Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

< Wikipedia talk:Attribution
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Jeepday in topic Is it over?

This is the discussion page for the merger of WP:V, aspects of WP:RS and WP:NOR into WP:ATT as well as other information to be incorporated into the accompanying Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ (WP:ATTFAQ). The intention was to express present policy more clearly, concisely, and maintainably, not to change it.

There was a poll at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll to gauge the community's thoughts about the Wikipedia:Attribution merger; the poll ran from March 30, 2007 at 00:00 UTC to April 7, 2007 at 01:00 UTC.

Two essays on the merger can be found at Wikipedia:Attribution/in support of the merge and Wikipedia:Attribution/against the merge.

Working party

Latest comment: 17 years ago34 comments13 people in discussion

I've discussed the poll outcome with Jimbo, and we've agreed that it would be a good idea to form a bipartisan working party to develop a compromise, and that it should include the best voices among the yes and no vote.

Jimbo's on his way overseas at the moment, but will try to find time to make a comment about this publicly.

In the meantime, we should think about who should be on the working party. One person from the no vote that I would like to see on it is Sandy Georgia, who made some excellent points, and I would suggest a group of around five to ten people.

I'm going to post this note on a few of the relevant pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All the work will be on-Wiki for others to watch? - Denny (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That hasn't been decided, but yes I don't see why not. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I could help out in reaching a compromise. I would be in the "No" category as per the vote. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As someone who didn't vote in the poll and has no real firm opinion toward either idea, I don't mind donating some time to figuring this out if you're looking for volunteers. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the purpose of this working party to come up with an assessment of the outcome, or to come up with a workable policy framework as a result of the discussion and poll?
There are a fair number of contributors who have entirely valid arguments but don't clearly sit in either camp, having either explicitly gone neutral or having caveated their yes or no in some way.
ALR 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC) (copied from the poll talk page by Blueboar 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
I think the purpose of the working party will be to develop a compromise position, based on the comments put forward during the poll. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can live with that. fwiw I was in the broad support for the concept, but caveated, camp.ALR 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on board to help come to a compromise (if I'm wanted, that is); the discussion was illuminating, and there were valid points on all sides. I don't consider myself *at all* good at, nor do I enjoy, policy discussions, but I seem to have my foot squarely in the middle of this one, so I'm willing to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You put forward some excellent points during the debate. :-) Does 10 sound about right to people, or too many? I'm thinking that with any fewer it might be too much work for each person. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
<ed conf> :In my experience in working with teams, I would suggest a party of 6 rather than 10 to make it easier and more efficient. Two neutral, two from proponents and two from opponents. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
There are several different flavors of no; so much less than ten would risk missing a significant voice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I also think 6-7 really is the top of this, personally I trust any of SlimVirgin, Jossi, Crum, Was, Blueboar to express my views, but the no votes were indeed more diverse, so perhaps 2 pro, 3 oppose, and 2 neutral. Note that many of the oppose votes were quite contradictory to each other, so it will not give them any advantage. --Merzul 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
There are difficulties in facilitating a group of more than about six to nine, particularly in an online and multinational environment, where peoples expertise with respect to the subject is unclear. I would advocate something between six and nine, tops
ALR 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My name was suggested on one of the proposals for a working party; and I would be willing to discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC

SlimVirgin, you seem to have forgotten to mention the third voting section. Anyway, I would like to see Blueboar on the working party, as he is a strong supporter of WP:ATT who has also done his best to address the concerns of opposers. SlimVirgin, I would like to see you on the party as well, given the hard work you have done writing WP:ATT and the supporting essay. As it will be very difficult to get people on the party to represent all of the different viewpoints expressed, there should be a few editors on there willing to represent the opinions of others. Askari Mark put a lot of work into summarising the results of the poll, so I hope to see him/her on the party as an oppose representative. Also, there really should be an editor from the third voting section on the working party. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are a large part of that section, yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am one of 102. If there are nine people on the working, one from the third section seems approximately proportional to the number of votes. However, the votes in the third section are rather varied. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose User:Crum375 to represent the "pro" party. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the neutrals, I'd like to suggest Armed Blowfish, who summarized one of the positions very clearly (ATT is a nice idea, but V and NOR are separate concepts), and WAS 4.250, who put forward an interesting idea as a compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!  : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Marskell — valuable because of his ability to hear and understand all sides, cut through the nonsense, and come up with novel compromises. Also involved in developing ATT from the beginning, and has a good understanding of policy issues that come up at WP:FAC and WP:FAR SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be very comfortable with the current proposal of eight editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who, but are any of them people who were not heavily involved in any part of that? It seems kind of weird to not have anyone who has no dog in the fight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that all the names proposed have such a "dog". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Who are those people, then? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Per "The strength of parliament is the strength of the opposition," what is ideal is having long term supporters matched with editors who have cogently disagreed and can present good arguments against. At least initially, the below eight are good in this respect. Marskell 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, bear in mind that the point of the working party is to develop a compromise, not to re-enact the arguments, so the "dog in the fight" imagery isn't quite right. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm simply concerned that the same people who are judging consensus are people who have strong feelings on the matter. Again, if I'm the only one voicing this concern, feel free to ignore me and move on, but I'm very concerned about consensus being judged by people heavily involved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the group would be working towards forging a compromise - i.e. a new proposal - not judging consensus or making a final decision. If so, the community would still be the final judge, and would have the right to accept or reject any compromise reached by the group. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I was strongly opposed, but the poll convinced me we must try to forge a compromise that encompasses all cogent viewpoints. It's not a "dogfight" or a "pony in the race"; it's a new ballgame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd also like to nominate jossi and Merzul, both active supporters. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding here for the record that I nominated User:Thebainer (opponent of the merge), because he made some excellent points about the role of original research, which he also posted on his blog, and seems to have have given the policy situation some thought recently. --Merzul 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is an inherent issue of philosophical misinterpretation at stake here. In any policy discussion it is vitally important that a) all the terms are clearly defined and b) all participants understand the subject matter thoroughly. Unfortunately in ths poll/debate, we (rightfully or wrongfully) had people from different philosophical camps that (rightfully or wrongfully) interpreted the issue differently. This is *not* to say that *any* of their comments were any less valid, but rather, more importantly, we do *not* have impartial people in the organisation of the poll/debate, and we don't have impartial people in the choosing of working committee which would neglect certain philosophical interpretations of the issue. ... we have people saying that this is about truth not verifiability, others saying it's about verifiability not truth, and as another example you have people saying that NOR should remain a separate policy while others saying it shouldn't - amongst numerous other philosophical differences. More over, by choosing the "strongest voices" you strongly run the risk of leaving out valid "weaker voices" that have come up with valid points.
I'll say it again, we need to involve more impartial people in the working committee. Rfwoolf 10:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you need to hear out a good point regardless of who it comes from. The type of moderator you need is one that is totally impartial, and holds their own views at bay in making judgments even if their "expertise" might lead them to some sort of bias because they percieve a flaw in someone's argument, and then starting giving more weight to the camp that doesn't have the flaw, thus neglecting potential flaws in that argument. I personally do not like "camps" or "parties" either, as that is not unity, that is disunity and divisiveness. For instance this splits it into a "two party" system, which may not capture all of the views. There are many views on what ATT means, it's scope, how it should deal with the problem, not just ATT and no ATT. Cutting it up into "parties" is like taking a colorful picture and trying to paint it using only black and white, no shades at all, just pure black and pure white. You lose a lot and create an atmosphere for battle with one side "winning" over the other even if there are flaws. For example, the "pro-ATT party" may make some good points, and the "anti-ATT" party may make some too. There might be a way to keep ATT, or even to restructure V/NOR, in such a way as to address these positions as much as possible, taking all views into account instead of a black/white win/lose thing. The working group needs to be composed of as fair a mix of people representing different views as possible, and we have to consider all the shades of how much ATT can be accepted/rejected/changed. (Like you could keep some stuff from ATT, for example, and use it in V/NOR, or make ATT more like V/NOR than it already is, etc. Lots of gradient there.) The group should also discuss to a consensus and not a vote. I've also noticed that there are more "opponents" listed than "proponents". I read though that a majority of the community supports the merger idea, so if we want to proportionately represent it there should be more "proponents" included and less "opponents". I smell a whiff of anti-ATT bias here. Am I right? mike4ty4 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
No response? mike4ty4 19:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments10 people in discussion

