge. There should be also a question which deals with situation of majority no vote (i.e. should we keep WP:ATT as a summary or scrap it altogether). -- Vision Thing -- 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything and don't want to speculate. But if 95% of the respondents on Q1 say "No," then Q2 is irrelevant anyway since it means the community doesn't want ATT then. - Denny 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not my understanding, for example see option 3 which has 6 endorse votes. There is an answer "No, and the new page should become inactive." and "No, but the new page should remain active as an explanatory summary.". So obviously there are people, like me, who don't think that no vote means that we should just delete ATT. -- Vision Thing -- 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with a "yes"/"no" question is that there's no way to determine how respondents actually feel. Would a "yes" voter actually prefer a compromise (but doesn't want to lose WP:ATT completely)? Would a "no" voter actually prefer a compromise (but doesn't want to lose the original project pages)? It's impossible to know, and it's downright dangerous to create a setup in which respondents aren't even offered the opportunity to compromise unless they respond a certain way to the first question. To view compromise as a "plan B" worth considering only if consensus for one of the extreme options isn't reached is to miss the point entirely. Some of us prefer compromise above all else. —David Levy 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if the compromise is bad for the project? I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If people believe that compromise is bad for the project, they'll respond to the poll accordingly. —David Levy 22:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you understood what I meant. You see, WP:ATT was designed under the principles that we need less policy pages, not more. It took two policies and one guideline and merged them into one easy-to-read page in which the different nuances of the original policies could be seen in the context of each other. A compromise option that will end up with the original policies and ATT is bad for the project as it will be more messy than before. I have been monitoring V, RS and NOR for almost a year now, and I can tell you that I do not look forward to have to monitor another page. So, if the community does not want ATT, that is fine with me. I am not going to propose an option that will take us to a a worst position than before ATT was put together. Capishe? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the participants in this discussion have already disagreed with Jossi; I, however, think one page is the best idea. If there is consensus, or the two of us can form one, well and good; if not, we should consider that we may be mistaken. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If there is no support for ATT, then ATT should not exist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. —David Levy 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be completely insane to end up with V, NOR, RS, and ATT as active policy pages. The whole point of the merge was to reduce the number of pages, not increase them. If people don't support the merge, ATT should be abandoned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

1. No one is proposing that all four of the pages remain policy.

2. That's your opinion. Others would prefer to retain WP:ATT for a purpose other than that for which it originally was intended. The community has the right to decide. —David Levy 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell "Others" = "User:David Levy making a point" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayjg (talk • contribs) 01:40, 29 March 2007.

1. You honestly don't see the other editors expressing this opinion?

2. Disagreeing with you != disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I'm disheartened by your failure to assume good faith. —David Levy 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I understood exactly what you meant, Jossi. You expressed your opinion that compromise is a bad idea. This is not your decision to make. It's the community's. If most people agree with you, they'll oppose the compromise options in the poll proper (as you should be doing instead of attempting to suppress them). —David Levy 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the basic Wiki policies is NPOV, which states that all views should be present, even those with which we don't agree with. -- Vision Thing -- 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

But some of us don't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to vote against compromise in the poll. —David Levy 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I hope not to sound to harsh, but some people in this discussion seem not to have any prior experience in designing polls. That is quite a specific skill, and those without the necessary training/experience may be missing on the pitfall of badly designed polls. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. Please, please defer, at least to some extent, to the people here who actually know what they're talking about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Substantive argument would be more persuasive than claims of professional expertise. On Wikipedia, where they are unverifiable, this is doubly true; but it is true anywhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have some experience with the polls then you should know that simple yes and no answers can be very misleading without clarifications. -- Vision Thing -- 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes/No are wonderful devices. Do you support the war in Iraq? yes/no; do you support an independent Palestinian state? yes/no; Do you like chocolate cake? yes/no; do you prefer Mac OS X instead of Windows? yes/no. All these will produce results about these specifics, as the variations that you can have within each answer are as many as there are people. Just thing of how many variations you can have under the question about the Palestinian state: literally hundreds. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Do you support an independent Palestinian state?" is perhaps the least meaningful poll question I've ever heard of. Different responders will hear it as being "Do you support the (present position of the) Palestinian Authority." to "Do you support what Hamas promises?" to beyond. Depending on how they hear it, people of the same substantive position will disagree. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, that is what I meant. We were asked to design a poll to find out how the community feels about ATT as currently designed, not about which future form of ATT the community wants, as that is a future outcome and no one is going to stop an editor for improving ATT if it remains as a policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you remember, we had a version that read "do yo support in principle". That is what we are trying to gauge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Right, and this is in keeping with what Jimbo said. He said he had no problem (or no issue) with the content of ATT. His interest is only whether the merge is supported. The exact contents of ATT will develop in the same way the contents of V and NOR would have developed, or any other policy. The question here is simply: do people want those policies to be expressed on one page or on three pages. For the life of me, I can't understand why some people are determined to complicate this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Because some of us want the concepts to be expressed (to varying degrees) on four pages. If this is a bad idea, the community will reject it. Why do you wish to deny the community the opportunity to decide? —David Levy 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The only way the community will denied the opportunity to decide is if they are given a biased poll or a meaningless mush of vague questions. The current poll (as of this posting) avoids that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How does the current poll (as of this posting) allow members of the community who favor a compromise in which all four pages remain active to express their opinion? —David Levy 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

By voting No to the merge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If that's what "no" means, how does someone vote to retain only the original pages (and not WP:ATT)? —David Levy 01:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the main reasons for WP:ATT was to reduce 3 pages to 1. There's no point in keeping it if it instead increases 3 to 4. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Does the community lack the right to decide for itself? —David Levy 01:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. One of the main reasons for WP:ATT was to reduce 3 pages to 1. The community can't "decide for itself" on what happened. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing your second statement. It's a fact that the original intention behind the creation of WP:ATT was to reduce the number of active pages by two. It's a matter of opinion that using it for a different purpose is undesirable. —David Levy 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole reason we're doing this is because Jimbo said we should have a poll to see if the 3 should be merged into 1. There's no other reason for having this poll. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Jimbo was the one who originally added such a compromise option to the poll. —David Levy 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at Should WP:V and WP:NOR have been merged at all? and If they remain merged, should WP:RS remain merged with them? in the Community discussion. The opinions offered for the first one are rather mixed, and for the second, there are a fair number of people saying WP:RS should not remain merged. Question 2 will allow all of these people to vote for their preferred combination. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Remaining major technical details

Expected time to 'go live'

So that we can finally get it over with and put it to the community. Based on Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration, which no one has raised any concerns over (at all, let alone substantive)... and since the concensus isn't clear yet for what to do with Q1...

Run this straw poll-poll for Q1 then all the way to April 1st, 2007, 22:00 UST. Whatever is the clear concensus on 4/1/07 22:00 goes live at 4/2/07 00:00 UST. - Denny 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Notification for all editors

Notice is put up on the Watchlist header at 4/2/07 00:00 UST with this banner (which will show as a clean white background on that page):

As requested by Jimmy Wales, a poll is now underway in regards to the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll.

