Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

How to structure step four

Normally, this is where I would lay out the structure for step four on the mediation page and leave you all to get on with things. However, I am going to be out of action until tomorrow afternoon (the 24th), as today is the last day of the school year in Japan and they are keeping me busy with ceremonies and drinking parties. So please treat this as a rare opportunity to affect how the next stage of the mediation will be structured. Do you have any thoughts or advice, in addition to the advice already given in the straw poll above? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

First, thank you for your very thoughtful analysis of the last discussion. Enjoy those drinking parties! Now, a couple of questions that occur to me: (1) Do those 4 drafts include the option of the status quo, or are they in addition to it? (2) In step 4, can participants take part in formulating more than one draft if they so choose? (As long as it's voluntary, I don't see why not.) (3) How do we decide what should be the differences between the 4 drafts? (I think it might be helpful for the mediator to lay down some guidance about that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
One Idea I have is to try and pull more of WP:OR into WP:V to avoid the kind of arguments Kalidasa 777 presented in the above Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Straw_poll_-_how_many_drafts.3F from wasting people's time. WP:OR's introduction states "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."
Kalidasa 777's "What if (for instance) someone located an unpublished manuscript apparently from 1850 containing the phrase "conspiracy theory"?" is irrelevant because it was not published and therefore was not "recorded" when Knight made his statement. However all the examples I provided were published and therefore recorded. One of the biggest problems I have is many editors don't understand the facts, allegations, and ideas part of OR and therefore claim that the presentation of sources backing these up is OR. The conspiracy theory article still suffers from this nonsense as I have presented sources from Wiley-For Dummies, ABC-CLIO, SUNY, Columbia University, and Oxford University Press as proof that the term means "the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government" and this proof is ignored--all in the name of Verifiability not truth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that it's dangerous to try to capture more of NOR in V, because of the danger that in summarising NOR, we could distort it. In my view NOR is by far the best-written and least-dysfunctional of our core policies, and I think the best thing we could do in V is to link it more prominently, rather than try to include a miniature version of it.—S Marshall T/C 08:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's where we need to get this right. I suggest the drafts (or whatever) focus on sorting out what to do or not do regarding VNT. It should not get too occluded with changes / ideas in other areas. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree... the goal here is to reach consensus on the concerns over the sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not Truth"... not to fix every conceivable flaw we may find with WP:V. That said, in our efforts to reach a consensus, we should keep in mind that the sentence in question originally came from WP:NOR (and was created expressly to clarify and strengthen that policy). We can not understand VNT without understanding NOR. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
My thought is that the 4 drafts should cover the entire lede of the article, so that the authors of each draft are not constrained to use awkward wording in order to preserve the wording of the lead outside the sentence in question. I would suggest the following 4 drafts:
  1. Includes "not truth", minimal mention of other policies, presumes people understand that V does not guarantee inclusion of a claim
  2. Like number 1, but the phrase "not truth" is absent
  3. Includes "not truth", includes fair amount of description to other policies, including that V does not guarantee inclusion of a claim
  4. Like number 3, but the phrase "not truth" is absent Jc3s5h (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One version should be a compromise which clarifies that "not truth" does not invent other concepts. Basically the compromise (which is in there now) which might have already settled this. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree here is my stab with merging two related ideas from my earlier drafts:


This address all the issues I have actually seen and spells out just what "truth" means.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussions are missing the concept of clarifying "not truth" to prevent unintended meanings. As the version that is in there now sort of does. North8000 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I think I should join Group 3, "Group 3 - the non-VnT compromise draft,", but without consensus that this group will include the sentence, "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" in some form, perhaps I need to lobby for a fifth "change-camp continuity" draft.  What do others think?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion in response to your question would be to feel free to join whichever group you'd like, and see how the drafting process goes along. After there has been some drafting, you will be better able to assess whether or not a fifth draft will be needed, and the procedure will potentially allow for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Unscintillating, I'm not very familiar with the expression "change-camp continuity". But, anyway, I think that a draft puts the words "verification, not truth" into a footnote (as you've suggested on the Group 3 talk page) does fit in with the overall idea of Group 3.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, for reasons explained elsewhere, #3 makes no sense and so is sort of a waste of 1 of just 4 slots. North8000 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, Group 3 is for a draft that does not contain the words "veriability, not truth", but does distinguish between perceived truth and verifiability. An example of such a draft is the one offered by BeCritical earlier in this mediation Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Archive_1. BeCritical's draft doesn't include the words VNT; but does say: "Because Wikipedia does not allow original research, whether editors personally believe information to be true or false should never determine Wikipedia content." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Well that would be a good one. If that is what Mr. Stradivarius meant, then I did not understand. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I was getting at. Kalidasa777's way of explaining it is much better than mine, so I think I will borrow their words directly. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
@Unscintillating - sorry, it seems like the way I described group three was confusing people. Kalidasa777's description above is what I meant to say, and I have updated the wording on the mediation page to reflect this. So the draft will explicitly not contain the phrase "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth", but it will distinguish between perceived truth and verifiability. Does this sound more like your preferred "change-camp continuity" version? (I too am not very familiar with the phrase "change-camp continuity".) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius. A point that has been raised by Unscintillating on the talk page of group 3 -- would group 3 be the right place for a draft where a footnote mentions the words "verifiability, not truth" as a wording that is part of WP history? (My own feeling is that yes, that would be within the spirit of group 3...) Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it would be fine to mention it in a footnote, as long as it isn't in the main text. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, this is actually an example of how WP:Inaccuracy treats potentially inaccurate material.  In this case, the potentially inaccurate material is the sentence, "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".  WP:Inaccuracy lists four paths, (1) find a reliable source such as a retraction that contrasts the material, (2) attribute the material, don't say it in Wikipedia's voice, (3) footnote the material, and (4) determine that the material is insignificant under WP:DUE.  Group 4 seems to be taking the view of path (4), don't mention the sentence.  Path (1) is a bit abstract for this paragraph, which leaves paths (2) and (3).  Why is attribution being excluded, when polling results show that 13 out of 16 people polled favored continuity, and when a previous RfC that used the footnote received only 50% favorability?  The numbers (which used in this way risk designing a camel by committee) show that we need to lean toward greater continuity than just the footnote.  Further, BruceGrubb has stated that such analysis is a "waste of time" and has joined Group3, so I'm back to thinking that we need some middle ground between groups 2 and 3.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted I added this to WP:Inaccuracy:

The Conflict between sources section in the Wikipedia:These are not original research essay goes into greater detail on how to determine the difference between a "potential inaccuracy" (simply a conflict between information provided by sources) and an actual "inaccuracy" (where a statement can be shown by verifiable sources to be factually inaccurate).--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is truth

I've moved this from the thread above to help keep the indentation clear. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't address the Verifiability is truth problem I have demonstrated before. It must be understood that we are getting more editors that are saying "it is the truth because this Verifiable source says so!" rather than the the old set who were doing the "It is the truth because I believe it is true"--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right that the distinctions between the work groups do not address the "verifiability is truth" problem, and now that you come to mention it I probably should have said something explicitly about it in the instructions for step four. The reason that I didn't mention it was that I was under the impression that all the editors were in agreement on this point. I haven't noted any big disagreements about this in the mediation, and everyone seems to agree that editors should use their judgement in determining whether a given source is reliable for a given claim. Because of this, I was assuming that all the work groups, with the exception of the status quo group, should deal with this issue, or should at least not give contradictory advice. I think that how we deal with it should probably be left to the individual work groups. It could be that each group wants to include an explanation about this, or it could be that some groups would rather leave the subtleties of this issue to further down in the policy, or maybe leave it out of WP:V altogether and leave the explanation to WP:RS. Let's continue with the drafting for a few days and see how things go. If we have severe disagreements over this point, then it's not so much of a problem, as we can simply create a new work group to make a draft that addresses the issue. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that idea is that WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR are all interrelated. If something meets WP:V then by definition it meets WP:RS and is therefore NOT WP:OR. But NONE of this addresses accuracy or the use of one source meeting WP:V being used to claim another does not because it is not "the truth" and THAT is the type of nonsense that got me involved in the whole VnT mess in the first place. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence/Archive_1#Verifiability_Fact_vs_Truth for the insanity several editors have had to deal with.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, and I sympathise with your frustrations. We don't want to imply that Wikipedia editors are transcription monkeys, to borrow Jimbo's phrase. I'm a little unclear on what you are hoping me to do about this, however. I can see what you want the end result to be, of course, but I'm not sure what you would like to do that needs me to change the current process. Could you give me a specific example of what I could do to fix the problem? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Bruce, you've raised that there are people who have look at one verifiable RS, and think that makes everything else "not the truth". Yes, I'm aware that happens. But is the solution to add into the policy the concept of "verifiable but inaccurate"? Is there not a risk that the very same sort of person, having read one source they think reliable, will want to reject other material on the grounds that it is "inaccurate"?? I think this is certain to occur, unless WP policy also contains an explanation of "inaccurate". The trouble with linking to an essay, such as WP:Inaccuracy is that essays are not policy. However good the essay itself is, it won't stop anyone who wants to use the word "inaccurate" differently. They will feel free to disregard that essay. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I've not seen the particular thing that you describe happen, though no doubt it does. The most common effect of the easily mis-interpred "not truth" is for people who claim that accuracy NEVER mattes and is an illegitimate topic. Much of this effort has been to just stop wp:ver from doing harm in that area. IMHO if wp:were to embark on the major new journey of trying to give guidance to resolve when sources conflict with each other, that is going to take a whole new section or policy or book rather than changing a few sentences in the lead. North8000 (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)Are you denying that there is verifiable but inaccurate material?  How do you explain the spellings "Prior" and "Pryor" for one person?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Not sure who you were asking, but I do not deny that there is wp:verifiable material that is inaccurate. North8000 (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't deny that there is veriable but inaccurate material. The difference between the spellings "Prior" and "Pryor" is a good example. And I think the essay WP:Inaccuracy makes some valid points. However, I share North's concern about embarking on a major new journey of trying to give guidance re what to do when sources conflict. I'd suggest that the most we can do here is include a couple of sentences recognizing that sources often do conflict, and linking to WP:NPOV and its subsection WP:DUE. Which is what I have just done in Draft 5 on the Group 3 working page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
"Sources which meet the verifiability requirement often conflict with one another." side steps the issue while my version grabs the bull by both horns:
While wikipedia is concerned with Verifiability, not believed (ie not referencable to a reliable source) truth,(Originally simply known as Verifiability not truth) verifiability in of itself is not factual truth either. Sources meeting verifiability can conflict with each other or even be in error. To this end Verifiability works in conjunction with core content policies that must also be satisfied; this is to help ensure articles have a neutral point of view, contain no original research, and that verifiable but inaccurate information in articles is kept to minimum.
Let's stop tiptoeing around this issue like it is a freaking landmine field. This wording get this problems out of WP:V and into wp:NPOV and Wp:NOR so editors don't go the path I did with Focal infection theory and Weston Price article and try and argue that a source is not meeting Verifiability because it is inaccurate. Many editors have problems understanding that a piece failing Verifiability doesn't mean the work as a whole fails it and you wind up arguing if the work as a whole meets Verifiability and that is a disaster.
My wording is basically "ok this can occur and there is where you deal with it, not here.
North8000, as for not seeing this I point you to Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_1#Weston_Price_and_Stephen_Barrett_in_their_own_words which was taken over to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F and degenerated into the barrel of fun mess that was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard. While Stephen Barrett's article was shown to NOT meet Verifiability it would have been saner for all concerned if something regarding inaccuracy had been in WP:V back then. It was and is blatantly clear from the writings of a man dead over 70 years that in that in that case Stephen Barrett was giving us inaccurate nonsense.
The Weston Price-Stephen Barrett conflict was another prime example of VnT hampering reasonable discussion with the 'accuracy be damned as long as it meets Verifiability it is good and anything that contradicts that source must be OR' mentality it tends to produce. That is NOT healthy for the continued success of Wikipedia.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Bruce, I think that you and I are on them same wavelength but are taking different approaches. I am trying to get a few words tweaked to merely stop the HARM that wp:ver is doing in that area. You are seeking a more substantial initiative to deal with those situations. (?) North8000 (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Bruce, re your wording: "To this end Verifiability works in conjunction with core content policies that must also be satisfied; this is to help ensure articles have a neutral point of view, contain no original research, and that verifiable but inaccurate information in articles is kept to minimum."
Your links are to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR... and WP:Inaccuracy. Did you mean to put WP:Inaccuracy in the same category as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, as a "core content policy"?? Well, maybe WP:Inaccuracy should be a core content policy. However, right now it is not one. Presenting it as such seems like an excellent example of inaccuracy… Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are reading your own views into what is being written; please note the semi-colon. This per grammar is to "Link two independent clauses to connect closely related ideas". The part before the semi colon talks about the core content policies while the part after the semi-colon outlines the purpose (or goal) of those core content policies; they are not the core content policies in of themselves.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I could see including WP:Inaccuracy in the "see also" section... but not in the text of the lede. It is "just an essay" after all. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
An essay that has things like Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World backing up which in of itself meets Verifiability? Weird logic you have there, Blueboar especially the verifiability is truth problem I and several other editors are seeing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Structure notes