A section to have proposed names. (No self-nominations, please. Let others nominate you):

Neutral/qualified/compromise/other

Opponents

Proponents

Uninvolved

Declined

  • Blueboar - (Nomination declined... thanks for the expression of support - but I expect my work situation to heat up over the next few weeks... I shall follow the debates and discussions with interest. Good luck Blueboar 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
  • Merzul - I also decline, first of all I'm on a Wikibreak as you can all see :) Second, I'm very new to Wikipedia, but most importantly, my view is very well expressed by the proponents already listed, and I have also strong confidence in the opponents: TheBainer has made valid points on the role of original research, I think SandyGeorgia has made very important points about "verifiable attribution", although I didn't quite understand them at first. I have strong confidence in the other people nominated as well. In short, I believe in representative democracy, and I believe in this committee. Good luck! --Merzul 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To keep the team to 9 people, 3 proponents, 3 opponents and 3 other, I would be happy to decline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other suggestions

The "truth" issue will not be part of the working committee, I would say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
I would hope it would. It was a major issue (and I think it's more easily resolved than most people seem to believe). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The group is formed to discuss a compromise related to ATT, V, NOR and RS. Not to change, or propose changes to the principles upon which our policies stand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it important to recognize the concern of many that, though "the intention" was not to change existing policy, there may in fact be a change of policy? I'm of the belief that you can't change the wording of a policy without changing policy. I don't think it serves the process for our committee to forge ahead while stubbornly clinging to the idea that the proposed policy was not a change, and that anyone who disagrees simply fails to understand. Such an approach is unlikely to result in an acceptable compromise. zadignose 21:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"Truth" is not an issue here. Verfiability is the criteria. FeloniousMonk 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Mikkalai (talk · contribs) (controversial guy, started off opposing ATT's version of a merger, but his summary style proposal is now similar to WAS's position.)
    I second that, if it will help prevent a forking into two working parties. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    There is nothing wrong with having two working parties. We have (for the purpose of this job) infinite resources. It is also amusing to see me described as "controversial" because I modified my opinion, rather than "reasonable". `'mikka 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Not "because"... I should have said "controversial guy, period." You are also reasonable, very intelligent, and totally awesome, but none of this is contradictory with being controversial. :) --Merzul 21:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Szyslak (talk · contribs) (neutral, good insights into RS issues)
  • JzG (talk · contribs) (well-respected, and completely uninvolved.)
  • Mackensen (talk · contribs) (if the RfB fails; very well respected, and uninvolved.)
  • jossi (talk · contribs) - accept, but willing to withdraw if number of participants needs to be kept small

Lack of impartial members - include Arbitration Committee?

Your approach to resolution appears to lack enough impartial participants in my honest opinion. I'd say the very fact that your working party "should include the best voices among the yes and no vote" is already an issueproblematic. And who is to mediate? Might I suggest at the 11th hour that you just scrap this approach and use members of the arbitration committee, or consider adding them to the working committee? Rfwoolf 09:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I nominate SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) and zadignose (talk · contribs) for the opponent side. I'll decide at a later time, after more is known about what the working group is going to do and when and how, whether to accept my nomination. --Coppertwig 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous Eight?

Latest comment: 17 years ago44 comments12 people in discussion

Is anyone not happy with these eight? I think this is an very good and diverse selection. Is any view not represented? Could it be that we manage this without a POLL? --Merzul 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No more polls. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
no more polls, please. Let us keep these eight as the proposed team for a couple of days, and address any objections that may be raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • User:WAS 4.250 was supporter #27, and so should probably not be a neutral (etc.) representative. Bucketsofg 21:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought WAS was neutral. I'll check again. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, he was number 62 in neutral, but now that I look more closely, he was also number 64 there, so they were clearly only comments. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, even if I think WAS 4.250 is an extremely neutral editor, his vote was not qualified in any way, it was an excellent vote in my opinion... :) --Merzul 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • We could move WAS over to the list of suggested supporter representatives. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I didn't see that, WAS 4250 did change his opinion... transclusion? Having all policies? That is indeed a compromise... --Merzul 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I have moved him back to the first section. Hopefully there will not be objections ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
His transclusion idea was quite interesting. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Consider this an objection then, since someone just removed the actually neutral nomination I added. Certain people don't seem able to stop trying to stack votes and control the debate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, the group here seems to be moving towards a nice compromise, please don't disrupt it as you did the previous processes. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You use that word a lot but don't seem to actually understand its meaning here very clearly. I think a good example of disruptive editing would be moving people from the support segment to the neutral segment, asking if people object, removing their nomination from play, and then attacking them for objecting. <ahem> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, as I said before, reasonable editors are working towards a reasonable compromise here. I have no idea how it will turn out, but I do know that you weren't able to interact on this in a constructive or consensus building way before, and you're doing the same kinds of things that made your actions so disruptive in the past, so it would be best if you devoted your time and energy elsewhere. I'm strongly recommending that you do so, and that others ignore you, if they want to have any possibility of achieving success in their endeavors. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny thing is, only three people say this to me: you, SV and Jossi (and with at least two of you, I've noticed a general pattern of labelling people one does not agree with, and who won't just shut up in awe of your grandiose adminship, as "disruptive", "trouble-making" and other dismissive epithets.) I've been thanked by others for my vigilance here. Repeatedly accusing me of disruptive editing like a broken record doesn't make it true. The only other people who've ever accused me of WP:DE my entire time on Wikipedia were (imagine that) also heavily involved in pushing their particular side of a policy/guideline debate without regard for balance, process or consensus. Hmm... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to take my own advice here. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Convenient (and frankly getting-to-be-typical) dodge. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concerns and have heard them all along, SMc, but that kind of comment doesn't advance the issue, and may cause others to just ignore you. If we have to trudge through this whole darn thing anew, let's remember the time it takes to read every new comment, and consider whether anything we add advances resolution of the dilemma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
We've agreed on nine, and we have nine at the moment. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Who is "we"? I see that Jossi thinks nine is a good idea, and I think one other person did, while others want 8, others want 6, and most of all people want a balanced number from all three "blocs". Moving people from the Support stack to the Neutral stack isn't helping achieve any balance. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still concerned about the lack of uninvolved editors. Did we learn nothing from recent situations? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo asked for a bipartisan working group, so that's what we're setting up. People aren't going to be arguing for one side or another, Jeff, but developing a compromise position, so we're moving forward rather than trying to win an argument. Jimbo may have some ideas for uninvolved people, and hopefully Jimbo will be part of it too. These names are just a suggestion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, Jeff, what do you mean by "uninvolved" exactly? People who didn't comment at all? Because not everyone on the list was deeply involved by any means. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I mean that people who were not involved in the formation or unformation of the merge be the people to take a look at the arguments and come up with a conclusion. With all due respect, you shouldn't be a person on this ad hoc because you were not only instrumental in its creation, but the lead person in the implementation. Likewise, people who came up with various conclusions, like Askari Mark, probably shouldn't be involved with this stage either, because they're already sitting on an opinion. Are we really saying we can't find a half dozen trusted members of the community who didn't give input in the discussion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo decided that a bipartisan party would be a good idea, and specifically asked that we look for the best people among the No votes. I'm not sure I see the point of picking people not involved at all, because they might not be familiar with the issues. But if Jimbo wants ininvolved people too, he'll be able to pick in addition to the names we suggest. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if that's his request, then that's his request - I think it's shortsighted, but it was his poll to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Every experienced editor is concerned with verfiability. It is clear that editors not involved with this discussion have different ideas of what this is or can be. I would suggest Mackensen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Mackensen is a good idea. Jeff, thanks for suggesting JzG. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The honorable User:SMcCandlish is correct in the observation of the flow of coordinated actions to stack votes and control the debate. And certainly any "uninvolved editors" who seem to be immune to stacking and control are ignored by those who select the working party. All you have to do to see the pattern clearly is simply to make a chart of who did what say 1) four months before now, 2) immediately pre-poll, 3) during the poll, and 4) now. Throughout the history of civilization, there have been several successful techniques for limiting the destructive force of stacking the votes and controlling the debate. One historically successful technique to minimize the destructive decision-making from stacking the votes and controlling the debate is to select the eleven electors at random from the total pool of thousands of willing and experienced editors, and then those eleven electors then vote to choose the working committee. --Rednblu 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the other shoe drops. I strongly recommend that editors here also ignore any of the comments made by this editor as well. Wikipedia is not a social experiment, as much as certain editors would like to think it is, or use it for that purpose. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm quickly getting tired of being told whose opinions and comments to ignore. It makes me want to listen more attentively to anyone you have an interest in silencing. zadignose 21:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Rednblu, I have listened to you and tried to understand your position, I would be willing to do so here as well, but only if you stop trying to be clever, and instead tell us what should be done... Do you have issues with people's behaviour, then perhaps that should be taken up with them, or on some other forum, let's try to suppress the ego issues and think about the future of Wikipedia (on this page at least). Thanks. --Merzul 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
My position is simply that I would like to see the Wikipedia decision-making process exhibit the behavior of a healthy decision-making process. In contrast, the decision-making process that led to WP:ATT was severely flawed by not making an actual measure of consensus--which severe flaw was evidenced by the actual comments in the Poll. What is missing at the current time is some means of selecting from the thousands of willing and experienced editors their input to the selection of this working party. I am sure we could among us think of an effective means to get sufficient input from the wide Wikipedia community in selecting this working party. That is my position. --Rednblu 00:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Rednblu, I don't think you have anything to worry about, since the working committee wouldn't actually have any authority whatsoever to impose a binding solution. The theory is that if people on opposite ends of the spectrum, and a few people in the middle or off of the line, actually manage to agree on something, chances are that others will too. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Shall we ask the proposed editors to state their acceptance? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good if those who accept would just add "I accept" or something like that after their name. --Merzul 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is that some users that have been proposed, do not know that... Would be courteous to leave a note in their talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I already did that for the person I nominated, but many nominees have already commented here, so they are probably watching this page, but we should notify people like Askari Mark, who hasn't commented here yet. I think whoever nominated should notify. --Merzul 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll let WAS know. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