After the first 24 hours, we lose the graphic icon and add the magical dismiss button, and leave the notice up for the duration of the poll. Per Wales'... concern everyone will definitely know about the poll then, and no-one can reasonably say later, "I didn't know!". Any objections? - Denny 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Object. It prejudges the issue, you should remove the word "policy". Also, I would prefer something more welcoming, like "Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll." — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Better? - Denny 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, thank you. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. ElinorD (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Duration of poll

Seven days, from 4/2/07 00:00 UST to 4/9/07 00:00 UST still OK? - Denny 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I am skeptical that we will have consensus by 2 April, although it might be possible. I don't think we should have a strict closing time, as there may still be ongoing discussion and voting in seven days. Also note that WP:STRAW reccomends against strict opening and closing times for polls. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, if there is no concensus by then, and if everyone wants, we just extend it. But I doubt we won't have it by then. If we need to, we can just tack on another 72 hours, and post links back to this finale discussion on various places like ANI, etc. - Denny 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That sounds fine.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. ElinorD (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree unless the Poll poll will be closed before 22:00 April 1. Two hours may be insufficient to decide which Option has best support, let alone insert and sign off on a final compromise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Substringing the poll sections

Do we want to put Q1 & Q2 into subpages like AfD to cut down on edit conflicts? I have no idea yet how to... do that right, so I'd leave it for others' wisdom (but seems like a good idea). - Denny 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• We could do different pages for Q1 and Q2, and transclude these subpages in the main page, as we do in RfAs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will do this on the current version to show how this would work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The three sections are now transcluded, so that there will be less problems of edconfs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thank you Jossi. That... looks easier than I expected. - Denny 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Substringing the poll sections - header transclusion

I transcluded the header like Jossi did with the sections... Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header. Add that to your watchlists. I did it to have the same header on each of the final five Q1 mock-ups. - Denny 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave straw poll at top of page when live

Recommendation: When the main poll itself goes live, we should leave this straw poll here at the top of the talk page (i.e., don't archive it, or move it to a sub-page linked from here) so that anyone who wants to see where the poll was generated from can see it. - Denny 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree. I think we should be ashamed of this. This page is being discussed in very negative terms elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Where? I checked 'what links here' and didn't see anything like this (unless I missed something obvious)... - Denny 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the conversations elsewhere, but I agree with SlimVirgin that this whole thing has been a terrible mess. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

with so many cooks in the kitchen, it was bound to happen. But I guess everyone would agree that its calmed down now a lot now that half the noise has been condensed down in recent days. - Denny 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Question 2

Two concerns: 1) Do we not run the risk here of having some people say yes to NOR, no to V, no to RS (or whatever combination), so that we end up with a nonsensical result? 2) Do we not also run the risk of some people saying no to including RS, simply because they dislike RS and want it to disappear entirely (which is a common position)? But by voting no, they would inadvertently cause RS to be retained? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We may... In that case, whoever closes the poll will need to make a recommendation on how to proceed. Hopefully people will add some comments to their votes that may assist in determining the outcome. Again, the closing of the poll (Jimbo's request for a "certification" process, about which we know nothing yet), will need to assess the results of the poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that such a great risk? The most likely combinations, to me, would seem either WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, or else just WP:V and WP:NOR. I heard only one suggestion for just WP:V and WP:RS. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a big risk of #2. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... If there is support for ATT, but only support for merging NOR and V, then RS will remain as a guideline, no? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that would be a nonsensical result. That's two pages... not nonsensical like trying to merge WP:NOR with itself. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to address the issue of RS being inadvertently retained because people vote No to merging it — without realizing that, if they vote No, they are voting to retain it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A clarification? "If there is not consensus to merge WP:RS into WP:ATT, it will remain as a guideline"? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas that would not open the proverbial can of worms...? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ABF's suggestion would do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that any decision against merging WP:RS would not be permanent. If the page's opponents were to subsequently try and fail to retire the guideline (thereby establishing consensus for its existence), a merger into WP:ATT could be re-proposed. —David Levy 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "If there is not consensus to merge WP:RS into WP:ATT, it will remain as it is for now"? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine... but I can see other contributors here wanting to add the same for each combination.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's leave it then and take the risk. The page is looking quite good now, and I don't want to risk destabilizing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The page is stable because some of us are attempting to discuss our objections (instead of edit-warring). Please don't misconstrue this as implicit support for the current structure. —David Levy 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The bizarre poll about the poll showed that most people support this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a great deal of opposition, and the arguments have not been weighed by a neutral party. —David Levy 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a poll about the poll about the poll to decide that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We can simply specify that any pages not merged will retain their current status. —David Levy 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave the questions as they are now, to gauge the community's sentiments, per Jimbo's request. If ATT is favored in principle, we should then decide on the proper disposition and/or incorporation of RS, regardless of whether it gets a lots of 'merge' votes or not. As it is, RS was already largely included in V, and hence in ATT, so it's really just a matter of amplification and examples. It would not make sense to leave RS as a separate independent guideline alongside ATT, since there will be constant overlaps and contradictions, exactly what ATT was intended to prevent. Crum375 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some discussion of reliable sources in WP:NPOV as well. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Might be a compromise. Or maybe not. Regarding 4 pages vs. not 4 pages issue.

The objections to having four active pages (not all policy), as I understand them, seem to involve the time involved in maintaining the additional pages.

So, how about this:

• If people bother to maintain the additional page(s), which may include consensus-building attempts to provide further guidance or updating the page(s) to reflect new consensus reached on the canonical page(s), they may remain active.
• If there are no consensus building attempts on the additional pages or at least time spent updating them to reflect new consensus reached on the canonical page(s), they will become inactive, with the possibility to become active again if people decide to maintain them.

To me, this seems to make more sense in the flexible wiki scheme of things anyways.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what this means. We don't want four policies pages and four talk pages about essentially the same things. Bad enough that we have three, but if the community votes for that, so be it. They can maintain them. But no one could conceivably want one additional page and talk page saying the same thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, they would not all be policy. (Or at least I do not know of anyone who thinks they should be.) If Wikipedia:Attribution was kept as canonical policy, the rest could be subordinate guidelines, just as WP:FORK WP:POVFORK is a guideline subordinate to WP:NPOV. If the rest were kept as policy (or guideline for WP:RS), WP:ATT could have a status similiar to that of WP:5P as a summary page. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC), 01:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC), 01:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Users have expressed a desire to retain all four project pages, so please don't claim that "we" don't want that. If it's inconceivable that the community would favor such a setup, why don't you allow its members to reject the option themselves?

2. As I noted previously, we wouldn't need to have four talk pages. Wikipedia talk:Attribution could serve as the talk page for all of the project pages (with the other talk pages becoming redirects). —David Levy 01:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would be bad to have four talk pages. I was thinking more along the lines of substing the WT:V and WT:NOR talk pages into WT:ATT, since WT:ATT was so high traffic. However, redirecting WT:V and WT:NOR, with a link to their archives on WT:ATT, would work for the purposes of keeping relevant discussion together. However, I think WT:RS should be its own talk page, considering WP:RS is WP:NPOV issue as well as a WP:ATT issue, in my opinion. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC), 01:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Doing this "for Jimbo"

People of various viewpoints have continually justified their positions by quoting Jimbo and interpreting his comments to mean that this poll should be conducted in a particular way. Well, I e-mailed Jimbo and requested that he clarify his remarks and tell us what he expects from the poll. Can we agree to wait for his input and abide by whatever he says? —David Levy 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot see that we are doing this for "Jimbo." There have been a lot of very concerned Wikipedians for the last four months who keep saying very loudly (emphasis removed) in various ways that there is a huge mismatch between reality and how some groups of Wikipedia editors handle reality. And the only reason that "Jimbo" came down on our heads is that we were not listening to each other enough to do a good job of making whatever policy shifts that are involved in the move to WP:ATT. I use "Jimbo" instead of Jimbo because in any modern organization there has to be a big difference between "Jimbo" the role and Jimbo the person. It was "Jimbo" the role that came down on our heads -- because we were not doing a good enough job of listening to each other. And we are not doing this for "Jimbo." "Jimbo" had to tell us to listen more to each other because we were not listening to each other. Why on earth would you ask "Jimbo" for more direction? "Jimbo" cannot tell you better direction than he has already given us. --Rednblu 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone (on all sides of the issue) keeps quoting Jimbo and pointing out that we're holding this poll because he requested it (which is true). —David Levy 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) Depends on what you asked. Would you be kind enough to copy your email here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The message in its entirety:

Hello again, Jimbo! I must bring to your attention an issue of great concern. Per your request, we've been attempting to assemble a straw poll through which the community can express its opinions regarding the Wikipedia:Attribution page and the merger behind it. Unfortunately, a great deal of disagreement has arisen as to what structure the poll should take. Believe it or not, a poll in underway to determine the setup of the poll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Pre_straw_poll_straw_poll_for_Q1
The main point of contention is whether or not to include any sort of compromise as an option. I personally favor such a compromise (in which the original pages would remain active to supplement the new one), but some proponents of Wikipedia:Attribution insist that this is an all-or-nothing proposition (we must either retire the old pages or reject the new one) and refuse to allow any options into the main poll question other than those two. They have argued that a compromise would be "insane" and "stupid," so we must suppress these options to prevent the community from making a big mistake (in other words, protect it from itself). Some have cited your name and claimed that a simple "yes or no" (no room for compromise) response is what you've requested.
I believe that withholding the ability to compromise (thereby forcing everyone to adopt an extreme position) defies the spirit of consensus-building and cooperation on which Wikipedia is based.
I hope that you'll weigh in on this issue, as it appears highly unlikely that we'll be able to reach any sort of resolution on our own. Thank you!

Obviously, I didn't pretend to be remotely neutral on the matter. Of course, you're welcome to e-mail him a similar request written from your perspective. —David Levy 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I found it unacceptable, David. That is not the way to ask a question neutrally. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fact is, that you could have asked neutrally as we do in RfCs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Send him your opinion. Tell him what you think is inaccurate about David's statment. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to present myself as a neutral party. I was expressing my opinion, as I encourage you to do as well. Certainly, Jimbo is capable of making up his own mind. —David Levy 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Surpressing options?? They're right there as options in the straw poll!! - Denny 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are plenty of options in the pre-poll straw poll. However, some of those options involve either suppressing options or letting them be added after the main poll goes live. I hope this comment isn't confusing. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The options to which I explicitly referred are not. Regardless, I was referring to arguments on this talk page (not to the straw poll's fluctuating text) . —David Levy 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I must tell you, David, that despite your candor in placing the content of the email here, I found it to be very disturbing inasmuch as you have chosen to portray a picture as if involved editors here are stupid or acting in bad faith. Not appreciated at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stupid or acting in bad faith? Of course not! I merely expressed my strong disagreement. —David Levy 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What would have been wronng is just asking this? Hello again, Jimbo! Per your request, we've been attempting to assemble a straw poll through which the community can express its opinions regarding the Wikipedia:Attribution page and the merger behind it. Unfortunately, a great deal of disagreement has arisen as to what structure the poll should take. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Pre_straw_poll_straw_poll_for_Q1 . Your comments will be appreciated . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing would have been wrong with that, but I wanted to share my specific concerns. You're welcome to do so as well. —David Levy 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

David: You still have a chance to come clean with editors that have worked here for 7 days in good faith, send a message to Jimbo in which you apologize for the comments you have made and simply ask him to take a look at the options we have come up and give us some feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If it will make you feel better (and reassure you that I'm acting in good faith too), I'll do just that. —David Levy 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a point in which you cross the line, David, and it is no longer acceptable. And I believe you have crossed it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail #2:

Hi, it's me again. It's been brought to my attention that I probably shouldn't have combined my personal opinions regarding the situation with a request for intervention. I strongly disagree with some of my fellow editors, but I didn't intend to imply that they're acting in bad faith. On the contrary, everyone has been working very hard to do what he/she feels is best for the project. Unfortunately, we all seem believe that you said something different (that supports our arguments), so we need you to clarify your position. Thanks again!

I sincerely hope that this addresses your concerns. —David Levy 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a mistake for "Jimbo" to answer that question. It is our job to develop a consensus. We have spent four months avoiding what it takes to reach a consensus. And "Jimbo" merely told us that we had failed to do what it takes to reach a consensus. That any of us feel that we have to send him such an email merely means that we have not yet done our job of finally listening to each other so that we can reach consensus. --Rednblu 03:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Jimbo I guess could endorse one of the Five as an editor, but I doubt he would... who knows. - Denny 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_ATT_merger_poll_you_requested. Done. Lets get back to editing articles/concensus now. - Denny 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

David is exactly right. He described the situation quite accurately. That is only part of the problem here. But David's description of the situation here was very accurate. --Rednblu 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly is withholding any option?! If enough people think it has merit, the options are right there in the pre-poll poll! - Denny 03:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I was referring to the arguments regarding what will make it into the poll proper. —David Levy 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I really did try to make the original three options I tossed out as fair as possible from 'lean' to 'fat', and then the add ons of Q4 and Q5 seemed to just about nail everything. Its all up to our peers now. Its funny; seems like we're all relatively on the same page... just totally different in deciding how to get to the same destination. I just had read this page for days and was getting completely lost so spent time reading it all over, trying to figure out where concensus was before I jumped in... which brought us here.

I hope everyone is ok with the weak sheparding job I tried to do... - Denny 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In my assessment, your actions have been commendable.  :-) —David Levy 03:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Great job, Denny. I also believe we have done the best we could. Now it is in the hands of our peers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen. This is merely the beginning. So we need to take a short break before we come back to shepherd the rest of us through this. Has anyone planned for the TalkPage that will be behind the Active Poll when it goes live? We should prepare ourselves to get them to have the conversation among themselves, yes? Do we try to convince them? Do we argue with them? What is our role? ---Rednblu 03:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I say chips fall where they may... I'll leave policy argument to others. I'm a housekeeper by nature... anyway. Can we redirect EVERY section talk page back to the main one? I'll do it. Centralize! - Denny 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so now back to my original question. If Jimbo responds by saying that he prefers a simple "yes"/"no" question, I agree to respect and fulfill that request. Does everyone else agree to act in kind? —David Levy 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Denny 03:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo may write a convicing argument, but I really don't think we can ask people to drop their disagreement if he does not convince them. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That said, I have no idea who is qualified to close the pre-poll straw poll about the other straw poll, as it could be hard to find someone uninvolved. So, if he wants to close it, we may as well go along with that. Not that he will necessarily want to close it. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If he does, great! —David Levy 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that anyone should change his/her opinion. It's just that everyone keeps citing Jimbo's wishes as the justification behind this poll (and every detail thereof), so let's find out what he really wants. —David Levy 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

David, Jimbo actually semi-protected the page, and I am sure is looking at our work here form time to time. He could have intervened if he wanted. I have also noticed that there is some mediation going on to assist involved editors. I would simply wait for now. Our work is now done... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I keep reading "Jimbo requested this" and "Jimbo requested that" (from all sides), often cited as the sole justification for doing something a certain way. I want to know what Jimbo actually expects. —David Levy 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring

To those of you who wish to refactor away comments to keep this page clean, could you please provide a link in the history to the removed comments, along with a brief comment like "refactored to preserve talk page clarity", so that no one things it is for WP:NPA reasons. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Already did in my edit summaries. I just moved a couple things around to declutter the top of the page. - Denny 03:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant, in the places where the comments were originally, could you please leave brief notes + history links there? It is confusing to see comments disappear, and your edit summaries will soon be buried in the history. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I'll do it now for the whole section I moved down. - Denny 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've provided an example below for others who read this conversation. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Example irrelevant comment here removed. AB 03:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"we need these two options or we miss asking the critical question"

That was the edit summary used by Jimbo Wales when he split the option "Yes, RS/NOR/V should be merged to ATT, and the current version of ATT is acceptable" into "The current version of ATT is acceptable, RS/NOR/V should be explanatory" and "The current version of ATT is acceptable, RS/NOR/V should be redirected." I don't claim to know how Jimbo feels at this exact moment, but that doesn't exactly bolster the argument of editors claiming that Jimbo requested a "binary yes/no question." —David Levy 04:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We also know jimbo agrees with "ignore all rules" and "voting is evil" so perhaps jimbo would really like us to abandon this attempt to substitute voting for our better normal community interactions. Let's not do stupid stuff just cuz "jimbo said so". Let's abandon or at least indefinitely postpone this aberation. Let's abort this monster. WAS 4.250 06:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm responding to the editors who have claimed that we need to ask a binary yes/no question because Jimbo said so.

2. My preference would be for Jimbo to call off the bloody poll and tell us to resolve the WP:ATT dispute through conventional discussion. But if we must have the poll, it shouldn't be conducted under false pretenses. —David Levy 06:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WAS, no offense, but every suggestion you have made... has been needlessly snarky across pages. If you can't help contribute positively, maybe you should keep quiet rather than disrupting. I do not know why no one else has asked you to lay off. You are not helping. If Jimbo says what has come so far isn't what he is after, we can change things if everyone wants it. IAR goes both ways - so unless he says otherwise, since no one else is as bitterly opposing things as you... try not to antagonize. AGF on your part. If you have legitimate concerns, please say them without... saying needless rude things like "aberation" and "abort this monster". - Denny 06:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny, my guess is that people who bitterly oppose this poll aren't posting to this page, because they've thrown up their hands in despair. I don't know anyone who supports it. It's an absurd way to decide policy, especially core content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On this, Sarah, you and I agree.  :-) —David Levy 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim, we're not deciding policy, on this talk page... we're just trying (honestly) to simply build the poll that Jimbo asked for. If people are opposed to Jimbo's request for the poll, why not take it up with him directly? Put it to his talk page. As for when/if the requested poll runs... isn't it the same as anything? If a huge number of people suddenly descended on some aspect of the Wikipedia site and decided something was a certain way, and they were established users (lets say, a poll saying "Such and such is now policy, or isn't")... well, why wouldn't it be? Because a couple of people opposed it? Or am I misunderstanding--are you and WAS opposed to this one stupid poll to figure out Q1, or the WHOLE thing that Jimbo asked for? And who decides core content policies if not the community? Only senior admins? I'm confused as to what exactly people ARE upset about... since you're all being needlessly vague. If people want to buck Jimbo, why not just do it? If you guys could give me verbose answers, it'd be helpful... I almost feel like some people are worried that suddenly giving a huge number of people a voice in one concentrated place is a bad thing. I don't see how it would be. - Denny 06:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny, content policies shouldn't be decided by poll because they're complex, and people need to have read and understood them, as well as read and understood the other policies they interact with. Hundreds of editors were involved in developing ATT over a period of five months. The only reason I was persuaded that it was time for the page to go live is that I saw lots of editors had already started linking to ATT to support their edits. It was a real vote of confidence, entirely spontaneous. If that's not consensus, then I don't know what is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, Denny. —David Levy 07:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If we do not poll I'd not be in the slightest bit upset. But what do we do instead? We can point to the community discussion, where there is broad consensus for the merger of V and NOR, but uncertainty over RS. Marskell 07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(<---)Making policy by voting is not how wikipedia got to where it is. Doing stuff just cuz one of the co-founders said so is not how wikipedia got to where it is. Voting on the wording of voting is not how wikipedia got to where it is. This is a bad precendent and is a monster (look up the word) and it should be aborted. Discussion is how wikipedia got to where it is and discussion should replace this aberation. WAS 4.250 07:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Do I really have to look up the word monster? Marskell 07:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if you don't understand my use of the word :) WAS 4.250 07:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original point of this section: I concur that we need to ask whether the merged pages should remain as explanatory pages or not. This could be in the form of a third question, if people think asking only yes/no questions is advisable. JulesH 08:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But my question remains: where are people talking about it? The word "supplement" occurs once on the Community discussion; "condensed summary" occurs twice; "explanatory" occurs twice. We have apx. five dozen people there arguing for the merge in general and at best half that arguing against. Where are the tens of editors arguing for a supplement? Why should we give equal weight to an option no one is seriously arguing for? Jimbo suggested it on the 21st, but (to paraphrase Chief Wiggum) "Jimbo says a lot of things." He also said he'd defer to editor's consensus and I don't even see consensus that the idea should be seriously entertained. Marskell 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Right here on this very page, numerous editors have advocated such a setup. But if you believe that it has little support within the community, what are you worried about? If you're correct, it would be shot down in the poll proper.

After seeing proponents of a binary question argue that we must have one because this is what Jimbo wants, your "Jimbo says a lot of things" argument is amusing. —David Levy 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Have we already polled?

This and this have done a large part of what we want to do here. On balance, there's support for the merger of V and NOR, but back to the drawing board with RS. Marskell 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever a problem with RS. If you look at its contents, there's nothing in it that isn't in ATT on the one hand, or V and NOR on the other. It was always the spare tit. Even the editors who regularly maintained it agreed with its being merged into ATT or ATT/FAQ. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever a problem with RS either; what I'm concerned about at this point is having something to present to Jimbo, and those two threads are something. Marskell 08:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That might work. (And save a lot of folks some time). I'm not sure we want to present anything to Jimbo, or exactly what he wants doing in fact. I'm still trying to contact him again. --Kim Bruning 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone posting here think RS should be maintained as a separate, active guideline? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We could say: "Jimbo, we believe we have a "mandate" for the primary merger of V and NOR, and further discussion is going to be needed regarding RS. Do you agree?" Marskell 08:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly no need to wait around. Could you go ahead and ask people what the remaining issues are with RS? --Kim Bruning

OK, see here. Marskell 09:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is a poll about what questions should be in the poll. Regretfuly, this all-or-nothing latter does not currently give the option to support WP:ATT while still retaining WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. What a mess. DennyColt at al., perhaps alow us for some flexibility here. El_C 10:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, great to see you here. They're already doing that! \o/ We're getting time to do some mediation, and maybe negotiate bits of consensus already. --Kim Bruning 10:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

/bows :) There's no way I'll support a poll that dosen't give an option about retaining the old trio alongside ATT (and in what context). El_C 10:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