I don't see how the workgroups are going to arrive at something by just creating multiple drafts. I would think that 80% of the development process would be discussion but I don't see any place for that. (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You could have a point there. I was thinking that the sections for each draft could be used for this purpose, but if editors are feeling constricted by the current structure then it might need changing. Were you thinking of having one large discussion area for each work group's talk page, or some other discussion space inside the sections for each draft? Or maybe something else entirely? Let me know what you think the best way of dealing with this would be. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion is for the structure to include a spot for the main editable draft (for that workgroup) plus a talk section for the working group's overall effort. This could be in addition to what you have already created. One other suggestion is that there should be clarity on what what the proposal conceptually and structurally should be and is. My suggestion there is that the groups should clarify what their proposal structurally is (e.g. "replace the first paragraph with the following" "replace the first and second sentence with the following:" "replace the whole lead with the following:") and that conceptually that the proposed changes be limited to VNT and VNT-related things. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Similarly, I'd like to suggest having a dedicated section on each group's talk page, for discussing how to combine all of the proposed drafts into a single final draft. That's the key part of the discussion that hasn't really gotten going yet. The group could agree that "Draft 8" or whatever number would be the one where collaborative drafting of that version would take place, or there could instead be a "final draft" section. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: It also occurs to me – and here I'm thinking specifically of the Group 2 talk page – that it would be helpful if all editors who present a new draft would fill in the section about "rationale" on the talk page, and explain there what they are attempting to improve upon, relative to the drafts that were presented above. That way, we would have a starting point for saying: "We should (or shouldn't) incorporate XYZ into the final draft." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be having useful discussions at the Group 4 Draft 0 talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is what I was afraid was going to happen with the drafts. Having arguments split over four different pages is IMHO ridiculous and it will make it hard to understand just what is going on. We IMHO need to go back to the basics--Just what is the problem we are trying to fix with these changes. In my case it is the new "Verifiability is Truth" mentality I am seeing in more and more articles.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I think BruceGrubb may have a good point about the discussions split up in four different talk pages. How about having the discussions about the final drafts for each group here, on the general talk page? I will be busy for a few hours now, but I will be free to make changes to the structure later on today. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
My advice: An editable :working draft: and a talk space for each of the 4 versions. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added a general discussion section for all four work groups. I haven't added an editable working draft though, as that would kind of defeat the purpose of having the drafts all available for viewing on one page. Instead, if you have a suggestion as to what the final draft should be, just submit a new draft and explain on the talk page why you think it would be a good candidate to be the final draft. My apologies to BruceGrubb - it looks like discussions will remain fragmented. If you have a matter that you want everyone to be aware of, though, then you can bring it up on this talk page. All the mediation participants should be watching it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Two whines, one of them admittedly petty: It would be helpful to have some guidance at the Group 2 talk page. And, personally, I don't like the colors on the drafts. /whining --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Aww, but I like the colours! I tell you what, you can choose which colour you want your draft to have. ;) As for the guidance, I hope the "work group five" section below deals with some of your concerns. I'll have another look through the talk page and see if there's anything else I can help with. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You're the boss! Thanks! :-) I guess what remains is moving along with the general discussion at the bottom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on instant-runoff voting

Mediation participants may be interested in a discussion I have just started at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) about the acceptability of using instant-runoff voting in the RfC that we are working towards. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Instant-runoff voting in RfCs. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me make a suggestion here that is more specific to this particular mediation than to the more general discussion at the Pump. Maybe each draft should have three areas for numbered !votes and comments. It could be: "Strong support", "Weak support", and "Oppose". Alternatively it could be: "Support, as first choice", "Support, but not as first choice", and "Oppose". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Depends on how the results are used. The most likely way would end up being a slightly less precise version of instant runoff with numbers. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
True, but on the other hand, there is also a loss of precision if we force someone who flat-out opposes some of the drafts into ranking them in the middle, or if we force someone who likes two or more drafts equally to rank them differentially. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Also true. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looks like a good idea, but a sidebar comment caught my eye. After that travesty that happened at the first RFC, I don't want administrators deciding anything. I don't want any process that can get hijacked by a posse. If THIS process ends up with like 75% of those HERE being OK with the result, it should just go right into the policy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
North, as for that last RfC travesty, I feel your pain. But the best way to stop a posse is to be as open and inclusive as possible. We will need to advertise widely, beyond criticism like Caesar's wife. And (keeping in mind that I'm someone who tried to get an admin recall procedure adopted!), I don't think that all admins are evil, not by a mile. What we want is a determination of consensus that even those who are disappointed will accept. Believe me, a lot of people will be watching closely, and any new attempt to hijack will meet resistance this time! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course nobody involved is evil. Only about 1 in 1,000 people are that bad. I think that a better word for it is "human", with no particular credentials for 1 or 3 people "deciding" what 400+ people said, much less deciding that it wasn't what the overwhelming majority of them said. North8000 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have major misgivings about where this is going. One of the problems we had last time was editors got bogged down in very small details with the main thrust of any particular draft getting lost in the shuffle. Again I believe we need to stop back and make it clear just what we are trying to fix with these changes. Otherwise we will have spent all this time and achieved nothing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the core question here is and should be defined as "what to do/not do regarding VNT"? If we start including lots of other stuff the process would die under its own weight. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
But part of the "what to do/not do regarding VNT" issue is the whole belief vs factual truth problem depending on the subject relates to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Work group five