jossi, if you don't mind, I would prefer it if you were on the working party instead of Marskell. I find some of Marskell's arguments difficult to follow, and I believe you articulate things better. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

<end conf> Marskell is as eloquent as any one of us, and will do a great job, I am sure. As for polarizing comments that have been made above, I would strongly advise 'not to reply to them. Time to move on from "partisanship". The team will work towards a ccompromise and I trust that they will do their best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested Slrubenstein. I can't remember whether he voted for or neutral (I think for), but he knows a lot about policy, is in two minds about the merger, and has put forward some very good suggestions. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
NOR taken too far. Try #76 in support 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is truly farcical. Oh well. At least that fact about it is clearly and publicly visible. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of working group

Latest comment: 17 years ago27 comments12 people in discussion
I'm agreeable to helping out. I'm not a wikipolicywonk and didn't participate in the prior effort, so I don't have any axes to grind ... and since I just safely drove home through a major tornado-filled storm, I suppose I can expect to similarly survive anything thrown at me here. :)
I am rather curious as to how this team is supposed to work — and just what product is expected of it. A revised draft of ATT? A way to approach revising it? "Just" identifying and resolving key problem areas? Or maybe a "steering committee" of sorts? There are a lot of thorny issues and it's unclear to me from the foregoing discussion just what we're to accomplish.
I don't know if the candidate selection is over, but I have recommended Coppertwig because he has offered some of the best insight into the "truth" issue among the votes I've reviewed. Someone for whom that issue was key should be included, since that was one of the fundamental issues I discerned in generating my synopsis of the issues raised in the poll. (BTW, yes, I am trying to finish a collation for the "third party". Done.) Another noteworthy commentator (from the third party) was Szyslak. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Mark, we won't be rewriting policy or changing anything. We'll be looking to develop a compromise position between (1) keeping ATT and having V and NOR tagged as superseded, which was the position before the poll; and (2) ditching ATT and going back to the status quo ante. So we'll be deciding how many pages to keep things on etc. The names we're gathering today will be suggested to Jimbo. He may then make suggestions of his own. What we need are people who can debate constructively and cooperatively, and who have a good understanding of the policies, letter and spirit. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Although of course there are a lot more such people than just the few on that group. Many people, with enough work, can become that way, and many in the community are. So then how do you only choose 6-12, eh? mike4ty4 05:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The mandate is to work out a compromise solution based on the abundant input from editors in the poll and the community discussion. I would not preempt the work of the group with any specifics about the outcome, rather let them work their way through the issue and see what they can come up with. Concerning the "truth issue", that is not on the table. The committee is not assigned the task to reshape policy, and "Verifiability not truth" is policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, having looked over the "truth" criticisms, I perceive that there's no problem with the V policy but rather with how it was "captured" by ATT; i.e., it's more a wordsmithing problem than more anything else. That is (potentially) resolvable without "changing policy", but rather by expressing it better. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The first thing to do will be look at the comments in the poll and try to develop themes. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, Rednblue, Badlydrawnjeff and anyone else concerned about the composition of the working group; put forward some names. Askari Mark, I don't have any preconceived notion of what the group is supposed to do, other than to try to devise the best attainable compromise proposal considering the community division on this issue. I resist any other attempts to define the task; a good working group will be key to success, but a group that will end up at each other's throats won't get anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why bother? So I can get tag-team revert warred over it again by the usual suspects? No thanks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate very much, thank you, the invitation to make nominations for this working group. But the flaw here is not the people; the flaw here is stacking the votes and controlling the debate--not the people on the working group. If the current cast on the working group had been selected by a consensus process from the wide Wikipedia community, then 1) the working group would react more productively in response to comments and 2) the surrounding Wikipedia community would be able to converse with the working group more productively. Does that make sense? --Rednblu 07:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What's important is to find people who are able and willing to work constructively, with no repetition of the situation in the run-up to the poll. We need a compromise that genuinely reflects the bulk of the concerns people expressed during the poll; otherwise there was no point in having it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm not going to roll over on the things that matter to me, even as I work for compromise, but I'm wondering ... are some of the people worried about the makeup of the group expressing a concern that the "Pro" group contains too many of the original architects and strongest proponents of ATT? I put forward Marskell because I believe he listens, reflects, and then comes up with a new direction—a needed skill when seeking compromise. But maybe others will be more comfortable with a less-involved-from-the beginning "Pro" group? Just a question ... not really understanding where the discomfort level is coming from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Mainly because I think this issue desperately needs some fresh eyes. It's not an issue of trust in this case as much as I think it's best for the project and for this issue to have disinterested people looking at the arguments and coming to a compromise and conclusion. If it's filled with people who created the thing and felt strongly about its implementation, it merely leaves the door open for people to cry foul. And while I appreciate the gesture of nominating me, whoever you were, it doesn't mean I am or should one of those people - the point is to have the best transparency possible under the circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
So, can you go through the "pro" votes and put forward the name of a person who appeared to understand the issues, would make a good group member, but wasn't involved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The idea is to find people who had no opinion on the merger at all. We have more than enough active users where we could find a dozen or so who didn't express an opinion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
How would someone who has no opinion and didn't bother to respond to a widely-advertised poll about the core policies of Wikipedia add something of value to the compromise needed on such a difficult issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
We're working under the presumption that they'd be willing to be drafted into this, of course. The value is a fresh look at a situation with a lot of input and heated debate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
What could a fresh set of eyes bring to the discussion (other than ignorance)? Is there any part of this horse that hasn't already been beaten to death? Is there something that's been missed; a stone that wasn't turned in all the discussions and on the poll? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a communication issue, much of the opposition was based on sound IM and collaborative principles but much was based on fear of, or resistance to, change or a lack of understanding of what the requirement was. A fresh pair of eyes can point out where the requirement could be refined, where issues of communicaiton exist and where the objections are valid and need addressing.
I have to confess I'm concerned that two of the proposed members were actively trying to find ways to discount objections during the polling process, rather than note them and find ways to address those objections whether substantive or interpretative.
Of course a clear statement of requirement would be a useful starting point, some of the fallout from the poll debacle actually makes the confusion problem worse and contributes to rules creep.
ALR 09:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And then what happens?