El C, I'd suggest starting a thread on the topic at Wikipedia:Attribution/Community discussion. I see little support for the idea (see my note to Jules in the thread above this), but I don't want to proceed without having asked the question. Note, I'll annoy you by being the first to oppose. Marskell 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I get the idea our final consensus might end up being a compromise to keep the three old pages as clarifying essays, perhaps. I still need to talk with more people though! --Kim Bruning 11:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! From where are you deducing that? That is not a compromise. It's a radical departure from the intention of WP:ATT. Marskell 11:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, while that does appear to reflect your own view, it does not appear to be an accurate depiction of the situation. El_C 11:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can you point me to the thread that accurately reflects the situation? The situation is that close to sixty people have supported a merger of V and NOR on the Community discussion. The situation is that there is no equivalent group arguing for all four pages live as policies, guidelines, essays or whatever. Marskell 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've reverted to a less constricted revision. I'm interested in seeing which editors besides Marskell, DennyColt and VisionThing oppose it. El_C 11:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Please see the top of the page. You've just reverted a consensus version that a dozen people supported. Marskell 11:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Half-hearted support, maybe. People appear to be making very poorly-thought-out compromises just to avoid conflict, but they are giving the more aggressive all-or-nothing side (yours) far too much. Let's be bold; you too. I challenge you to do nothing and see what happens. El_C 11:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We could always add a blanket Yes/No options to the aforementioned; everyone wins. ;) El_C 11:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You flatter me—I didn't know any one position was "mine." I've suggested you take the idea of keeping four live to the Community discussion, and I suggest it again; hopefully we can make the debate here moot, by solving problems there. I've had my fill of trying to deal with badly done interventions on this poll, so I think I'll cease talking to you for the timebeing. Marskell 11:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey El_C. Nice to have you around, but I just got folks to agree to stay cool about the poll for a bit. Can you help out with the community discussion for a bit? --Kim Bruning 11:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See below. I'm discussing my edits of a project page on its talk page, why would I split the discussion? El_C 12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Majority != "consensus," Marskell. No neutral party has weighed the arguments presented. Proponents of the binary question have cited such arguments as Jimbo wants it (proven false) and I don't like those options (which is a valid reason to vote against them in the poll proper, not a valid reason to oppose their inclusion). —David Levy 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at some point it is. For Wikipedia's purposes, a majority of anywhere between 65% and 80% generally constitutes consensus. If 90 people agree on something, and 10 don't, the 90 aren't held hostage to a "lack of consensus". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus" does not mean "unanimity," but it doesn't mean "whatever most people vote for" either. We don't decide things by counting votes and ignoring the justification(s) behind them. I personally believe that the arguments in favor of a binary question are highly flawed. I'm hopelessly biased, of course, which is why I noted that no neutral party has weighed the arguments presented. —David Levy 19:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Presentation of poll

I have come to this page for the first time although I have been following the merger discussion. Three points:

I think the [edit] link beside each question is a technical artefact and contributors are expected to click "Please voice your opinion" or the [edit] beside each answer. However, this does not come across clearly.

At present, on the poll page itself, although there are remarks about what good work was done and by so many people, there is no hint (or links to any hint) about why some people (even Jimbo) might have thought otherwise. Are not even pro-merger editors concerned that this may seem unbalanced and so cause dissent?

"Any claim to that effect is a misreading or miswriting of it" is unhappily worded and seems POV. I realise what is meant is "Any claim to that effect follows from either misreading WP:ATT or from the new policy being wrongly written". Can someone with a knack for words sort this out? Thincat 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We might be able to expedite things, and skip this page entirely. <looks hopeful> An informal poll has already arisen on the community discussion page. See preceding section. --Kim Bruning 10:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopeless?

Difficult to get a thought out. Here is my latest version. I'll be back in 24 hours to revert war over it. El_C 11:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• People involved in this page may want to read this backfired poll as a good example of why polling like this is probably not such a good idea. >Radiant< 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand. Wouldn't having less options make it more likely for people to add options during the poll? Or do you mean we shouldn't have a poll and should just use the Community discussion? The latter is fine by me. By the way, I like the new colours of your signature.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The operating assumption is that you would not be allowed to add options once the poll is open, nor say anything beyond yes/no. El_C 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's laughable. The no-choice, "simple version" would just cause WP:ATT to be defeated, so what's the point? El_C 12:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a week or two to work on ATT itself, and possibly a number of substantial issues will be solved by then. So we have plenty of time to make a saner poll (and perhaps we can even pre-empt one? :-) ). Could you help look into the substantial issues still remaining with ATT? --Kim Bruning 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What, you expect me to read it? I only care about the voting! Vote, vote, vote, vote, vote! El_C 12:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, we face the danger of ending up with different creatures than we expect. We have a poll that dosen't give us a hint of Jimbo's comrpomise. But the-less-than-one-minute reverters won't even give me time to think... El_C 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way to resolve this without turning it into a four-policy spaghetti mess is probably to drop ATT onto WP:MFD. That's a shame for the many people who worked hard and held lengthy discussions over improving it, but it's better than having multiple divergent policies. >Radiant< 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

MfD would be a copout, and a mess. El_C 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware. However, nearly every other solutions proposed so far would also be a copout, and a mess. >Radiant< 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes for the latter, not necessarily for the former (which can be limited). Actually, saying that the former is a copout is a copout (probably!). El_C 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We'll have plenty of time to MFD if the whole thing crashes and burns... which is what we're trying to prevent. ;-) --Kim Bruning 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I had been thinking about MfD but was afraid of getting shot. It would likely pass, judging from the Community discussion. However, I think per the Community discussion we can avoid this altogether. Marskell 13:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And to be clear: there is no "compromise" in keeping all of them live. "I have an idea of turning three pages into one." "I disagree. Let's have four as a compromise"? Make any sense? Nope. Marskell 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for designing straw polls

Note WP:Straw polls point 7. Rather than section headings "Yes" and "No", the poll would be easier to watch on watchlists with section headings such as "Yes (merge)" "No (merge)" "Yes (to merge of WP:V)" "No (to merge of WP:V)" etc. Sorry if this suggestion had already been brought up -- I haven't had time to keep up with this discussion.

See also on same policy page: "Straw polls should not have opening and closing times as votes do." WP:Straw polls. --Coppertwig 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not restricting ANYTHING

NOTE: I like ATT, and have been saying again and again I will be supporting it. That out of the way... I do not understant where/why/how people are saying or keep asking me... to not restrict a given requested option in the idea of the Q1 poll! I've been trying to NOT own the page, and have just been trying to help... centralize stuff since no one else was. Nearly everything someone has asked me to change I did, with the exception of adding more poll options myself since people seemed against that collectively. We've got basically all the options right there IN the straw poll between Options 1-5! If there is a lot of people asking for another given variant, go ahead and add it.

My constantly saying "Lets not add more options beyond the five everytime someone asks for it," was based on comments from others across this page and the archives who said (paraphrasing), "We can't craft a new set of questions for each individual persons' tastes," or else we'd have a dozen plus options or more. NOTE: I only drew up Q1, Q2, and Q3. Others did, and when lots of people supported them, I just dropped them right into the poll no questions asked. If there is support from more than one person, go ahead and add the extra question to the Q1 poll, add it in. But the next random guy to appear on the page, saying, "MY VERSION NEEDS TO BE UP THERE," with no support, shouldn't get in there per se, or else this stupid little sub process to just gain concensus on the wording of ONE question will be never done.