There has been some discussion about whether Unscintillating's preferred version should be made into a new work group. This would be one of group 2 draft 6 and group 3 draft 6, which use almost identical wording. This approach doesn't seem to fit into any of the existing work group structures - what do people think about making it work group 5? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on this point from group two
  • Keeping in mind that this page is about creating a draft according to the instructions given to Group 2, much as with Draft 4, this proposal has a significant problem in that it only refers to VnT dismissively in a sub-section linking to an essay, as something that is of historical significance. It seems to me that, for our upcoming RfC to be useful, a draft such as this should either be coming from Group 3, from which it originated, or should be presented as an additional, fifth, draft proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Group 2 is the VnT compromise group.  Group 3 cannot allow this version of draft 6, because this draft considers VnT to be current policy.  The "fifth draft" proposal was dropped in favor of trying to work within the existing structure, and this included the previous poster's suggestion.  Moreso, this particular draft doesn't fit in the "fifth draft" group, this draft is a part of the Group 2 mandate, by treating VnT as current policy.  As for the "dismissive", perhaps if the previous poster stops reading it as dismissive, it wouldn't be dismissive?  Finally, this draft did not come from "group 3", this is a "group 2" draft.  We are trying to build consensus here.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Please don't take what I said as an insult, because it was neither written nor intended that way. If there is sentiment against a draft of this nature coming out of Group 3, that's perfectly OK, as I was merely offering that as one of several options.
Here's the issue: Group 1 is charged with presenting a status quo version that, by definition, includes VnT. Here, at Group 2, we are charged with proposing a version that includes VnT, but explains it better than the status quo has done, which is very much in accordance with the previous RfC results. I expect that Groups 3 and 4 will present drafts that do not include VnT in any major way, if at all. So what happens if the Group 2 proposal presents VnT as something that is only of historical interest? (I read this draft that way, and if I do, it's unrealistic to expect that many members of the community will not also read it that way when we post the RfC.) We end up presenting the community with a choice of the old status quo or essentially getting rid of VnT, with nothing in between. But the three admins who closed the last RfC suggested that the community should work on finding exactly that: the in-between!
But I'm not trying to prevent a draft such as this from coming forward. Instead, I'm offering the possibility of offering, in effect, two drafts coming out of Group 2. The mediator's rules allow for that possibility, and it avoids putting us in the position of either forcing you to accept what I say, or me to accept what you say, which I'm certain would lead only to deadlock. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on this point from group three
  • Owing to the inclusion of VNT, this clearly belongs in group 2, not group 3.—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Where, ironically, I've just argued that it does not belong in Group 2! Please don't anyone conclude from that, that we cannot propose a draft of this nature. I'm thinking, instead, that we might want to consider a fifth draft to place before the community, a "Group 2.5", if you will. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
When I originally proposed a "change-camp continuity" page, Tryptofish encouraged me to work within the current structure, and I agreed.  When I again raised the question, Mr. Stradivarius did not respond.  Again I agreed.  Whether or not each of you has a point, I am following the current process.  The draft here identifies VnT with the word "was", which is within the spirit of Group 3.  The otherwise identical draft in Group 2 identifies VnT with the word "is", which is squarely in the scope of Group 2 "VnT compromise".  In either case the ambiguity and confusion that stem from VnT are proposed as bounded by being a "description of the verifiability constraint" so that any conflict between the two gets resolved by the constraint.  The point is that we are trying to build community consensus.  For whatever reason, 13 out of 16 people agree with the continuity idea, so we can either question the poll, or we can provide drafts with continuity.  A weakness in the poll would be that just because people say they want camels with three humps, doesn't mean that they would actually like the entire camel when they saw a specific camel with three humps.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the addition of a "2.5" group, while the draft 6 from Group 3 would move to Group 2.5, I believe that the Draft 6 at Group 2 would remain a Group 2 draft.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree that you have been trying very hard and in good faith to work with conflicting advice (some of it from me, alas). Thanks! Rather than have the same discussion in two places, please let me point to my comments about these issues at the Group 2 talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment  Draft 6 in Group 2 is a part of Group 2 - VnT Compromise.  One key complaint from the RfC was the length of text.  Group 2 Draft 6 identifies VnT as current policy, calls VnT a "long-standing description of the verifiability constraint", and gives policy-space attention to an essay about VnT which wasn't in the policy a year ago.  I think that a key to compromise is to remove the ambiguity from VnT.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether we call it "Group 5" or a second of two drafts from Group 2 would make little difference. In contrast, having a big fight over which of these would be the single proposal coming out of Group 2, and which would be discarded completely, seems to me to be a fight not worth having. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok this is getting ridiculous. Let's form another draft group when we have four already? This has totally gone off the rails and is rapidly degenerating into a train wreck. We need to start focusing rather cause more fragmentation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, maybe we are being too quick to increase the number of drafts. I take it that you are of the opinion that having five drafts will increase the chances of splitting the vote when we get to the RfC, and that you would like to focus on principles, rather than increasing the number of drafts just because there is a disagreement over their content. I know that you would like to include something about "verifiability is truth", and we have the other suggestions made during the straw poll; are there any other principles you would like us to keep in mind? Perhaps we can think of some way to integrate these with the drafting process. As a mediator, I'm interested in concrete suggestions of what I could do to help improve the situation. Can you give me a specific thing that we can implement that would satisfy your concerns? That would be a big help to me in trying to decide how to deal with this situation. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