SlimVirgin, above, wrote:

[The working group] ... won't be rewriting policy or changing anything. We'll be looking to develop a compromise position between (1) keeping ATT and having V and NOR tagged as superseded, which was the position before the poll; and (2) ditching ATT and going back to the status quo ante. So we'll be deciding how many pages to keep things on etc. The names we're gathering today will be suggested to Jimbo. He may then make suggestions of his own....

What comes after that? Will your compromise plan be submitted to a vote/poll, and then implemented? Or will it be implemented (with several months of hard work) and then submitted to a vote/poll? Or will it simply be implemented without any further input from the community as a whole? — Lawrence King (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your first suggestion - submit it to a poll and then implement it, if the community likes it - seems best to me. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the working group will look at the comments made during the poll, work out what the main community views are, and come up with a compromise proposal which Jimbo will then look at. I can't see us having another poll, so I'm assuming Jimbo will make the final decision, but that's yet to be discussed. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
With respect, I can't see how this would be the best way of resolving the present controversy. I would think the working group proposal would have to enjoy widespread support from the community before becoming policy. CJCurrie 04:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it depends on how much of an influence political factors had on the last poll.
I would hope that all of those who voted Support did so based on the merits of the ATT project. But is it possible that some of the voted this way because they feel that Wikipedia policies are best handled by a relatively small group of senior editors?
And I would hope that all of those who voted Oppose did so based on the demerits of the ATT project. But is it possible that some of the voted this way because they learned that Jimbo had criticized the proposal?
If the ATT project leaders and Jimbo unite in a common plan, then presumably those who voted for it because of those editors and those who voted against it because of Jimbo will automatically unify behind the new proposal. So it is actually possible for all of these "political" voters to be made happy. But those who had specific reasons for opposing or supporting the plan will (presumably) support the compromise plan only insofar as it satisfies their preferences, and thus these people cannot all be made happy at the same time.
However, maybe I am missing the whole point here. SlimVirgin stated that "I'm assuming Jimbo will make the final decision, but that's yet to be discussed". Can I infer from this that ultimate authority over Wikipedia policies has always resided in Mr. Wales, and any "polls" or "votes" from anyone else, even Administrators, have been permitted as a courtesy on his part? — Lawrence King (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Lawrence, you shouldn't assume that. :-) Please don't assume anything. The fact is that we've not done this before, and so we don't know what's ahead. I very much doubt that anyone will want another poll, that's all I can say. But that's just my own opinion. The differences between most supports and most opposes are actually quite slight, so I can't see there will be much of a problem in producing a compromise, so long as everyone who gets involved fully understands and respects everyone else's position. That's why we need a team of people who are able to work constructively with each other. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Very good. Sorry if I sounded too hostile! I do fear that this whole saga will test Wikipedia's political resilience. In many ways, Wikipedia is an anarchy, and I usually like that fact. But one problem with an anarchy is that one or two very violent people can completely derail the activity of a devoted group -- even a devoted majority. Perhaps what is needed here is a kind of aristocracy, but a transparent aristocracy, where the Special Committee does its work in public, hearing the voices of everyone but not being bound to respond to any of them? If that happened I personally would support the final product, whatever it was. — Lawrence King (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
What normally happens when we have a poll is that one admin closes it by reading the comments and deciding the consensus. They do this partly by looking at the numbers, and partly by judging the force of the arguments. Usually it's not tricky. Sometimes if the issue is contentious and the number participating was large, the decisions can be controversial. In this case, because the numbers involved were large (nearly 900 people took part), and the comments quite diverse and complex, it would be very difficult for one admin to close it. Therefore, we decided to form a small working party to produce a bipartisan solution; that is, something that will take both sides into account, and try to develop a compromise bearing in mind the various nuances of the main positions. But in essence, it's no different from the closing of any other poll, deletion debate, or request for adminship. It's just bigger. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be best for it to be accepted through community consensus, not necessarily just through Jimbo. mike4ty4 05:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous

Latest comment: 17 years ago36 comments11 people in discussion

Some time ago I suggested that in important projects there is usually a person called "moderator", coordinatior", whatever, whose job is keep track and organize the discussion, but this idea was casually dismissed because "this is a community process". Yeah, right. Now we going to have a "working party" (an euphemism for "commission" I guess), which, as experience shows, will go at lengths to defend their precious work. I say there shoud be no special commission with any special rights. You guys if you want to work together and work out, please go ahead and do it, and then present your outcome to the community. Other than that the commission absolutely has no authority and no right to later oppose any changes just because " we worked hard and this was our consensus." `'mikka 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully concur; this much seems obvious, and any successful working group will have to listen to all points of view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur as well, especially about the "listen" part. As said below, I'm unconvinced that the following oppositional committee proposal is a good idea. I think it's probably more productive to simply no longer allow three people to continue to control the process here. Oh, but nevermind, I forgot: I'm "disruptive" (--Jossi), a "trouble maker" (--SlimVirgin) and should be "ignored" (--Jayjg), so I guess my views, such as process is important in Wikipedia, and consensus actually has a definable meaning aren't worth anything. Silly me. I guess I'll go back to writing an encyclopedia while some people here continue to pay themselves out a whole lot of rope. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be more sensible if the Working Group did not include any of those who put so much effort into the original proposal that they may find it difficult to come to a sensible solution. 18:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that such attitudes in the community aren't good. Such "excuses" to ignore a good point are blatant ad hominem logical fallacies. mike4ty4 06:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Mikka - I have made a post above that suggests scrapping the working party because of a lack of impartiality, and instead invoking the arbitration committee and having them as a working party - or simply including some Arbcommittee members into the working party. I find it troubling that some people above have just 'nominated' people to be involved in a working committe - some of which did participate in the discussion and others that didn't - since when did we go to a round of voting? And some of those names could easily have been added by the people themselves, or their friends. In case everyone didn't notice some admins can be rather incestuous, and at the very least this current process is rather flawed, even for a wiki. Rfwoolf 10:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. The community is ultimately responsible for the final decision, not this working group. The purpose of the working group is, or at least should be, to try and come up with a compromise proposal that the community may have a better chance of agreeing on, not to override the process of community consensus. mike4ty4 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Working group #2

Hereby I am announcing a yet another independent commission to reshape WP:ATT according to Wikipedia_talk:Attribution#Proposed_course_of_action. Please put the names. Self-nominations are welcome.