Jimbo asked for a poll... I haven't (I don't think) been advocating anything about policy here either way. I've been just trying to help get the poll itself done. If you guys honestly think that there is support to not do the poll, then send Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll to MfD. - Denny 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to post this in a few places. Maybe we need eyes... from more people than just the apparent policy regulars (who, reading this, IMHO don't own policy or have more authority in policy matters than anyone else, no offense) and the people that have been staring at this page... - Denny 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you were for the ATT you wouldn't be restricting choices, thus forcing people to oppose it. I challenge you to "post this in a few places." El_C 13:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Already did :) . And did you read what I wrote?? I didn't stop anyone (as if I could just by myself without edit warring) from adding more options to the pre-poll Q1 poll. We just kept saying, "Every dude that comes up with the Best Idea Ever," with no support, shouldn't get into this mini poll. It would be absurd. Do you SEE the FIVE options there? If you have a better one, post it, make a sub page, add it to a sub section here, get some support, then just stick it in the poll above. - Denny 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not finding that entirely intelligible. And does not respond to anything I said. Please repharse. El_C 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My my latest version, which reflects Jimbo's comrpomise, is here. El_C 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Late reply. I got sick of reading the fighting here that was going nowhere over Q1. I came up with the Top 3 questions. People then came up with Q4, and Q5, which seemed popular and supported. I added them to the straw poll. For 2+ days, NO ONE objected to that idea. Because it was WORKING to make concensus. I don't care if it's not the "Wikipedia way". IAR, lets make common sense precedent. Everyone (again, one screaming voice doesn't mean there is no concensus) seemed fine with it. No one shot it down. People started insisting or suggesting MORE options to the poll--ones that got derided politely by others, or just not cared for. We said, "Lets not add new brilliant ideas" as the Top 5 are basically every possible scenario that someone might want. If that means someone DOESN'T want ATT, or DOESN'T want to deprecate the old policies, so what? Will of the people decides how wikipedia runs, not 5-10 total adminstrators. Anyway, if you WANT to add another option to this straw poll, then post your idea in a new section of this page. Make a mock up like I did for those five. Format it like that. See if people care for it--if it's just you vs the world, why include it? If people are saying, Hey, this rocks, good idea, then go up and it to the ongoing poll that 98%+ of the people on this page (i.e., concensus) didn't object to or supported for 48+ hours as it was making the only progress in a week. - Denny 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

People don't get a chance to see it & read about it when it's being drowned out by needless verbose and instant reverts. El_C 14:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then don't ram your minority unsupported views down others' throats on the front page of the poll. Post them HERE like has been suggested by multiple editors. If you don't like that and want to edit war and shake your rattle, please go ahead with being a problem. - Denny 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do inneundo. El_C 14:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, plainly: Don't edit war. Don't be disruptive. Work with others as we are here. Why will you not post your ideas for the poll here? If you are completely opposed to the poll, and that is why, MfD it. Put up, or stop. - Denny 14:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate these distortions. I support the poll, as I said from the start. El_C 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ok. Any reason you won't play our little system here to suggest new changes that has worked to move things forward the past 48+ hours, and edit warred instead? - Denny 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, that's not entirely intelligible. El_C 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

only reason to oppose poll is to not give others a voice?

Where I posted it: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Also, if our convictions are that strong in the policies we support, and believe that they are best, why are we afraid of letting our peers fully getting a chance to voice their own on it? If ATT truly is the will... of the people, you'd have no worries. I can only see opposition to the poll Jimbo asked for if someone thought that their peers collectively would shoot it down, and didn't want to give that chance. I think they would collectively (super, super majority) ENDORSE the ATT merger, which is why I want this to go live! I want to AGF but some of the tone here is making me depressed. - Denny 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The opposition is over the poll's limitations, not the poll itself. Let's keep focused here, especially those who assume the role of heralds. El_C 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The poll asks people what they want. If it's something only one person or two people ask for, it shouldn't be in the main poll section. Period. - Denny 14:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's highly distortive to imply "one or two people," the prepoll dosen't even have supermajority for oversimplified version of the poll. El_C 14:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the reason to oppose the poll is because of the wording dispute

If people spend almost a megabyte of text debating the wording of a poll, the issue is obviously too complex to be solved by a simple poll, and many people who vote in the poll will misunderstand something thus skewing the results. >Radiant< 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

People are going around in circles, because that's the wikipolicy way. There is a limited number of options about what to do with ATT and the old trio, in terms of supplementing or supplanting them. It really is not that complicated. El_C 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The words "in principle"

I don't see reasons presented on this talk page for including the words "in principle" except things like that that's what we're trying to assess, which is a circular argument. Several users have expressed opposition to this wording on the grounds that it's vague and that results of a vague poll are rather useless; that's my position. I agree with Jossi that changes should be discussed on the talk page before editing. --Coppertwig 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately a super-minority feel that they have some special authority or power over the community and won't respect that. - Denny 13:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not trying to be offensive, but that's barely intelligible. A "supermajority" ? El_C 14:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets say the poll goes live on 4/2/07. Hypothetically. For 7 days it runs. It's on EVERYONES watchlist, and lets say a total of 1,000 people in 7 days weigh in. If 700 or 800 of 1000 users say, "I endorse the ATT merger," then any concern Jimbo has on the merger is mute and null and void. Anyone ever challenging ATT from that week forward has no leg to stand on. However, if 700 or 800 of 1000 users say, "No way, no merger, ATT bad," then ATT will (correctly in that case) end up getting tagged as rejected by the community. That is what I mean. The community decides this stuff together. Not any subsection of editors or admins, in the end. My concern is that some people are not wanting to give the communit a chance to do either. - Denny 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not how this works, normally. Our current setup is not designed for that. --Kim Bruning 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC) wait, didn't we already cover this ground?.

Yeah, thats fine, but this is what Jimbo asked for: a poll to see what people thought. If 800 or 1000 people say, though, that they want something, why would it have no value? It only has value if endorsed by certain people in the right places? - Denny 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But he didn't say have a poll about scrapping one or the other — his latest change imply the very opposite. El_C 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But 700/300 does not automagically mean consensus. Say, in your example above, 300 people say that they strongly oppose with reasoning behind them, and 700 people just write Support... consensus has not necessarily been acheived. We do not just look at things as a vote. Just because something has the support of 70% of opinions expressed, does not = consensus. They way you present it, the 300 opposing people are "of no value". If 300 people on this project ever objected to something, that should show you that there is not widespread support for that thing... even if another 700 said they approved. 70% at RfA (for example), where the opposing 30% might account for 10 people, is vastly different than 70% where 300 people oppose. Thanks for reading. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Jimbo Wales understands issues of scale, so I'm not sure that this is the correct interpretation even of what he said. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for the poll

Sorry for suggesting this on the eve of 4/2, but it would be great if each poll option had a link to an "Arguments in favor/Arguments against" page containing two sections of concise statements about why proponents prefer or oppose a given option. I'm not sure if it's workable, but it would be very helpful to interested editors like me who haven't had time to read the whole WP:ATT discussion. Thanks, TheronJ 14:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

50 word or less

By providing editors a choice into the future of the old trio, beyond simply scrapping them or scrapping ATT, both can coexist, as Jimbo's comrpromise illustrates (as either primary or 2ndry). My latest version of the poll reflects this. El_C 14:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's compromise was, a compromise to keep things cool until we had a chance to discuss. I do not mind that ATT is marked as historical and we go back to the pre-ATT era, and I am one of the editors that participated in its formulation, if that is what the community wants. But havingyet another page to maintain with canonical and detail pages? No. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating either at this point, but I want you to have an option to say that in the poll. El_C 14:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The inclusion of options for or against it in the poll, however, is not a question that should be decided in a prepoll. El_C 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But can you give an explanation for 900K of discussions about the content of the poll? My guess: we are making this something that is not. The best we have going so far is the community discussion, were editors are expressing their opinions unencumbered. This !vote is not the place to express opinion, but a way to gauge support or lack of support in principle for having a simpler page that explains the concepts of V, NOR and RS and their interrelations, to assist newbies in understanding the principles behind these, and give experienced editors one page to refer to others when these issues are brought to bear in talk page discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo added such an option to the actual poll. The purpose of the poll, however ill-advised it might be, is to determine what the community wants, not which of the outcomes pre-approved by the authors of WP:ATT it wants.