In the big picture, the question is going to have to be "which version goes in?" not "shall we change the status quo" which was one component in the previous debacle. The fact that the one in there now has numerous bugs will help this process. That said, anything with more than two choices inevitability require a mathematically sound approach to avoid "splitting the vote" issues. I'd recommend the "instant runoff" method. If you have something like that in place, having a few extra choices would not be a problem. If you don't have that in place, having anything more than 2 choices would be a severe problem in that respect. North8000 (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Unscintillating's version is now Draft 1 of Group 4. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO there is a bigger picture getting lost in the shuffle--the double meaning of "truth":
"(also the truth) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality: tell me the truth she found out the truth about him
[count noun] a fact or belief that is accepted as true" (Oxford online dictionary)
Truth can mean belief but it can also mean fact or accuracy and that is one of the key points that keeps getting lost — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 02:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. Just noticed that the version Unscintillating put in Group 4 is different than the one discussed in this section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Responding to the comments here since I last posted, let me explain why I would rather be flexible about the number of drafts. Earlier in this talk, I said what I (and, I suspect, based on the last RfC, many other community members) would look for in a proposal that would be better than the status quo: diff. Mr. Mediator, please read again what I said there, because I was, and remain, very serious about it. As I see it, we have a binary choice: we can have a fight about which of two mutually-exclusive versions to allow the community to see, or we can let go of the mutually-exclusive part, and let them see both. Of course the !vote will be split amongst multiple versions. If you don't want that, then just present a single alternative to the status quo. One or two more won't change it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment  Let's try to use the process as set up and get some useful feedback before considering new viewpoint groups, instead of concluding "since my way is the right way, Mr. Mediator will soon enough figure that out".  At this point we can't agree on whether "Dewey Defeats Truman" is verifiable+true or verifiable+untrue or neither, so how can we clarify what is "not truth"?  We need to give the current process some more time, a process that includes finding positives in other drafts, as well as negatives.  Obviously I will agree to more drafts, but let's get some feedback first.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I really wouldn't characterize my intentions the way you did there. It's not about "my way is the right way". It's about hoping to avoid a fight. But I invite you to prove me wrong: please propose a compromise draft that incorporates the best of all the Group 2 drafts. Just don't be disappointed when you find that it will end up being impossible to combine them all into just one draft, without someone taking the position that, indeed, their way is the right way and other members are wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for the phrase "Mr. Mediator" which was unnecessary and no doubt helped allow the possible meaning that I had only one editor in mind in my previous comment.  I hope that the previous poster looks back and sees that it is a more general comment that includes myself.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment  I should point out I am not against having a lot of drafts but a lot of groups where the discussion of said drafts is fragmented. As for Unscintillating's comment regarding "Dewey Defeats Truman" above there you have verifiable+true and verifiable+untrue at the same time. It is verifiable+true that the Chicago Tribune on November 3, 1948 did indeed have the headline "Dewey Defeats Truman" but it is also verifiable+untrue that Dewey did defeat Truman.
If I may repeat something I said way back in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_51 with the key points I was tryign to raise in bold this time. "
If you take a hard look at WP:CCPOL you will see that WP:V and WP:NOR are in essence mirror images of each other.
Note the way No original research is defined on that page: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
This makes it clear that verifiability is the "first threshold" for inclusion but a work meeting verifiability may not get in due to it failing other policies or guidelines. Let me use an example I presented long ago:
"There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality." (abstract) and "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." (main text body) (Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness American Anthropological Association Volume 5. Issue 4. December 1994 Pg 16 - 18)
A peer reviewed statement in a recognized professional journal published by the American Anthropological Association--clearly Verifiability...and it fails to pass WP:WEIGHT muster. No matter how Verifiability the above is--it remains an obscure one time hiccup against the mountain of other references that were found. But to even argue for possible inclusion you had to first meet the Verifiability requirement.
This is why verifiability is the "first threshold"--it is the first hurdle an editor must clear to even have a chance of the view being presented to be taken seriously. It, in theory, makes editors realize that they have to produce high quality sources rather than use questionable things like tabloids or self published works.
This why I try to use the highest quality sources I can for my arguments--it addressed the WP:V issue right from the beginning so one can go to WP:NPOV issues."
Here are two verifiable quotes. Which one is the truth?
"My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" (Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion: Volume 9 Page 412)
"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus." (Schweitzer (1931) Out of My Life and Thought)--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, Bruce. I'm not sure how the second part is relevant to deciding whether to add a fifth work group or not, though. Are you saying that we should factor the general principles of WP:V into our decision? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The second point was regarding the current flaw in WP:V as it stands. I direct you to Focal_infection_theory#Evolution_and_revival_of_FIT which has this line "All these factors have resulted in a disagreement not only about when focal infection theory fell out of favor but also the degree to which it did." Now strictly speaking no source claims this but it is a logical conclusion based on the eight Verifiable sources before it and this conclusion is supported by three Verifiable sources following it that show the disagreement. If has been (and is being claimed) in Talk:Christ myth theory that we have to have a source documenting there is a conflict to note there is a conflict. This type of nonsensical argument is where WP:V currently breaks down as the only hint on what to do when sources are on conflict that is not an essay is WP:SYN and it is less then helpful in this regard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If the logic problem is very simple, then it could fall to the same treatment as basic arithmetic. But in saying "All these factors have resulted in a disagreement" there are two quite different propositions conveyed. For the first to be true, one must show that absent any one of the factors, the disagreement would not have resulted. For the second to be true, one must show that each and every factor has independently resulted in a disagreement. Verbal logic is the domain of philosophers and lawyers. I'm not at all sure we want to endorse random wp editors as competent practitioners of the art, as we routinely use language for communication instead. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