  1. - `'mikka 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. - Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. -

And the voices should not necessarily be "the best". (like someone uttered "I find some of Marskell's arguments difficult to follow" - to decline a Marskell, implying that that Marskell's insights are worse just because he speaks less eloquently. This is the way we got Presidents and governors in America: the ones who can talk you into.


If you don't like me and don't want work withe me, please feel free to form group #3 , to counter this eletism of policymakers. Even if nothing good comes, it will a useful exercise in community work, as opposed to elite of "the best". `'mikka 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What, what, what? Jimbo asked for a bipartisan group to work on a compromise. What is wrong about that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
May you consider that it is your proposal that may be ridiculous? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please go away, if you have nothing useful to say. Let me again to express my disgust with your attempts to shut alternative approaches. `'mikka 23:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
May be you need to go away and cool off... You are making many assumptions that are not useful; to say the least: (a) that this working party will impose anything (they will not); (b) that these people are an elite of policymakers (which they are not), and other nonsense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually have to side with Jossi on this. Duelling committees will get us nowhere. There needs to be one, with fair representation of the major sides of the debate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Who says they have to be dueling? Who says that duelling is bad? Why decides that the representation will be "fair"? Do you know how many "major sides" are there? What to do with monor sides? Are they morons not worth mentioning or representing? `'mikka 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. This has promise. How would you get wide Wikipedia community input to the selection of this competitive working committee? Would wide Wikipedia community input be beneficial? Would it be necessary? How important is the appearance of wide Wikipedia community involvement in developing consensus? Any ideas? --Rednblu 00:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why is so difficult for some people identify simplicity and clarity, rather than seeing dark phantoms in every corner? It is becoming quite tedious to deal with all that BS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why, when someone questions how some people decide to do something, that they're "seeing dark phantoms" and are "ridiculous?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems with anyone questioning others. But when someone diminishes proposals on the basis of fears that are unfounded, I take exception. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai! Even if I think you are truly awesome and terribly funny, please let's all be friends, arrrghhh, what is this? I wouldn't actually mind you or what's his name Mukaderrat being involved... iff we could all try to not ridicule each other... is that possible? --Merzul 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to sign up into WG-2. Why is it so difficult to take a break and read or write a wikipedia article Alternative or Plan B or Multiple choice? Don't you think it is ridiculous that only select people have rights to interpret words of Jimbo? I am setting a "work group", just like Jimbo said. Only I don't pretend a kind of "fair choice" by excluding self-nominations (which is just buddy-buddy way: I nominate you, you nominate me) If no one wants to set up an alternativr WG, fine with me. `'mikka 00:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You see... you keep assuming bad faith. You keep making more unfounded assumptions about the motives of your fellow editors. I must say, I don't like it a bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I grew up in Soviet Union and know very well how certain things work. I may be but an idle wistleblower, but I see some dangerous signs all over the place. But for Jimbo intervention, you all were ready to push your "severel months' work" down our throats, say no? Shall we just as well rely on wise Jimbo? And don't you try to read my mind. I am sure your motives are for wikpedia benefit. I am questioning not motives, but your right to be right and me wrong. `'mikka 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I grew up in Morocco, and lived in Spain, Israel, Argentina, Switzerland, England and the US, but that does not mean that I can cast aspersions on the motives of others or "know know very well how certain things work", Mikka. Please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you don't see the difference between Soviet Union and your list, then no surprize you don't understand my worries. `'mikka 00:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you've never lived in Argentina, Mikkalai :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
In Soviet Russia, working group picks you!! Anon/–Outriggr § 04:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Now I get it. In Soviet Russia, consensus makes YOU! Ах да! В советской России консенсус согласился за вами! --Rednblu 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You probably have no idea to what degree this is not a joke. `'mikka 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mikka, it is an unfair to say that this is the same people, if you look into the background about some of the people suggested you will see that this is not the ATT-lovers reunion party. We have here SandyGeorgia, something of an engine in the QA processes, who will make sure whatever is done doesn't undermine verifiability, also one of the most well-argued proponents of keeping NOR a separate policy is (hopefully) involved. I would actually like you to be involved in this, Mikkalai, but I am also a bit afraid. The thing is, while I would love to grab a beer with you, I think you are perhaps too dramatic in your approach and I feel you exaggerate some problems that aren't there. Leaving that aside, your criticism on topic and your argument about ATT being backwards etc, were all highly valuable, and would have probably been more appreciated, if you presentation style wasn't so sensationalist or I don't know the word, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. --Merzul 01:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Far less dramatic than Jossi or SlimVirgin; and somewhat more likely to listen to other people. I repeat that I agree with what WP;ATT says on truth; but this attitude is not promising. On the same token, Coppertwig may not be the best interlocutor here. Unless this committee is willing to listen to every point of vies, at a minimum, what's the point? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That "attitude", PManderson, is not such. Policy is policy and this group has no mandate to change one bit of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
And this WG-2 (if it will be formed) will not ask you about any mandate. The community will judge the outcome of its work. There are quite a few quite questionable "bits" starting from the very intro. Not to say I am quite puzzled to understand how a WG is going to make "a compromise version" without possibilities "to change one bit of it". I guess you will be the bit counter to decide which words are "bits of policy" and which are not. `'mikka 07:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the problem which got us here. WP:ATT is itself a compromise version between the two policies which it (intended to) merge, and which was intended to change policy at all. I think it was, in fact, fairly successful at that, but it was done by a narrow group which did not encourage or seek input from outside, and which has therefore has been misunderstood.
This same group then campaigned, successfully, against any poll question asking "if the merger is not approved [as it then stood], then what do we do?". Most versions of this had a list of alternatives.
Making another compromise version which "does not change policy" seems to be repeating the past mistakes without learning from them. Whether this can reasonably be done by the same people who did not ask the community what to do now is another question.
As for closing the poll, that seems to me simple. There is no consensus to merge. Whether there can be consensus on anything else can be best determined not by poring over the !votes like the Sibyl's leaves, but by talking to the editors who cast them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
In the case you didn't notice, my suggestion was not to merge, but (1) to arrange these tightly related issues in wikipedia:Summary style format, and (2) to use the results of merge efforts as the basis of the cleanup of the existing policies. Both tasks are to be evaluated independently. `'mikka 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and if (2) is being done, there may be more consensus for (1). Remember, I agree with you. I was only discussing the close of this poll, which is in any case not a permanently binding decision. WP:Consensus can change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

