m Resolving "considerable disdussion" |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is a discussion page for the status of [[WP:ATT]], which, after considerable |
This is a discussion page for the status of [[WP:ATT]], which, after considerable discussion, was declared policy on [[15 February]], [[2007]]. The intention was to express present policy more clearly, concisely, and maintainably, not to change it. |
||
Recently, on [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution]] and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] stated that despite the very good work done at by people laboring on ATT, he believed there wasn't consensus for this merger, that the merger was done out of process, and that there should be further attempts at consensus building prior to a final decision. |
Recently, on [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution]] and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] stated that despite the very good work done at by people laboring on ATT, he believed there wasn't consensus for this merger, that the merger was done out of process, and that there should be further attempts at consensus building prior to a final decision. |
Revision as of 23:28, 22 March 2007
This is a discussion page for the status of WP:ATT, which, after considerable discussion, was declared policy on 15 February, 2007. The intention was to express present policy more clearly, concisely, and maintainably, not to change it.
Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo stated that despite the very good work done at by people laboring on ATT, he believed there wasn't consensus for this merger, that the merger was done out of process, and that there should be further attempts at consensus building prior to a final decision.
Jimbo requested:
- "a broad community discussion on this issue", followed by
- "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results."
A poll draft has been set up at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll.
This is not a place for recriminations about how we got here, justified or not; this is a discussion of where we are now.
There seem to be the following major questions:
The chief argument for this was that they had an extensive area of overlap. It is more efficient to state the same policy in the same place, once. When they diverged, as they did from time to time, the result was two somewhat different policies on the same issue, of equal authority.
As a lesser advantage, "verification" in WP:V was not the common meaning of "verify": confirming the truth of what Wikipedia asserted; but checking that Wikipedia's statement could be attributed to a reliable source, and was therefore not original research. The change of name may well mean that we don't have to explain this once or twice a month to some well-intentioned soul who has just encountered our policy pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- When I first heard of the proposal to merge V and NOR into one combined Policy my initial reaction was negative. Especially since part of the proposal involved also shifting RS (which I have been involved in heavily) to a FAQ page. I was sceptical, thinking that this might be an backhanded way to slip policy changes past the watchful eye of the community, under the guise of simplification. While I did not get heavily involved with the drafting, I did pay attention to the discussion about it. After a while I discovered that my fears had no basis. The folks who drafted this really did mean it when they said they did not intend to change anything. Before too long I found that I had changed my mind... this actually was a very good idea. While V, NOR and RS seem to be seperate concepts, they actually overlap in many areas... Perhaps not in wording, but in concept. Changes to one greatly affected the others. We even had times where they were in direct conflict - two policies saying opposite things about the same idea. It now makes sense to me to have them combined into one Policy to avoid such confusion. Not only was this merger good... it should have been done a while ago. Blueboar 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree with the merger. The concepts expressed in the two policies are both part of the same basic idea that everything we report here be based in external confirmable reality. Simplifying redundant policies into cohesive single pages is an excellent idea and should be done often to avoid both inconsistency of policy and inadvertent WP:CREEP. If nothing else I hope we keep the rewording from "verifiability, not truth" to "attributability, not truth", because the first was oxymoronic and meant "truth, not truth". --tjstrf talk 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Does the present text of WP:ATT in general come close to representing present policy and practice without changing them?
- I would say that it definitely does come close ... and may even improve understanding. One advantage of the merger was that extraneous verbage that had worked itself into the old policy pages could be made more concise and clearer in the new merged version. Blueboar 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, not only that, but work was done to fine-tune the wording so that the principles of V and NOR were better expressed. In addition, the mess at RS was resolved by making the principles behind RS compatible with policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with Jossi and Blueboar. Guettarda 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Does the present text of WP:ATT have flaws of detail?
- Probably (although I could not give you an example off the top of my head) ... but so do all of our policies and guidelines, including those that were merged into ATT. That's why we don't slap a big DONE sign on them and close them to further editing. At least with the merger the flaws and debates about them are in one central place instead three or four... we won't have to have the same debate on three or four different pages. Blueboar 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Blueboar - not perfect, but pretty damn good. Guettarda 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to make any changes to present policy or practice, while we have this opportunity?
What process should be used to change policy structure or policy in the future?
- Jimbo suggested that for these type of changes, the process should be one that includes a checkpoint in which we seek Jimbo's input, followed by a poll to assess support, and followed by a "closing process" (to be defined) in which the changes are certified. I have tonnes of questions about this, though... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I assume that we are talking about how entire policies get approved, challenged/demoted, merged, etc. and not about how the wording of an individual policy or guideline gets changed? If so, I agree that a clear process is needed, and can see that Jimbo should be involved at some stage. Perhaps this discussion could be a template... A dedicated page for discussion and comment (to be closed after a given duration, at least full week, probably longer) followed by a straw poll (both well anounced on any related talk pages, at the pump, on the mailing list, etc), then an application to Jimbo summarizing the results of the poll... and finally the certification of approval or notice of rejection. Blueboar 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)