continued

Re: concerns that presenting another draft would "split the vote"... If we structure the eventual RFC in a way that allows editors to "vote" for more than one draft, that should not be a problem.
If we allow editors to "vote" for more than one draft, we may discover that while the community is still split over which draft is their first choice (ie what is preferred), they can come together in a consensus as to which draft is their second choice (ie what is acceptable). Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly right! I can very easily imagine a lot of community members who really like two or more drafts, as well as completely opposing two or more other drafts. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The best is if you can get everyone to rate every one of them, e.g the instant runoff method. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Structural content for the WP:V lede

I've noticed in working on the rewrite of the lede that some of the Wikilinks go off of the WP:V policy page.  In the interest of good factoring, and the strength that comes from simplicity, can we agree that this is to be avoided?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about links that point to other sections of the policy? (such as WP:Burden or WP:SPS)... if so, I am not sure we should avoid them... in the context of the lede they are essentially saying: "see <''this'' section of the policy> for more details", which is a good thing. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, a "Wikilink that goes off of the policy page" does not include links that link to the policy page, such as WP:BURDEN and WP:SPS.  I'm glad you think that it is a good thing to have links in the lede that point to other sections of the policy, I agree.  How do you feel about the avoidance of Wikilinks that go off of the WP:V policy page?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
If WP:V discusses or refers to another policy/guideline, we should link to it (at least the first time we mention it). Whether we should discuss or refer to a particular policy/guideline (and whether we should do so at a specific point in the policy, such as the lede) is a different question. We should certainly mention and link to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV somewhere in the lede.Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you list two exceptions, thanks.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are the Wikilinks currently in the WP:V lede:

  • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|cited sources
  • Wikipedia:No original research|directly support
  • Wikipedia:Citing sources|inline citations
  • Wikipedia:No original research|original research
  • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about living people
  • Wikipedia:Citing sources|Citing sources
  • Wikipedia:mainspace|mainspace
  • Wikipedia:No original research|No original research
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view
  • Wikipedia:Copyright|copyright policy

Here is the issue, if the lede is supposed to be discussing WP:V, the hypothesis is that all or most of those links that link off of away from WP:V are poorly factored.  The link on copyright policy is a case in point, because after S Marshall explained why it was there today, it was then apparent that it is failing to communicate anything other than a truism.  Had it instead linked to lower on the policy page, it would then be in the context of "close paraphrase" which is an example of "what verifiability is not". 

The next point is "how does this relate to VnT"?  The hypothesis is that with the use of good factoring, we would not have had something in the lede for five years that is not based on text lower on the policy page.  In turn, when the need came to give VnT more explanation, we would not have been forced to expand the lede.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This assumes people follow the links that are there. Sadly, judging from the comments of some editors not everyone does. WP:NOV for example is on of the most poorly followed polices and part of the reason is VnT as you are having editors using one Verifiable source to claim another source is not reliable (and therefore not Verifiable). In other words it is not a case of "this is true because I believe it is" which is what VnT to deal with but "this is true because source A says so and since source B says otherwise it is not Verifiable"--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
How does this assume that people follow the links that are there?  And your point seems to be that we can ignore the neglect of links in the lede because people don't look at them?  As far as your comment about two contradictory sources being argued under WP:V, please see Draft 4 in Group 1 and the statement of scope.  I also like Group 1 Draft 3's comment that verifiability is accuracy to the source.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
My personal feeling is that anything which the reader either may not fully understand from the immediate context, or really is required knowledge, should be linked. If a suitable subsection isn't available on the WP:V page itself, the link should go to the best / fullest explanation, no matter where it is. Pesky (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statements re drafts

I don't see the drafts as an important aspect of the RFC we are working towards. I think they are a sideshow. To my mind the important and interesting aspect of this RFC, the place where it will differ from all the previous ones, is the way we will ask the community to give us a steer on the principles of what WP:V should contain in an environment away from specific drafts.

I don't really care about the drafts. Can my statement just say that?—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you have to rank them as well. :) As a compromise, I won't make you rank all of them - instant-runoff voting works perfectly well if some voters only rank one or two options. (Mathematically, though, each voter has the best chance of getting something they will be happy with if they rank all the choices.) How about just choosing the top three drafts from each work group? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Your reply to S Marshall anticipates a question that I would have asked, as well. As long as we can choose to rank some but not all drafts, I can work with that. If you end up feeling that my interpretation doesn't fit with your expectations, please just let me know, as I can likely fix anything that I do "wrong". (Well, you said that you wanted to use this instant runoff to see how instant runoffs work!) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Objection to voting on group 1 proposals

I'm impressed with the overall structure of the discussions here, but... the choice of a status quo revision is not a matter of opinion. The problem with the previous RFC was that "no consensus" meant going back to a revision which had not been subject to such community-wide assessment. To avoid a similar waste of everyone's time, you need to pick a legitimate status quo version:

  • Draft 0 is the revision reverted to after the previous RFC. The biggest difference with draft 1 is a sentence about copyright. This was added after significant discussions in March 2011.
  • Draft 1 is the "last SV edit in the year 2010", but SV also participated in the copyright discussions, so this revision is strictly inferior to draft 0.
  • Draft 2 is the current (wrongly or not) protected version. Some editors left in disgust because of the brutal way this revision was obtained, while other editors believe this is the solution to all the problems. It may have fairly good chances to be endorsed by the community, but it cannot be seen as a status quo version.
  • Draft 3 has good ideas, but the formulations are novel.
  • Draft 4 is a variation on the separate paragraph idea.

Unless you include draft 0 in the RFC, editors who are not part of this mediation can raise procedural objections, and procedural objections have great disruptive force, as you all know... You can, and probably should, additionally include draft 2, although this idea also occurs as draft 5 of WG2. (While it was a good idea to split into these groups to generate drafts, I do not think you should follow this structure when selecting drafts, except of course to experiment with fancy voting schemes.) Vesal (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Vesal, I'm really glad that you have raised these concerns! Although, myself, I have no problem with editors working here voting on anything in order to work towards consensus – which means that everyone must understand that we are actually !voting – you are right that we are going to have to be sensitive to what the community will look for in the RfC, not just what we here are hoping to get. Unlike the people in this mediation, the RfC will also include the people who, arguably, hijacked the last RfC. If the choices that we provide can be portrayed by them as "unfair", our entire effort here will fail. Don't kid yourself, anyone, it can easily happen! In this specific issue, it means offering an option that the people who will pull out every trick in the book to thwart change will be unable to assail as an "unfair" default choice. If we don't – just picture them demanding all over the place that our RfC should be shut down, on the grounds that it doesn't offer a valid status quo option. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree very strongly with concerns raised by Vesal and Tryptofish. It is not a question of whether we in this mediation like Group 1 Draft 0 or not. If there is to be an RfC with a list of possible versions, we must include a version like Group 1 Draft 0, so that people who want to keep "verifiability, not truth" and "threshold" without embellishment can support that and state their reasons. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the reverse is true . A policy that has become assessed and contentious is not stable, while generally a policy that has not been contentious means the version is stable. We can't suggest that because a policy has not undergone some kind of dispute resolution or is the subject of a lot of discussion that no one has assessed the policy. All we can assume is that no one cared enough to write about it. We have to assume those using the policy found it useful enough as it was, to leave it alone. If something new develops as is the case here , with discussion, an RfC, and mediation then that version is no longer the stable version of the policy. Up to that point it is, and a lack of consensus in an RfC means reverting to the last stable version of policy until further DR takes place.