Are we going for nine or 11? I had understood nine. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Both could work, SlimVirgin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly no more than a baker's dozen, but as long as it's a constructive, mature and copacetic group, a precise quantity for a subjective judgment is perhaps unwise. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
A genuine balance matters more than the number. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd disagree with that. Facilitation of face to face groups gets quite challenging beyond nine or ten members, for various reasons. Facilitating in the online environment is even more difficult so making any progress with more than that is well night impossible in the short term. This is exacerbated when there is no clear facilitator anyway.ALR 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
BTDT. I've never argued for more than 9 members, just for genuine (i.e., no recategorizing for ideological convenience) balance (which I maintain is more important; if you have "committee" or whatever of 35, it very rapidly resolves to an active committee of 2-12 anyway, simply by sheer force of reticence). As for faciliator lack, if you mean to imply that the person who really generated all of this heat should take more of an interest in cooling it down, I couldn't agree more. I among many feel a bit toyed with, and I'm sure that I have sympathizers with that view on all sides of the tesseractal fence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
And the bigger the group gets, the harder it is to determine what their consensus is. Smaller groups can come to a consensus (not a vote) more easily, but larger groups can represent more views. A good compromise between those needs to be struck. mike4ty4 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest that a lead should be nominated to actively facilitate the process, preferably from the uninvolved side of this triad. Mackensen springs to mind as most appropriate.ALR 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It is crucial that each and every one of the nominations to this working party have the appearance of deriving from the actions of the thousands of Wikipedia editors willing and eager to have input to who is to serve on this working party. The current slate for this working party is praiseworthy. But this selection process is not acceptable. Where has the wide Wikipedia community had input to who is nominated? How about an announcement on the WatchList page inviting input from the thousands of Wikipedia editors wanting to have input to this nominating process? --Rednblu 10:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I go away for a week, and look what happens - action! I'll just twist Jimbo's arm, while expressing my views, when he's in town in two weeks. Hehe. Seriously, this sounds like a good move. It's not unlike a tiny bit like what I proposed a week or two ago, on the assumption that it would still ultimately be Jimbo's decision how to close the whole thing. Is that how it is supposed to work? (Goes and reads more.) Metamagician3000 11:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Shall I start?

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Shall I start a mockup of my compromise suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/proposed compromise? I could create a first draft, then Armed Blowfish, CP\M}, SandyGeorgia, Askari Mark, Thebainer, SlimVirgin, Crum375, Marskell and I could edit it while being helped by comments by anyone on this page. This would be a suite of pages that can include other interim mockups until we seven to nine people agree we have something worth going live with. I hope we can come up with something that so clearly represents everyone's wishes that we can simply make it live and let normal wiki style editing and discussing modify it from there. WAS 4.250 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, so long as we bear in mind that we've not heard from Jimbo yet, but there's no harm in laying out some ideas. I was very interested in how your transclusion idea would work. It sounded like a technical solution that might keep everyone happy. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, it doesn't sound good to me :-) There have been procedural and methodological problems all along the way here, some possibly caused by folks being in too much of a hurry. Every time people start talking, someone puts up a list or a summary or a poll or a categorization of issues, and people stop talking and start dividing and fighting. I don't think that's the best way to start; there's so much division that anything anyone puts up will just generate more heat. The entire process has suffered from too many precipitous moves. We don't have to put up polls within hours of their proposal, we don't have to decide on working groups less than 24 hours after they're proposed, and we don't have to propose a compromise before there's even been a dialogue among the (as yet undecided) group members. There isn't even consensus on the working group; it's too soon to put up proposals. Folks should slow down here and recognize some of the past methods that got this proposal into trouble. The community wants to feel that it is heard on this important issue, and doesn't want to feel that something is ramrodded through or shoved down their throats. It's too soon to propose a compromise; let people get comfortable with who the group is, how it's supposed to work, and what Jimbo's involvement or position in the matter will be. My mantra is "It's a new ballgame"; it's not the eighth inning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
PS, as an example of this problem, less than 24 hours ago, discussion about a working group was initiated. I don't know who did it, but lickity-split, wham, we suddenly had a "list" of pro/con/neutral, dividing and categorizing the issue, when discussion about the proposed members had barely started. I am most definitely a list person, and I have to resist the temptation to organize and listify anything I encounter, but in a divisive environment, all of these lists and categorizations don't help. We need to slow down and give people a chance to be heard before we list, segment, categorize, set in stone, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two poblems here: first, a too pompous start, second "how can we do it without hearing from Jimbo?" What's the fuss? Why don't they start workig as a group of concerned wikizens; it is only natural that some people like to work alone, while others work in a team? Just do it, without pretending or waiting for having some higher endorsement? `'mikka 16:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but WAS, I would still like to hear more about your idea, so feel free to tell me more, or e-mail me if you prefer. I was trying to visualize it as something like RfA, with a main page and transcluded subpages, but I was getting stuck on the problem of having separate edit histories, and all the talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it could be something like the ArbComm's "Proposed findings of fact" to begin, except non-binding. Marskell 14:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Terms and conditions

Latest comment: 17 years ago30 comments11 people in discussion

[The working group] ... won't be rewriting policy or changing anything. We'll be looking to develop a compromise position between (1) keeping ATT and having V and NOR tagged as superseded, which was the position before the poll; and (2) ditching ATT and going back to the status quo ante. If this is all that is being done, then the whole process is pointless. There was no consensus to implement the current ATT so unless the current ATT is redesigned there is no reason to think that the opinions of most editors will change in which case we keep the status quo. SV please consider that you may have invested too much time in the ATT project, to be (seen as) able to participate constructively in this working group.

