SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m →Why does this page exist?: I'm not bringing any more intensity than I normally do. |
|||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
*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". --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 23:22, 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". --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
* I disagree with |
* I disagree with merging these two. No original research, and no novel syntheses, is different form verifiability. Something can be verifiable from impeccable primary sources but still be original research because it is compiled ''entirely'' from primary sources, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. The value of WP:ATT is in taking the examples and putting them in context, showing how - well, ''attribution'' is necessary and how it should be done. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
**If it is '''[[wikt:compilation|compiled]]''', i.e. simply collected into one place, without drawing any conclusions it is not OR. `'[[user:mikkalai|mikka]] 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* I would prefer to see them remain separate. I feel they were more understandable when presented in discrete chunks: together, they are a bit too much to process at one time. It also is a bit too much to process on one talk page. That said, if condensed, it could be a good summary page. So, although I would like to see [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] remain as separate policies, [[WP:ATT]], if condensed, would be a good guideline to show to people who would prefer to do less reading. — [[User:Armedblowfish |Armed Blowfish]] ([[User_talk:Armedblowfish |talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Armedblowfish |mail]]) 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC) |
* I would prefer to see them remain separate. I feel they were more understandable when presented in discrete chunks: together, they are a bit too much to process at one time. It also is a bit too much to process on one talk page. That said, if condensed, it could be a good summary page. So, although I would like to see [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] remain as separate policies, [[WP:ATT]], if condensed, would be a good guideline to show to people who would prefer to do less reading. — [[User:Armedblowfish |Armed Blowfish]] ([[User_talk:Armedblowfish |talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Armedblowfish |mail]]) 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 37: | Line 38: | ||
:What JWSchmidt has to say here makes a lot of sense to me. — <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> [[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]]</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
:What JWSchmidt has to say here makes a lot of sense to me. — <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> [[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]]</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
* YES, there has not been a single refutation of my [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Very logical merger: proof|proof]], so the merger is a good idea. More seriously, attribution doesn't mean you should not compare and contrast sources... but in any case, I'm very glad that this merger has highlighted (although it's irritating that it is being blamed for) the role of truth in more recent versions of [[WP:V]] than those cited above. Perhaps WP:V should go back to its roots, but it should definitely not go back to the "truth, not truth; but the first truth in this context means something other than truth" formulation. --[[User:Merzul|Merzul]] 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
* YES, there has not been a single refutation of my [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Very logical merger: proof|proof]], so the merger is a good idea. More seriously, attribution doesn't mean you should not compare and contrast sources... but in any case, I'm very glad that this merger has highlighted (although it's irritating that it is being blamed for) the role of truth in more recent versions of [[WP:V]] than those cited above. Perhaps WP:V should go back to its roots, but it should definitely not go back to the "truth, not truth; but the first truth in this context means something other than truth" formulation. --[[User:Merzul|Merzul]] 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Let me start from rephrasing my very first objection I ever made w.r.t. WP:A. I am afraid that this section title is a [[loaded question]], and vaguely (I am sure, inadvertently) stated, too. Yes, the '''pages''' were merged. But the '''policies''' were not. The renaming them from "policies" to "key principles" is merely a bureaucratic trick. Of course, there was much trimming/cleanup done in the process, but if right now you cut WP:A into two pieces along the [[Visible panty line|VPL]] (er..., "visible partition line") and rename "key principles" back into "policies", will it make any difference? IMO one of the core troubles is that the two WP:NOR & WP:V had their long lines of evolution, and significantly shifted in essence, so that their meanings and purposes are no longer immediately deduced from their titles, and this confuses new generations. This happens all the time with many technical terms in all natural languages (take the word "[[computer]]"). Their contents grew over time until it became evident that the two bushes turned into one thicket. Naturally, many felt that something should be done. But I have an impression that [[Russian jokes#Army NCOs|instead of thinking and deciding how to proceed]], the merge itself and the discussion of what is to be done run in parallel (and the first draft of VP:A (whose structure I like more) differs from the result drastically). |
|||
:After this long rant, let me answer to the "correct" question: '''Should the policies WP:V and WP:NOR be merged?''' — '''YES''', but... <small>(to be continued...)</small> (and to the original one: yes, it was a useful and instructive exercise) `'[[user:mikkalai|mikka]] 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== If they remain merged, should [[WP:RS]] remain merged with them? == |
== If they remain merged, should [[WP:RS]] remain merged with them? == |
Revision as of 04:30, 23 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)