In my mind, drafts 3 and 4 might be combined in some way.

We then have versions (not drafts) of the policy which help create an historical framework for this mediation. These versions could also be drafts

  • Pre copio vio sentence version (2010): 1
  • copy vio sentence version (after March 2011): 0
  • Present protected version protected during discussion with no consensus as to its wording: 2 (olive (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC))

Let's have 2 "status quo" versions. Anointing a single version as the "status quo" was/is one of the components of a hijacking. Also, whatever this mediation process comes up with should just go in if it has the support of 75% of the folks involved here.......no RFC. Mr. Stradavarius can do the close if one is needed, they are 10 times more qualified to do so than an average admin. After that last debacle, I see that RFC's are more easily gamed by a skilled posse than a voting process. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You had me agreeing until the last sentence, only because I'm not too impressed with the voting process (see next section). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I may have been misunderstood. I wasn't suggesting an RfC. I was suggesting a RfC with no consensus got us here. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I would in no way support that 75 % of the editors working here be the gauge for changes in this policy. I understood that our suggestions here would be brought before the community in whatever format Mr Stradivarious suggests. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what is being said. And gosh, please lets leave the "skilled posse", "gaming" comments out of this so we don't ruin the collegial atmosphere. There's been lots of stone throwing, lets leave it behind. Puleeze. :O)(olive (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC))

North8000, my intention was not to "anoint" any specific version as the privileged status quo version. On the contrary, the historical revisions must be included in the RFC, so that they are judged as equal candidates with no special status. This is, as Tryptofish said, precisely to make this process immune from hijacking, not an attempt to hijack it! And another good reason to include the old VNT version is for the pleasure of having an oppose section where you could vent your "it is terribly broken" sentiments whenever you get frustrated by the oh so very insightful "it ain't broke" opposes to your proposals. ;) Anyway, I've said what I had to say, so I wish you all the best, Vesal (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. I guess I was mixing two different considerations: Anointing anything as "status quo" or "last stable version" etc. would set this up for hijacking. It would be good to give both the old version (circa fall 2011) and the current version (at least with respect to it's compromise treatment of VNT) some consideration. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about Step 5

Yesterday, I expressed some concerns about how we are doing Step 5, and I see, a day later, that some other editors also have concerns. I'd like to expand on my concerns here in talk.

  1. First of all, it violates in every imaginable way the values of Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I don't mind if we conduct this exercise, and see what comes out of it, as a sort of crude assessment of what each of us thinks, but I don't think it offers anything more than that.
  2. Because it's just a vote, we don't really get to understand what the reasons are for how each editor ranks the drafts. A discussion at each group's talk page would be much better in that regard.
  3. And because we don't really get to discuss those reasons, we haven't really distinguished between ranking based on what we think will result in the most useful community RfC, versus ranking based on what the individual editor sees as optimizing the likelihood of ending up with their preferred formulation. In fact, I worry that this mediation process has been too focused on what editors would ideally like to get, rather than on what the community is likely to accept.

On the plus side, we are getting a practical demonstration of what doesn't work in an instant runoff process. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange as it may sound, I agree with you here. I wanted to use the instant-runoff voting system here to get an idea of what each editor likes, and to see how the system would work when actually applied to a discussion. I didn't intend to use it as a way to choose the final drafts and end all discussion in one fell swoop. If it turns out that the end results of the process won't be all that useful to us, as seems likely at this point, then we will use other methods to help us arrive at a decision. Even if we can't reach a decision on which drafts to use using this process, The reaction of many of the editors here has given us some good data to use when we get to step seven - as you say, it is a good demonstration of what doesn't work. (There may still be some demonstrations of what does work as well - let's give it a little time!)

Despite the unease expressed about step five by many of the regular participants, I still want to follow the step through until the deadline. The advantages with following it through will be that editors who have not participated as much in the mediation process can make their views known, and that it will show us which of these editors are still following the process and which have dropped out of the mediation altogether. Following through with it will also give us better data about the instant runoff system than if we cut the voting short. Related to this, I would like everyone to rate at least three drafts for each work group. I don't mind people letting me know your objections to the process - in fact, I encourage it - but I don't consider statements that only list objections to the process to be sufficient for this step. I know that I'm being slightly inflexible here, and I apologise for that, but if you could all stick with the process I would be very grateful.