It seems to me that like the original "go live" of the ATT project this "community discussion" is rushing ahead with too little discussion and too little separation of interests. In a most responsible organisations, there is a separation of functions and people in such situations. The people directly involved in the original (failed) project, are not involved in setting the terms and conditions under which a board of enquiry/committee/commission into the original project will work, and the members of that commission are people who were not involved in either the original project or in setting the terms under which they do their work. However depending on the terms and conditions of the commission, they would be free to call on the expert opinions of the participants in the original project in how to move forward. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Most organisations also have some strategy and effective leadership.......
But the point is valid, what's needed here is some clear direction from Jimbo. He triggered this and it's reached a stage where he needs to offer some guidance about where it should go. and getting that second hand from a heavily involved party probably won't be acceptable to most people.
ALR 10:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't need "some direction" from Jimbo. I like his attitude to interfere only when shit is about to hit the fan (yes, I am not aware about his personal chats, but at least their infuence is not slamming into your face). If we cannot go ahead here by orselves, it means the whole system sucks. `'mikka 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that leadership is an issue here, quite the contrary, I think this review needs to have more separation among the stake holders not more concentration. I think that we need to agree on the framework of the review process and the terms that review process will take. I think I was unfair in singling out SV, (I only did this because she set up this discussion, and has been active in it) and there are others who should consider if they should participate in all phases of ATT development and review. Before we nominate people to the "working group" (commission), I think we should agree on the terms of reference for the commission, and the criteria for selection members to the commission, rather than jumbling the processes together. The danger is that the add hock and jumbled form the processes are taking on this page at the moment will cause some stake holders to come away from the processes disillusioned and not feeling that their view have been fairly taken into consideration during the review process. As we are all participating because we like the project and have its best interests at heart that would be a shame.--Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just caught up with all of the posts made overnight while I slept, so most of this is not directed at any one person, rather comments made by many people. I have a problem with any declarative statements about what the working group is to do and any preconceived notions about where any of the proposal stands. I wish the declarative statements would stop; it is my hunch that they are part of what polarized the discussion from the beginning. The perceived "group of three" does not speak for all of Wiki. Let consensus develop. Slow down. Jossi, please stop stating unequivocably what is and what isn't; it pisses people off. SV, please stop saying what we will or won't be doing; let it unfold naturally. We're all intelligent. Give people a chance to feel heard and counted. We don't need to wikilawyer this thing to death (agreeing on frameworks, terms of reference, and such), but we do need to let consensus develop before acting precipitously and we need to slow down the declarative statements. On Wiki, nothing is set in stone until it has consensus. Can we start by recognizing the fundamental nature of Wiki, and not trying to fast forward through this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Where have I said what we will or won't be doing? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure who is quoted at the top of this section; it doesn't say, but I thought it was you. Perhaps it was Jossi; I was trying to catch up on all of last night's posts at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you mean this quote, it was me: "[The working group] ... won't be rewriting policy or changing anything. We'll be looking to develop a compromise position between (1) keeping ATT and having V and NOR tagged as superseded, which was the position before the poll; and (2) ditching ATT and going back to the status quo ante."
I meant this as a very general statement, namely the group will be tasked with coming up with something between the position we had on March 21 before the poll was suggested, and the position we had before ATT was initiated. That covers a whole host of possibilities. What is the problem with it? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than "to develop a compromise position," perhaps "suggest compromise positions." Marskell 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I mean that we really don't know which direction this will go until we dialogue, and declarative statements about what we will or won't do, while possibly correct, may alienate and discourage people. There's a sense here that people feel that broad discussion has been stifled, dissenters labeled—that there's a problem in the tone of the discussion. I'd rather not think of the group as "tasked" with anything other than to try to help solve a problem that has the community divided. Who knows what we'll come up with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for awhile. The idea that discussion has been stifled is absurd. One of the people making that claim managed to post, as stifled as he was, one thousand times about ATT in the two weeks leading up to the poll. There was so much discussion that we couldn't even come up with a decent poll question. A friend wrote to me that some of the people on these pages will pick every possible fight with themselves, take every possible position contrary to their own, and then every possible position contrary to those ... and in the end, blame it all on everyone else. I've never experienced anything like it. What the critics need to try to remember is that people put months of their lives into developing ATT, and those months were based on years of experience developing the core content policies. ATT was a genuine, good-faith attempt to make policy easier to read and understand. There was no nefarious plan, no ulterior motive, no undermining of policy, no changes. None of the people who worked on it benefited in any way from doing so. It was all for the good (as we saw it) of Wikipedia. By all means, disagree with it, but please have some respect for the amount of work that went into it, and for the 420 people who supported it despite its opposition from Jimbo, and please assume good faith of the people who did that work.
In the meantime, I'm left trying to juggle the concerns of the ATT supporters, the opposers, Jimbo, the people who want to tighten policy, the people who want to weaken policy, the people who have new ideas entirely, and the people who are here to argue for the sake of it. Just about everything I've posted in the last 24 hours has been to explain that I don't know what the committee will or won't do, because it hasn't been decided yet. When even that gets criticized, it's clearly time for me to give up juggling for a while. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand; I didn't mean to sound critical, and I do recognize the months of well-intentioned hard work. But "perception is everything". The ideas and perceptions could be absurd, some people probably have been disruptive, it has been a good-faith effort, I agree there was no nefarious plan, but I'm saying, let's not give anyone who is disgruntled further reason to feel that way. If we do that, the people who are here merely to "argue for the sake of it" will quickly "out themselves"; don't give them ammunition. And yes, sometimes stopping the juggling and letting "shit happen" can lead to a breakthrough in the impasse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Slim did talk about a working group with Jimbo, Sandy, so we at least have something of a mandate here. Surely it's not wrong to workshop the form a group might take. If we agree from the beginning that any ideas put forth will only be suggestive, I don't see the problem with moving forward. Marskell 16:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're right ... and that's why I nommed you for the working group. SV does have a basis for what we may view as "declarative" statements, as she's in contact with Jimbo on this. So, I apologize for having rocked the boat already and for probably giving the wrong impression about SV's efforts and statements. But, I still say any working group should take great care to insure that consensus forms (that is, not move too quickly), and to not go into this with any preconceived ideas about anything, including the Jimbo factor. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Should working group discussions be confidential?

As it seems like the working group might get started soon, I'd like to request that the communications be private. Although this is obviously not mediation, I believe many of the advantages of confidentiality in mediation apply here. You can read WP:M#Why_should_mediation_be_confidential.3F. In short, I believe it will be easier for the working group to come to an agreement on a compromise privately.

However, as community input is most important, I suggest the following solution. There could be a public page on Wikipedia which summarises options the working group is considering. To avoid any revert-warring on Wikipedia, editing of this public page could be limitted to one person, perhaps Jeff. The community could then provide input on the talk page, which would be read by the working group.

As for a medium for private communication, I believe that considering the large number of participants, it would be easier to do this on a private wiki, rather than by email.

What do you think?

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering the rather raw, open wounds this whole affair has left on people all around, I think that a "confidential" approach would prove counterproductive — at best. There's already enough people sore about "agenda-pushing" and ignoring of contrary opinions that anything conducted behind closed doors would be doomed to great suspicion and antipathy from the start. Besides, I don't think there's anything that needs to be done "under covers" and an open, constructive process might, in fact, be educational to the membership at large on how to work through disputative material. However, I can see that there may be a need to limit who can edit the "work in progress". Maybe there should be a "project page" which only one or a few can edit, a "WIP" page that only the working group can edit, and a regular "talk page" where the membership at large can comment. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Askari Mark. It will be more time-consuming to work openly, but the end result should inspire more trust and confidence. Someone suggested pages similar to those used at ArbCom; either Askari Mark's suggestion or some sort of adaptation like ArbCom pages might work. But, once the working group is decided, it also needs a talk page where only they can talk, even though it's a public page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom-like pages might work, even though non-binding negotiation probably has more in common with mediation, albeit without the mediator, than arbitration. We could discuss privately, and, after arriving at a compromise, endorse or oppose it with brief explanations. Although, once the compromise is public, the whole community may as well endorse or oppose it. I guess there could e separate sections for the working group and the rest of the community to endorse/oppose/other in, although I don't really see the point, as the working group are regular community members who are simply the voices of the various opinions in this discussion. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Given what a mess (not anyone's fault) this has been, I doubt we will be an example of how to work through disputative material. I've already witnessed at least four editors publicly state they were taking a break from this whole dispute due to the stress involved. Many others have probably taken breaks without saying a word. A confidential negotiation would hopefully reduce the stress involved, as well as making sure that good-faith attempts at reaching a compromise did not end up in 3RR reports.
However, I agree that it is vital that the community feel involved. I am not sure what to suggest besides a public summary page with a place for the community to comment. Perhaps adding a summary of recent ideas from the community comment page to the summary page would help ensure the community that their comments were read? In any case, as the community retains the final word anyway, is the working group even capable of doing that much harm?
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this, however if it is to be kept private, a record should be kept of the entire discussion (for example if it takes place on a special website/wiki/forum then the contents of it would be that record) and divulged to the public at the end of the discussion period so everything can be reviewed and any "suspicions" quenched since access to every argument traded in the discussion (at least through that forum) would be possible in full detail. mike4ty4 05:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The thing though is that although it may be good to keep the mediation-related communications private, the discussion itself should be public, at least insofar as viewing is concerned (so the community can see it in detail and therefore make detailed suggestions), and people should be able to submit their opinions to the discussers, perhaps on their talk pages. As for keeping people from editing the special page where the discussion takes place, one could full-protect it, grant the discussers temporary administrator status to be able to edit it, and have one or more "real" administrators standing by to watch it like a hawk to keep everything in line and the discussers from using their newfangled admin powers anywhere else on the Wiki for any other purposes than editing the page, and other real administrators from jumping into the discussion with their admin powers. (preferably one real administrator for each discusser.) Upon end of the discussion, the pages could be marked as historical and inactive, and the temporary admin powers of the discussers revoked (if they did not already have admin powers to start with). mike4ty4 05:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Oops, you aren't talking about mediation like I thought, sorry, my bad. mike4ty4 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is capable of doing a lot of harm, as its views will be highly authoritative. I don't mind that a lot of private sharing of analyses, wrangling, and dealing will go on via emails, carrier pigeon, meetups in Second Life, and other arcane methods. We should all assume this will happen and not impute bad faith when it does. But I think there should also be a public workshop page where the main thoughts are exposed to debate, with input from the preterite as well as the elect, and some record of how the main lines of thought are developing ... similar to ArbCom workshop pages. Metamagician3000 22:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer that the group keep all dealings public - transparency is the only way people are going to accept what occurs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom workshop-like pages would be like a public summary and a community comment location, except merged into one, wouldn't it? So if we did have a confidential negotiation, would we want a merged page for both public summary and community comments, or would we want separate pages? Given how much commentary the community might generate, I personally think it would be good to keep it separate, but if we feel there are advantages to keeping them together, that would be find with me. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I suspect you may be mistaken about the prospects for this group to act constructively, Armed Blowfish.:-) As long as we are willing to and committed to doing so, we can probably fare at least as well as the average editorial group that manages to work through an issue on an article talk page without recourse to WP:AN ... although we may need to take a break for tea from time to time.;-) (I do think, though, that anyone nominated to this group who feels stressed out by all that’s come before should recuse themselves from participating.)
I’m unfamiliar with the ArbCom process, but whatever works along the lines I described is fine by me. Having the “WIP” page editing limitations should head off the introduction of “outside” conflicts and minimize tangential meanderings; however, the way I see it, the community talk page could prove very helpful by allowing the full Wikiverse of editors to make useful, constructive suggestions when our few heads get stuck or run out of creative inspiration (or else to just vent without disrupting the process). That would help us ameliorate the limitations a small group works under. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope I am mistaken.  : ) But it remains that our record so far has not been good. Additionally, the average editorial group has a plethora of policies and guidelines to read for advice, and they can also seek help from a mediator. We have Wikipedia:Consensus (the policy, not the consensus), and it would not be appropriate for us to ask for help from a mediator. (Also, it is not uncommon for good editors to become stressed out. I know of at least three on the list of ten whom I would say were definitely stressed out at some point in this process.)
I don't think ArbCom works the way you described. The Arbitration Committee has a private mailing list. As far as I know, they carry on most of their discussion there. When they vote, they generally leave short explanations. However, their public pages generally have separate areas for comments from arbitrators, involved parties, and other people.
While small compared to the whole Wikipedia community, we are still a large enough group that we would be more likely to suffer from the problems of large groups than the problems of small ones. In content disputes, the chances of reaching an agreement often go down as the number of participants increases. People want to talk about different things, and there are so many concerns it becomes increasingly difficult to make everyone happy.
I certainly agree that there should be a place for community input. I just think the group should the communications amongst themselves privately. I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the last comment by Armed Blowfish. Metamagician3000 04:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If you do want it all private, then at least it should be recorded somewhere so that after the discussion is done, the lid can be blown off and the conclusion, arguments, reasoning, etc. all examined in detail by the Wikipedia Community, who is ultimately the final arbiter as to the decision of policy. No need for privacy after the discussion is done! For example, if the discussion was held on a private wiki or forum, once the discussion period concludes, the wiki/forum would be frozen and opened to the public at large for viewing, or the contents transferred to a special page on Wikipedia, along with the conclusions reached. This way, a subtle flaw in someone's argument that the discussers may not have seen could be found. Community review of the whole argument can therefore see if the logic is sound, the discussers' views/points are valid, how to perhaps modify the proposal to take into account points that may have been missed, etc. etc. etc. What do you think? mike4ty4 05:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Does this "high authoritativeness" imply that it's views cannot be contested or debated by the Wikipedia community in actually implementing the policy? I don't like that for two reasons. One, it grants an air of infallibility that is undeserving of an obviously fallible agency, and two, it hands the power of what the final policy will be away from the community and towards a cabal. These are legitimate concerns, and I'd like a response to them. mike4ty4 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