- I disagree with merging these two. No original research, and no novel syntheses, is different form verifiability. Something can be verifiable from impeccable primary sources but still be original research because it is compiled entirely from primary sources, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. The value of WP:ATT is in taking the examples and putting them in context, showing how - well, attribution is necessary and how it should be done. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- If it is compiled, i.e. simply collected into one place, without drawing any conclusions it is not OR. `'mikka 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would prefer to see them remain separate. I feel they were more understandable when presented in discrete chunks: together, they are a bit too much to process at one time. It also is a bit too much to process on one talk page. That said, if condensed, it could be a good summary page. So, although I would like to see WP:V and WP:NOR remain as separate policies, WP:ATT, if condensed, would be a good guideline to show to people who would prefer to do less reading. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is already a subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution and is slated for further investigation at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. I don't see the point of this thread existing here on this odd page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course. The policies are intimately related; after all, Original Research is essentially an argument or synthesis that cannot be Verified to a Reliable Source. Combining them clarifies the relationship between them, and helps avoid policy (and guideline) divergence. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- YES! Until now, it's been impossible to clearly articulate and enforce NOR or RS. People followed V, but almost never NOR, and rarely RS until now. The Wikipedia is getting way better in quality now.--Urthogie 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. People were always complaining about the policies being spread over two pages — three pages if you count RS — and in addition newbies got confused about how the word "verifiability" was being used. This is much clearer, and it was a very popular move. I've received more e-mails in the last few months saying this was a good move than over any other single issue since I've been at Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, but now that is has been done, I think the more important questions are should ATT totally subsume V and NOR (and possibly RS), should ATT just go away, or should ATT be a summary policy and the others more in-depth explorations? I lean toward the third option. I can't see a rationale for completely undoing ATT. A lot of good faith work has gone into it, and while some of us weren't entirely happy with the process, that's kind of water under the bridge at this point. The real challenge will be to have separate documents that actually agree with each other. I don't think this problem is insurmountable at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- YES. Think of the new editors coming to join the project. What better than having two simple and well presented policies WP:NPOV and WP:ATT? We need to think of the future of this project and embrace evolution. If you do not evolve, you die. A conservative move to keep a status quo that has created enormous problems for editors is not a good thing for this project is not a good thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. WP:V and WP:NOR should not have been merged. At one time Wikipedia:Verifiability had instructions for how Wikipedians should verify article content. The instructions for fact-checking by Wikipedians stressed the importance of multiple unimpeachable sources to support statements in encyclopedia articles. Of course, that was bad news for POV pushers, but WP:A now tells us that only for certain "exceptional claims" need editors think about comparing multiple reliable sources in order to check facts. This change does not help editors keep garbage out of articles and improve the encyclopedia. There was never any problem in having WP:V and WP:NOR discuss similar issues from different perspectives. WP:V should go back to its roots and serve as a resource for guiding Wikipedians in their fact checking work. WP:NOR is needed for examples that define the distinction between trying to slip unpublished research into Wikipedia and doing the kind of analysis of sources that Wikipedians must do in order to produce an encyclopedia. Merging the two pages only serves to weaken and dilute those important functions. --JWSchmidt 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- What JWSchmidt has to say here makes a lot of sense to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- YES, there has not been a single refutation of my proof, so the merger is a good idea. More seriously, attribution doesn't mean you should not compare and contrast sources... but in any case, I'm very glad that this merger has highlighted (although it's irritating that it is being blamed for) the role of truth in more recent versions of WP:V than those cited above. Perhaps WP:V should go back to its roots, but it should definitely not go back to the "truth, not truth; but the first truth in this context means something other than truth" formulation. --Merzul 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let me start from rephrasing my very first objection I ever made w.r.t. WP:A. I am afraid that this section title is a loaded question, and vaguely (I am sure, inadvertently) stated, too. Yes, the pages were merged. But the policies were not. The renaming them from "policies" to "key principles" is merely a bureaucratic trick. Of course, there was much trimming/cleanup done in the process, but if right now you cut WP:A into two pieces along the VPL (er..., "visible partition line") and rename "key principles" back into "policies", will it make any difference? IMO one of the core troubles is that the two WP:NOR & WP:V had their long lines of evolution, and significantly shifted in essence, so that their meanings and purposes are no longer immediately deduced from their titles, and this confuses new generations. This happens all the time with many technical terms in all natural languages (take the word "computer"). Their contents grew over time until it became evident that the two bushes turned into one thicket. Naturally, many felt that something should be done. But I have an impression that instead of thinking and deciding how to proceed, the merge itself and the discussion of what is to be done run in parallel (and the first draft of VP:A (whose structure I like more) differs from the result drastically).