For editors who have already submitted their statements, you are welcome to continue discussions about the drafts on the work group talk pages, and especially I welcome suggestions for how to structure the mediation discussions after we finish the voting on Friday. The more detailed the suggestion, the better. With eighteen mediation participants, one of you is bound to think up something better than I would. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that in any "choose your favorite" situations, instant runoff (or something like it) is not only a good idea but also essential....otherwise two ideas that are similar will kill each other. But I do share the concern that may be behind this is that we jumped into a "choosing" stage while there has never been a "collaboration" phase where editors jointly work on any version, except where it has been done informally outside of the structure/process. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying that there has never been a "collaboration" phase, as that was the entire purpose of the draft page and talk page structures in step four. I know that you would have liked there to be a section for joint editing of a single draft - are you of the opinion that the process cannot be collaborative if it does not have this feature? Or is there another reason that you didn't consider step four a collaborative process? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I'm getting mixed up. Step 4 as you originally defined was for each group to create A draft. Presumably an updated version of that is that folks should create A draft under each of the 4 categories. But in practice (unless I'm confused) that never happenned; you just essentially said "create lots of drafts" and then you jumped right to "vote on the drafts" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, this could be a tragic case of me using unclear language. I meant that each group should work collaboratively towards creating one final draft, and that during this process every editor should submit several different drafts in order to find a version that has consensus. I also intended the work group talk pages to be used to provide feedback on each draft, so that editors knew what things may gain consensus. Does this make more sense to you now? And was anyone else unclear on the purpose of the work group pages? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Although you listed it in the original plan, I interpreted or misinterpreted your "as we go" specific instructions as not including that. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Step four was difficult because one had to overcome entrenched policy page behavior, which is deciding whether you like or dislike a proposal and then just debating to promote your opinion. I think there needed to be more time and interventional guidance before entering step 5. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I understood this to really be PART of Step 4... Step 4a was "evaluate suggested versions, saying what you like and dislike about each suggestion, and begin to form a compromise version for the work group"... We are now at 4b: "continue to evaluate versions by ranking them by preference, this will highlight where we agree and disagree"... and when we finish doing this we will move to 4c: "using the comments in 4a and the ranking in 4b as a guide, go back to your work groups and finalize a draft to be included in the final RFC". Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, I can't speak to whether everyone else feels as I do, but I'm very happy with Mr. Strad's replies, which are, as they have been throughout this mediation process, thoughtful, intelligent, and helpful. I'm glad that we discussed these things, and I feel a lot better about how the process is going. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to be (hopefully usefully) simple-minded. I just looked through all of the groups and don't ANY any drafts identified as the one that the collaboration came up with. North8000 (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Correct... I don't think we are at that step yet (although some of us are working towards it). We have presented "suggested versions", we have made comments as to things we liked and disliked about eachother's suggestions, now we are providing further feedback by indicating which suggestions we think are better than others... hopefully each group will use this feedback as they work on their final collaborative draft (I would expect that to be Step 6). Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If that is actually what is going to happen, great. So, we have a collaboration stage still coming on each of the 4 versions? North8000 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That would be my understanding of what Mr. Strad said above; please correct me if I misunderstand. And it would certainly be my expectation. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's no point in me deciding by myself that there has been a collaboration stage if none of the mediation participants think there has been. If I were just to continue bloody-mindedly with the schedule as written now, then this would cease being a "mediation", and would start to be something more like a "dictatorship". I don't fancy myself in the dictator role, so I would prefer to do things with everyone's consent. I think Blueboar made a good suggestion with his stage "4a" and "4b"; I don't think I will be sticking with those numbers exactly, as we are already technically on stage five, but we may start seeing steps 6a, 6b, and so on. Now what I am interested in knowing is how exactly you would like a collaboration stage to look, and whether we can tag it on to the existing work group apparatus somehow. Suggestions would be very welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

How bout after completing the current "voting" process tell the folks at each of the 4 areas to, taking into account those results, develop the preferred version within each group. North8000 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Off the top of my head: (1) After completion of the step we are in now, see what the findings are. (2) Ask those editors who met the requirement of having participated, to discuss on the talk page of each group (maybe make a new talk page section for the purpose) which draft(s) should be put forward, and what revisions need to be made. (3) Discuss (I haven't thought this part through yet) how to resolve disagreements from part 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Something else occurs to me that we are likely going to need: There will be aspects of the talk page discussions where participants may get "stuck". It would be good if the mediator would keep an eye open for that, and step in where needed with questions that might help get things "unstuck". What I mean by that would be something like: "Tryptofish, I think that you are saying so-and-so. Is that correct? If so, and realizing that other editors are saying such-and-such, would you be willing to consider such-and-such instead? If not, why not?" --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I guess that I ought to point out something good that I have started to notice. As we approach the deadline for submitting the rankings, I see multiple editors making some very useful suggestions about ways to revise the existing drafts. These suggestions never came up on the group talk pages, but seeing the suggestions now, I think some of them should be good things to work with in the next steps. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The only thing I like about this current phase is the instant runoff structure. Other than that this process seems very hectic and random. I just voted on about 30 proposals, and in the groups where I have not been active, there is no indication of what editors more involved/expert that I there prefer, yet my vote was equal to theirs. Similarly, a bunch of individually prepared version are each going to have more flaws than something which the group collaborated on to come up with. Mr. Stradavarius, please, we need to tell each group to work together to come up with A version. And group 1 should be required to include the OLD status quo, but allowed to include a 2nd new status quo. Even though the old status quo is the one I like the least, from a process standpoint it should be included in order for this overall process to have validity without being hi-jack able. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
North... As I understand it, the next step will be for each work group to come up with A version... this step was to give each work group more feed back to help them achieve that goal. Let's say most of the editors in a workgroup were split between two versions and having difficulty reaching compromise... the fact that the rest of us rated a particular version very highly might help settle the debate. Or, if the editors of a particular workgroup were leaning towards a version that the rest of us rated poorly, they might wish to reconsider the direction they were headed and incorporate more of the versions we did like into their final draft (they don't have to... but they may wish to). In other words... this step wasn't a "vote" ... it was simply outside input. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to add my hope that, in addition to everything Blueboar just said, groups where there really are strong arguments that two conflicting drafts each have merit could allow two versions to emerge, rather than have a fight that would leave some participants disappointed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Timeframe problem

It's Holy Week, and Passover starts tomorrow night, and I don't know about anyone else, but I'm unlikely to have the time to look at this again until Monday. Could we push the deadline out to say Wednesday of next week? Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we can extend the deadline, especially seeing as step five has been less than popular with the other editors here. However, I will of course take your real-life commitments into consideration, and I won't exclude you from the process just because it happens to be Passover. I'll likely address this general theme in the next day or two when we start step six (whatever form it ends up taking), so watch out for that when you get back. Enjoy your holiday! — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Where do we currently stand with respect to that deadline? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

We stand at "I'm writing it up right now, and it's taking ages"... I'll have it done in an hour or three, so please bear with me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, sorry, I'm going to have to take that back. I really need to get some sleep, otherwise I'll probably write something stupid... I'll make the post later on today. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, no problem there, sorry. I was just asking with respect to the deadline for participants editing their statements. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Archive_2&oldid=1090633274"