The correct course of action is for you to oppose the retention of all four pages in the poll proper, not to suppress the option from the community. —David Levy 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just... wow!

We have here 897 kilobytes worth of discussion in order to decide the wording of a poll to decide the wording of a poll that is to decide an issue we already wrote 2.6 megabyte worth of discussion on. For reference, this adds up to three times as much text as found in Homer's Iliad. Future literary historians will never be short of work. >Radiant< 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Guess who is responsible for all this? Me, you, Jimbo and everybody else. No one is exempt for some responsibility. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the 21st century ;) --Kim Bruning 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My question is, Why are there like 10 subpages where discussion is taking place? Why is there a Wikipedia talk:Attribution page PLUS a Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion page? I'm just so confused on this whole issue. And I'm sure as hell not going to trawl through 5 pages + subpages + archives + discussion on other noticeboards + mailing lists just to try and figure out what is going on. --Ali'i 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's the situation as I found it. ^^;; Any ideas on how to bring things back under control? --Kim Bruning 18:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just struck that in one day the poll structure canges so dramatically, and then we have a tiny number of editors who argue that we ought to take these drastically-altered poll site-wide within a day or two. Incredible. El_C 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, its been here since 3/20/07. Your first edit was 03/27/2007 21:19 to the poll, your first talk page edit here was 03/29/2007 10:12. - Denny 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My first original addition was yesterday, but so what? What is your point? El_C 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is I don't understand why you're so over the top going after me and calling me to the carpet on AN about this page. All I did was gauge concens as it stood 48 hours ago, reorganize the page, and kicked everyone in the ass to work on building concensus. If the page shifted dramatically in a day, so what? If it's not what YOU want, that is meaningless. If majority concensus isn't YOUR taste, well, convince them by talking to them. My only original contributions have been Q1-3, and the notification stuff, and trying to get people to move forward in general. Your assault on my name to make me look bad on AN was insulting and out of the blue. - Denny 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even gonna dignify that with a response. El_C 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. You keep rushing to defend yourself from attacks that don't appear to exist. I see a great deal of criticism from all sides, but little is directed at you.

2. Your use of the phrase "majority consensus" leads me to believe that you don't fully understand the concept of consensus. "Consensus" does not mean "whatever the most people vote for." People are supposed to justify their positions and counter their opponents' positions with logical arguments, and I don't believe that the pro-binary editors have done that (but of course, I'm hopelessly biased). —David Levy 19:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My bit of agita with El_C is because of his bizarre responses to me here on this WP:AN thread. No one has given any substantial and supported reasons to not run the poll, is my point. If someone posted a good reason not to have it, and it was well supported, I seriously wouldn't fight it. - Denny 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A big WTF from me as well. The poll page fails to explain why we are polling at all. It's nice to have a "goals of WP:ATT" essay, but it fails to explain what the disagreement is. Are there serious concerns about the merger? What are they? Must I wade through all that muck to find even one? Maybe some people who feel strongly about this would like get their act together to present some refactored opposing views? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The option for them to do so has been here all along. If people are lazy or lax, is that everyone else's fault? I don't understand where people are coming from. If proponents or opponents don't just do it/whatever/something, they can't flip out when others DO do things that they don't care for, and find themselves swimming against a tide of concensus. - Denny 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is their responsibility to make their own case. I think they should really consider doing so. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that there is such a polarization (although there are some that seem to enjoy that...). I would suggest you read the "goal of ATT" and Jimbo's comments and make your own mind about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Swimming against a tide of concensus" and similar (seeming) platitudes are unhelpful and inaccurate. See my 50-words or less section above. El_C 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This page was built off concensus

Front of poll:

number of edits	586
number of minor edits	206 (35.2%)
first edit	03/20/2007 21:37 (Picaroon9288)
most recent edit	03/29/2007 14:16 (El C)
mean time between edits	21:15 m
unique editors	43 (0 IP addresses)
average number of edits per user	13.6
number of edits within last day	26
number of edits within last week	410
number of edits within last month	586
number of edits within last year	586

This talk page:

number of edits	1689
number of minor edits	334 (19.8%)
first edit	03/20/2007 21:54 (Picaroon9288)
most recent edit	03/29/2007 18:31 (El C)
mean time between edits	7:31 m
unique editors	58 (0 IP addresses)
average number of edits per user	29.1
number of edits within last day	346
number of edits within last week	1528
number of edits within last month	1689
number of edits within last year	1689

Thanks, - Denny 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? El_C 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying from the stats with the tool I found/added to my user page that this entire poll was organized/assembled by a concensus of many editors. - Denny 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Over the last day. El_C 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well meant, and it would be nice if this were the case; but this is GIGO. Number of edits does not prove collaboration when edits have been reverted by a handful of editors patting each other on the back. The present text is so far from being consensus that it's not even on the list of options above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What the hell?

What is this poll for? There is WAY too much written here. Are we polling to see which poll people want, or is this the actual poll??? O_O --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This talk page was just to hash out Question 1 of the main poll at this point, mainly. - Denny 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to close the Poll poll?

The present wording is none of the options in the Poll poll. It has been strongly opposed on this talk page, and I will vote against it as evidence of bad faith. I request that it be replaced either by Option 1, preferably with the open-ended question Marskell suggests, or by Option 4. These have the most net support, and the most support. (There's a case for Option 3, as amended; there is no case for this.) If more support materializes in the next few days, we can reconsider. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, is it not? Apparently, the wording of this poll is being determined by the same political dynamic that determined the 1) wording of WP:ATT, 2) the cover story that this was a "merger," and 3) the inversion of the concept of consensus all done over the vociferous protest of over half of the participating Wikipedians. Whether or not this particular political dynamic brings success to Wikipedia, we shall see. But prominent scholars have concluded that this particular political dynamic produces decisions that destroy the enterprise. --Rednblu 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I strongly oppose the way current poll is worded, and how the matter is generally handled. I'm sick and tired that people who are responsible for this mess with ATT in the first place are pressuring other editors to bow "for the good of Wikipedia". Something is rotten in the state of Denmark... -- Vision Thing -- 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I 101% support ATT, but the abusive manhandling of wanting to force people into a scenario where its "Yes ATT?" or "Another yes ATT?" is disingenous. On that note, good luck with this poll. I'm going on to work on completely different things for now and won't be editing these pages again except to state my desires when the poll does go live. - Denny 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's poll about polling the poll poll. >Radiant< 07:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

why this will be confusing

It does not matter to most people how the policy is organised, but rather what is said. I am in favor of a merger, provided the merged text represents my own view of what the policy will say. I am not in favor of a merger if the merged text will move in a direction I do not want to go. Each of us probably has their own idea of what the actual policy ought to be , and each is different. For example, if the eventual combination will make it easier to keep stubs, I want to combine them. If it is likely to make it harder, I would prefer to keep everything as it is. (and so on for a number of other criteria.) I interpret most of the recent argument as making as assumption about the final policy.

Apparently the hope of those revising the policy is to move slightly in an inclusionist direction, and those who are strongly opposed to that do not want a change, aand do not want to take the first step towards a change by approving the merger even in principle.

Does this represent the present state of the argument?19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rotten indeed

The following language does not belong in the header. Including it is one of the claims the poll exists to decide. Until I saw it, I believed it was true; and it may be that the wording of WP:ATT is better than the process that has been used to enact it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

* Wikipedia:Attribution is not a change to policy. Any claim to that effect is a misreading or miswriting of it. It is simply a consolidation of policy. Editors are not being canvassed on desired changes to either policy or wording of policy. Debates over long-standing principles and policy wording should be avoided during this poll.