- After this long rant, let me answer to the "correct" question: Should the policies WP:V and WP:NOR be merged? — YES, but... (to be continued...) (and to the original one: yes, it was a useful and instructive exercise) `'mikka 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If they remain merged, should WP:RS remain merged with them?
- Keep WP:RS along with V and NOR as in-depth explorations of their subtopics, but make sure that ATT accounts for the basics of RS to the extent they are relevant to RS (and that NPOV do likewise to the extent that RS issues are relevant to NPOV; i.e., just make of these things agree with each other). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think WP:RS should remain merged with them. WP:RS is sufficiently complex and controversial that it really should have its own page for us to try to improve it on.
- That said, if WP:RS is to be merged with something, I think it should be merged with WP:NPOV, not WP:ATT. If well-rewritten, it could fill in a gap in WP:NPOV - figuring out what due weight is - as well as providing further clarification on the difference between facts and opinions.
- — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- agreed RS needs to exist as a clear guideline. muddling it into ATT just prevents a clear policy. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is the correct place to hold Wikipedia's institutional memory of past debates and decisions about which sources are not reliable. We have a spam blacklist and we need a sources blacklist for unreliable sources that are frequently cited by Wikipedians. There are many sources that are biased and cannot be trusted and we need tools to blacklist them from use at Wikipedia. I'm skeptical of the idea that a few examples of unreliable sources as part of subpage (Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ) should replace a function that can be served by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rather than put discussion of reliable sources on the page of that name, we are told it is "better" to spread that discussion out over WP:A and a subpage. That only serves to dilute and hide the process by which Wikipedians battle POV pushers who continually cite unreliable sources. --JWSchmidt 02:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with JWSchmidt's points here as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:18, 23 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)
- Again, yes. I have not seen any complaints made about the actual policy contained in WP:A that was not simply a reiteration of an older complaint about WP:V or WP:NOR. I also gave all three a thorough readthrough when the merger was announced, and found no complaints to make but a couple swiftly-repaired typos. --tjstrf talk 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. The spirit was more clear in WP:V and WP:OR, in my opinion. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is already a subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution and is slated for further investigation at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. I don't see the point of this thread existing here on this odd page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a better place to discuss it than the dribs and drabs at WT:ATT, In particular, I hope Mikkalai will be clear in distinguishing between where he disagrees with existing policy (below); and where he agrees with existing policy but thinks WP:ATT is changing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any compelling reason not to do that at WP:ATT's talk page, where these issues have already been open and discussed, and remain unresolved. Forking a new thread on another page is "better" how, exactly? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that. The discussion at WT:ATT is already fragmented, and will be continually further divided by discussions of subway stations, and wording changes for ATT which have nothing to do with the questions raised here. Does any else agree with S McCandlish's merge proposal? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any compelling reason not to do that at WP:ATT's talk page, where these issues have already been open and discussed, and remain unresolved. Forking a new thread on another page is "better" how, exactly? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a better place to discuss it than the dribs and drabs at WT:ATT, In particular, I hope Mikkalai will be clear in distinguishing between where he disagrees with existing policy (below); and where he agrees with existing policy but thinks WP:ATT is changing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and, in fact, is in some ways even more clear than the original. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The current version of ATT is clear, concise, easier to understand that the previous text spread over three pages on V, NOR, and RS, and yet is entirely consistent with them, both in letter and spirit. It's a vast improvement, and people are happily linking to it and quoting it in support of their edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Close, yes. I think Wikipedia talk:Attribution already identifies issues, and I see that below one of the disagreements has already been re-raised here. I don't have any fear that the issues will not be dealt with in usual WP fashion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Role of truth
- I object strongly to the new wording "not whether it is true" and the new context for this wording, unbalanced by a word such as "verifiability". Some other editors have the same or similar concerns. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. --Coppertwig 00:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- What difference in meaning do you see? "Verifiability" always meant that the existence of a reliable source could be verified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed in huge depth at Wikipedia talk:Attribution; my entire objection to this page as a separate page is that it is likely to simply turn into a rehash of the same arguments. I beg that this issue simply be recognized as existing (for at least three editors that concur that the present language is problematic) but that this not turn into a repeat of the entire debate. It's simply not a conversation that needs to happen in two places. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That was always there, in WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- ATT as killed WP:RS see [1] for an example. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate? That is, are you saying ATT has killed RS and this is good? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:01, 23 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)
- Of course. Some of them may be new, and some may have been inherited from the policies and guidelines it was built on. It may also have corrected old flaws. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is the point of the question? That flaws have been identified is already evident from Wikipedia talk:Attribution. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no consensus there on which are actually flaws, and there is no consensus there on which are merely flaws (as opposed to changes in policy, as per the section above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. An assertion is not the same as a proof. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no consensus there on which are actually flaws, and there is no consensus there on which are merely flaws (as opposed to changes in policy, as per the section above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- So those issues should be discussed there. If they are not resolved there yet, they won't be resolved here magically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- If it does have flaws, they're the same flaws as NOR and V, because nothing was changed. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it has flaws (and some or all of them may be inherited from the original NOR and V policies); some but probably not all of them have been enumerated in detail at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, and discussion about them
