Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Option6Demo
 | This was a straw poll to gauge the community's thoughts about the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. The poll ran from March 30, 2007 at 00:00 UTC to April 7, 2007 at 01:00 UTC. 424 users responded in the section for broad support of the merger, 354 responded in the section for broad opposition, and 102 responded in the section for neutral votes, qualified opinions, compromises, and other opinions. Please keep in mind that these numbers are a rough approximation, since some editors might have placed their comments in an unintended section (most notably the third one). Please see below for their rationales and related comments. |
Background
[edit]Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT) is an attempt to unite Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V) and Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR). It was worked on for over five months by more than 300 editors, and was upgraded to policy on 15 February, 2007. The proposal was e-mailed to Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, made public on various policy talk pages, on the WikiEN-L mailing list, and was announced on The Wikipedia Signpost.
More recently, on the WikiEN-L mailing list, Jimbo Wales suggested:[1]
- "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", (see: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion), 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."
References:
- ^ Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales, "Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?" WikiEN-L, 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
How to participate in this poll
[edit]- Please familiarize yourself with the debate:
- Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion.
- Arguments in support of the merge, an essay in support.
- Arguments against the merge, an essay in opposition.
- Questions suggested during poll design; some criticized as biased towards ATT, some as biased against it.
- Please do not directly respond on this page to opinions of other editors; discussion should take place on the designated talk page. Comments in the polling sections of this page should be limited to short statements (300 words or less ideally). Responses in the 'polling' section will be refactored and moved to the Talk page.
- Notes
- This is a hybrid Requests for comment and straw poll, not a vote. As such, any numeric results may not be definitive. This is a means of gathering opinions on one page in an organized way.
- We are not polling on the name of Wikipedia:Attribution; when this poll is done and the page unfrozen, such requests will be welcome at Wikipedia:Requested Moves. We want to see what people think of the merger.
Q1. Do you support replacing Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research with a single policy?
[edit]Yes.
[edit]No.
[edit]Q2: If there is a merge, are Wikipedia:Attribution (and its FAQ proposed as a guideline) adequate replacements of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and perhaps Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
[edit]Yes, it is good enough.
[edit]No, it requires significant changes.
[edit]Q3: If these policies aren't replaced, should Wikipedia:Attribution be kept as official policy:
[edit]Yes, it should be kept as official policy together with the current ones.
[edit]Yes, it should be kept as official policy, and the others should be explanations of it.
[edit]No, it should be made historical.
[edit]No, but it could serve as a summary of current policies.
[edit]Comments
[edit]- NOTE: Please limit your statement here to 500 words. All replies to points will be refactored/placed onto the poll's talk page. You may change or edit your statement. If you want to endorse someone else's, you may endorse it, but only one total entry per person, please.