---

So are you saying that the poll should give Wikipedians a chance to vote FOR the huge changes to Verifiability, Reliable source, and No original research that WP:ATT makes? --Rednblu 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make huge changes. Marskell 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, it doesn't really make any besides changing Verifiability to Attribution. Marskell 19:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, I agree that in general it doesn't. But that is one of the things this discussion and straw poll are supposed to decide; stating this as one of the premises is manifestly improper poll design. If (as is not impossible) there is a significant sentiment that WP:ATT does change policy, then in fact it will; because those who think it does will behave differently under it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PMA, you're asking the People to vote upon whether or not a fact is true. That's not helpful. >Radiant< 07:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact; since the wording of WP:ATT is fixed, for the duration of the poll, the existing discussion (and it's not only Coppertwig) of whether the meaning of that text changes policy is important. In part, this is the long overdue discussion of what WP:V actually means. (Does it require inline citations, for example?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Open end + who made the questions separate pages?

I just posted an open end to think about. Likely to be shot down, but it's one idea.

Who turned the questions into separate pages? I think this discourages boldness (even if boldness has been a problem.) Marskell 19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A what? I tried so subst them but Denny objected, so I self-reverted. El_C 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi turned them into transcluded pages so that when this went live and is advertised to all users on Watchlists, there will be less edit conflicts. I then redirected the talk page on each subpage back to the main one so that later Talk is all centralized for everyone. - Denny 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Difficult to keep track of the changes, that for sure. El_C 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat, yeah, but I agree with Jossi that its good for later. Having hundreds of people hitting the page is going to lead to a lot of conflicts; this'll be super helpful then. - Denny 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

An "open end" is an "open-ended question." Sorry--it's just short form left over from my days being paid for crap like this :). Marskell 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Isnt that what the statement field has always been for? - Denny 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant where. El_C 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You meant where what? You said what. Marskell 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whos on first? - Denny 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What's on second. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question Denny! To answer your one question, "Post a statement" is not a question. I'm trying here to be aware of El C and others' concern that the yes/no will not allow you to vote for the "explanatory notes" (much as I disagree with idea). Marskell 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

El, Marskell, can you guys both post an example of what you are looking for in an open ended question? Any one else, too, in response to me. I want to see what you guys mean/are after. Lets not get all threaded on it... I think there is misunderstanding as to what the question would mean. Just toss out your examples? - Denny 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My open-ended question was

Q3: How should WP:Attribution relate to the pages merged into it?".

If someone wants to tweak the wording, now on Option 1, fine. I think this could be usefully accompanied by adding the four options, phrased differently in Option 4 and Option 3. Marskell and E1 may have different ideas. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is...

on the poll page there is a link to a page called Summary of the objectives of the merger. - that page gives a pro view, where is the page that gives the against view? --Fredrick day 19:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No one made a matching one yet in Wikipedia space. There was a personal essay in one user's private space, but he didn't want to move it and put conditions on who could edit it, so it was removed and reverted. Feel free to make one! It should be on Wikipedia space, I'd guess under the poll. And anyone would be able to edit it. - Denny 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Where was it? Where did it go? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Check I think in Archive 2. I can't remember the guys name now. - Denny 20:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been beaten from the field of battle by the controlling political dynamic for the last four months. As an interesting experiment, you might make the thousandth attempt. What would you do next? --Rednblu 20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh? (again) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry Jossi. Just baiting. Marskell 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether the Wikipedia community will take this opportunity to 1) acknowledge and 2) deal with the real problem here. --Rednblu 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The opposition essay is at User:Coppertwig/Stability_of_policy, but it is so badly written that I could write a better essay myself in opposition of the merger. That essay actually shows that attribution is a deeply needed policy! Take the example where they quote SlimVirgin saying "Verifiable, not truth" is an important phrase that is "punchy and immediately ends conflict". This is used in a section where the importance of truth is discussed. I'm willing to bet my life that SlimVirgin meant the "not truth" part is what immediately ends conflicts. Sure, it is verifiable that SlimVirgin made such a statement, but is it honest scholarly attribution to use a persons statement out of context to argue the opposite? Anyway, the essay goes on to say things like "WP:ATT inverts the "directly referenced for the point" doctrine of WP:RS", and yet there is a section in WP:ATT that says "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." There has been some good objections, but none of them in that essay :P --Merzul 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was your suggestion that he be the one to write it, Merzul, many hundreds of edits back on this page. HereWikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2#Statements_from_all_sides_needed in fact.Johnbod 04:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Merzul's right about that page. It's full of mistakes. When I tried to add a couple of fact templates to the worst ones, I was told I wasn't allowed to edit there, and my edit was reverted. The author apologized today for doing that, but it remains full of errors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But is there a better one? If not, we should include it anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you do when people try to edit your statement, SlimVirgin? Johnbod 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mine was moved to project space, where anyone can edit it, John. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

General Suggestion on Polling Approach

I wish I had time to read all of this, I really do. I think it's an important topic, but I just can't get through it all. I do want to offer this suggestion, or endorse it if somebody else has already proposed it: Start with one of poll forms with the most options, then conduct runoff ballots until one option emerges with consensus. As their preferred options drop off, reasonable editors should choose the remaining option that is most closely aligned with their preference. That way, a consensus can be forged from many initial options. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly how 3rr came into being? - Denny 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I had the opposite idea: start with the simplest issue ("WP:ATT is (1) policy; (2) a proposal; (3) rejected"), then poll a few days after close with ("In light of poll #1, WP:OR/V/RS is (1) policy; (2) guideline; (3) historical"). I think either way would work fine. TheronJ 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No. We do not determine whether or not something is a policy by voting in poll. —David Levy 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Does WP:ATT have wide support, or not? And the important one: How do you know? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Replace "WP:ATT is policy" with "In my opinion, a consensus exists that WP:ATT is policy" if you prefer. TheronJ 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Options

I think links to the five options, until we decide on them, should be on the poll page until we decide on one (at which point they will of course be removed). I have been part of this discussion, and I have difficulty finding those pages; others will have more.

Does anyone else find SlimVirgin's persistent reversions disruptive and unhelpful? They are usually coupled with admissions that she hasn't read the arguments here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My reverts are bad, but yours are okay? :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have, to the best of my recollection, abided by 1RR on this page; I have consistently tried for novel text after a problem has become evident, and I have discussed the problem here. Nor have I declined to read the discussion, and I trust I have not been abusive. By and large I have only counter-reverted reverts that have had these defects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. They are a part of the normal manifestations of a localized consensus when there is no organic protection for the broad community's work effort. --Rednblu 00:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a republic, even less than it is a democracy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Well said! Democracy and Republicanism are both poor solutions for the problem of faction. There are much better solutions. Which one should we consider for our purposes here? --Rednblu 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Which of the others do you propose? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

:)) Yes. Nice question. And I would like to celebrate the real beauty in your question, which I just realized, and that real beauty in your question "What of the others do you propose?" it seems to me is that it is addressed to everyone reading this -- not just to me. So I will merely serve temporarily to hold the floor for someone else to answer. And if all of the inventive people here could just keep people asking that question instead of defending the first answer that pops into our heads, we just might come up with the next worthwhile step in dealing with this very real problem of faction here. What do you think? --Rednblu 01:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I kind of like the model of the old Venitian Republic, talk about a convoluted (but actually somewhat workable) way to deal with factional squabbles within a ruling oligarchy ... We could make Jimbo our Doge! Blueboar 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)