is ongoingwas ongoing and in cases still is, but many of them just got archived despite not being resolved yet. Problems with policies being identified and worked out doesn't seem weird or bad to me in any way, just WP business as usual. Archiving unresolved issue that were posted about this very day does seem both weird and bad to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Updated 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC) - Any flaws can be ironed out. If there are any, these came from V, NOR and RS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Wikipedia:Attribution does not provide Wikipedians with the tools they need to:
1) support careful fact checking,
2) support identification of unreliable sources and their blacklisting from Wikipedia and
3) make the needed distinctions between
a) required secondary research for critical analysis of what cited sources say and
b) unwanted attempts to insert original research.
Wikipedia would be better off if it went back to its roots of developing these needed tools at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia:Attribution dilutes and glosses over these needs because it tries to cram too much into one page. Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ is one clear indicator that the cramming failed. --JWSchmidt 02:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then you need to go back and re-write WP:V and WP:NOR as this new page is just a merge of these policies. This discussion is not not be about re-defining policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to make any changes to present policy or practice, while we have this opportunity?
- Emphatically no. I think it would be a major error to commingle trying to sort out merge consensus on the one hand and introduce new substantive policy changes on the other. I am not opposed to change, I just think that the changes are separate issues and their own discussions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Widespread community involvement is always a good thing when it comes to changing policies. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Define NOR
I think we need to clarify what OR is and that it is not the same as, or reducible to, verifiability or some broader concept of attribution.
Here's one example: I have no difficulty with the idea that the material Jimbo recently removed from the Langan article was original research, but I see others objecting both on-site and on the mailing list. IMO, the policy pages need to be clear enough that good users can see that this material was within the concept of OR.
Here's another example. In my opinion, this List of FRSs with public religious stances is an exercise in original research - taking statements from here and there as a research project to try to demonstrate a point that is (apparently) made in no existing secondary source: that few Fellows of the Royal Society have expressed views about religion and few of those have been critical of it. On the talk page, the creator of the article/list seems fairly open that it is intended to demonstrate something. To me, that is an exercise in OR, even if each constituent fact can be sourced somewhere (which is why it is not good to think that the OR concept is subsumed under something called "attribution").
I think there's been a tendency for us to adopt an overly lenient interpretation of the NOR principle. That overly lenient approach is being applied widely, and the written policies are not doing enough to dissuade people from it. The emphasis on verifiability and attribution tends to encourage it. I see a helluva lot of OR pervading Wikipedia, though it is not necessarily urgent to deal with it all except where there are also BLP issues involved. Metamagician3000 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is this covered by WP:ATT#Unpublished synthesis of published material? If not, why not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong venue. A random talk sub-page that hardly anyone knows exists is not the proper place to determine how policy is made. That's what WP:PUMP is for. Also, I object to the suggestion that this is some kind of special "opportunity". WP is a Wiki. Every minute of every day is an opportunity, and an equal one. Just the mere idea that that we should take the "opportunity" to change policy for some reason, off in this Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion hinterland is kind of grotesque and scary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- As Steve Block says below, that's why there's a link from WP:PUMP, ain't it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Noted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- As Steve Block says below, that's why there's a link from WP:PUMP, ain't it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
- If this poll goes through then it gives a rather significant blow to WP:!VOTE. It also appears to give Jimbo a stronger role in policy control than he has previously had, but as Jossi says we need more clarification on this. --tjstrf talk 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm floored by all this. "Jimbo suggested that for these type of changes, the process should be one that includes a checkpoint in which we seek Jimbo's input." I dunno. I'm as unclear on the structure of Wikipedia as I ever was, but that's no suggestion, that's a statement of intent. I feel like that bit in Star Wars when Solo says "That's no moon." I think I'm going to take time away. There's a lot been happening around here lately that has given me pause for thought. This is an admirable project, and it has been a pleasure to add what little I could, but ... thanks for all the fish. See you all sooner rather than later, I hope. Steve block Talk 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong venue. A random talk sub-page that hardly anyone knows exists is not the proper place to determine how policy is made. That's what WP:PUMP is for. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- That'll be why there's a link at the pump to here then, won't it. Steve block Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Noted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- That'll be why there's a link at the pump to here then, won't it. Steve block Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think Jimbo/the Foundation need to be clearer about what they want here. We're basically just left guessing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Foundations has nothing to do with this, as it does not concern itself with policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'll spell it out better: If Jimbo is speaking as The Jimbo, in his official role here, then he needs to be clearer about what he wants. If he's just speaking as Jimmy Wales, another Wikipedian, which he sometimes does, he should make that clearer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Foundations has nothing to do with this, as it does not concern itself with policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Why does this page exist?
Mind you, I'm not directly objecting to the existence of this page, I just don't understand what the point is, and have concerns that between Wikipedia talk:Attribution, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/FAQ, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll and Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll that the discussion is going to become too fragmented to follow. Yes, I realize I'm the one that undid the redir from Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll that was going to Wikipedia talk:Attribution (and if you look at how much discussion about the poll and its details there are this was a good idea, I maintain). But I can't discern at all any purpose difference between Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion and Wikipedia talk:Attribution, that isn't already intended to be covered at the poll. Indeed, this new page appears to be phrased as a poll asking roughly the same questions as the poll (I say "roughly" because the questions keep changing). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- After reading all of this, and seeing that it is simply repeating debates already covered elsewhere, I do directly object to the existence of this page. I propose merging this immediately into Wikipedia talk:Attribution. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- This page exists to consolidate discussions being conducted elsewhere. I oppose merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do directly object to such a proposal and solemnly declare opposition to any merge. Steve block Talk 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why on earth would that not take place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why on earth would it? We're discussing four, maybe five pages here. Steve block Talk 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is "Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion", not "Wikipedia talk:Community discussion of Attribution, Verifiability, Reliable Sources and No Original Research", so your response doesn't seem to address anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone else support this objection? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, this is a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I don't see the point and it seems likely to cause rehashing of contentious arguments and their linked inter-personal disputes, but whatever... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Up until this page appeared, there was a lot of useful discussion on Wikipedia talk:Attribution. If the effect of this page is to dissipate the discussion of the very real policy issues, then I think this page is a bad move. --Rednblu 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, this is a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone else support this objection? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is "Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion", not "Wikipedia talk:Community discussion of Attribution, Verifiability, Reliable Sources and No Original Research", so your response doesn't seem to address anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why on earth would it? We're discussing four, maybe five pages here. Steve block Talk 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why on earth would that not take place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Read the request by Jimbo at the top of this page. Jimbo undid the merger; Jimbo requested this discussion as a prelude to a poll, and thus we are having it. If you do not want to discuss it, you do not have to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's a blatant straw man argument; no one here has suggested that the discussion should not take place, some of us simply don't think that forking it onto a new page is a good idea. Given that someone just went and archived over half of the still-active discussions at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, including all but the most recent disputes (and see comment above by Rednblu), I think this concern is a genuine one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, relax, SMcCandlish. What is the reason for such intensity? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am relaxed. I'm not trying to come off as any more intense that usual. If anything, I've been pretty chill all day long. My observation above is pretty simple, and doesn't make any new arguments, just reminds that some concerns have been raised and what they are. Not everyone thinks the discussion should be happening here instead of at the main talk page, and given that disputes are being shuffled off into the archives before being resolved, these concerns may have some merits. What's intense about that? I don't think the honest concerns raised should be dismissed as allegedly counter-communicative. They aren't. That's all. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, relax, SMcCandlish. What is the reason for such intensity? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's a blatant straw man argument; no one here has suggested that the discussion should not take place, some of us simply don't think that forking it onto a new page is a good idea. Given that someone just went and archived over half of the still-active discussions at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, including all but the most recent disputes (and see comment above by Rednblu), I think this concern is a genuine one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)