transclusion mockup in progress

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/transclusion. WAS 4.250 16:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm done with step one of this mockup. Step two requires people who don't like the wording to modify the wording to be more in line with the wording of the former longstanding V, NOR and RS that they prefer. WAS 4.250 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with having a back-up plan?

Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

While my idea to set up a WG-2 was in the response of arm-twisting approach of certain colleagues, even in a broader sense I don't see what's wrong with having a back-plan. This is a standard procedure to save time when rsources are not bottleneck. While it is known that 3 women cannot together give burth to one chils in 3 month, each of them ic capable to produce a healthy one in 9 months, so that people have a choice who of the three will be President of the US. `'mikka 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hereby I am setting Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/WG-2/Action plan. Ance again, membership is free, first come - first served. The WG-2 is not pretending to be or to select the "cream of cream", will not be afraid to fail, will not stand "over its dead body" in defense of the result, will not shove "months of hard work" into other's noses, will not expect any glory or barnstars. Finally, it will not wait for holy approval to start; it will start as soon as a third person signs up in #Working group #2. `'mikka 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel like discussing a possible solution to this problem in a small group of people, go for it.  : ) I wasn't trying to discourage you. Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If the first workgroup (being a small group of people already) is going to suggest a possible solution without seeking for higher endorsement and vigorously defending their "truth" and "hard work", fine with me either. But this was not what happened with WP:ATT. And I would like to discourage you from the disparaging point of view that I "feel like discussing a possible solution in a small group" and you will be "working to develop a compromise", which may be read that my hoal is to have a small talk or to make some fuss, and your noble goal is to save wikipedia. `'mikka 16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There are some editors whose noble goal is to validate their past efforts. If they are on the first workgroup, they may be expected to do this; as they persistently do without one. As for AB, I doubt he meant any such thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You are assuming that people are acting with a pre-disposed mindset, but please consider that your perception may be at fault. In reading the comments in this page, I see some honest attempts to accept the fact that there are many opinions on the matter and that a small group of people in a "bi-partisan" context, can come up with a proposal that will be useful. Rather than doubting the good faith of these participants, I would support them in their efforts. As for a second working group, by all means go ahead with it if that is what you think would be helpful. Alternatively, you could support them in the efforts, and maintain communication with that group via one of the editors that you respect. That is what I intend to do: let them work unencumbered by the feeling that their work may be in vain, and submit my ideas/comments to one of them during that time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I would rejoice if there were to be less evidence of such a mindset; and would then conclude that I had been mistaken. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If a person writes something without thinking how it will be read by his opponent, I seriously doubt they are in a position to write any policies at all. `'mikka 17:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please cool down. This is a talk page; I certainly do not claim to be expressing myself with the iron precision of policy. If you do, it is novel to me; and you may regret being taken up on it. ;-> If we were to wait to comment until we thought out all possible interpretations of our words, we would get nothing done - and we would still be read in ways we didn't expect. This is one of the things WP:AGF is for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, no one intends to come up with a binding decision here, mikka. If no one intends to do that, I don't see how any of us intends to do more than discuss a possible solution in a small group of people. I apologise if you read my comment otherwise, mikka. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Actually the advantage of your plan is that it doesn't require a Committee of Public Safety. The part of it I value is the discussion at WP:V and :NOR to see whether some language like :ATT can be consensus, and that just needs people to do it. Having a working group page to discuss this will be helpful, but secondary. I will be busy the next few days, but I should be able to get something started Monday. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I say now that if any working group 2 is started then I will immediately move for the creation of a working group 3; it will be my appointees and I'll determine the result. I think it will advance splendidly. Oh and while telling mikka to AGF, you should do the same PMa. Marskell 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Splendid idea. I absolutely see no reason that there must be "elite 3+3+3" with a bunch of second-hand "#Other suggestions" surrounded by idle spectators watching the blinkenlights. If all active participants of this talk page distrbute themselves in several WGs, all this bickering will end and the work starts. `'mikka 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I say now that if any working group 2 is started then I will immediately begin to invite a simple random sample of experienced editors to join the nomination process by suggesting candidates to fill out the working group 2 to its full complement of eleven productive editors that have been legitimately selected to represent the actual views of the wide Wikipedia community. --Rednblu 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I am both simple and random. Please ensure I am randomly selected for WG3. <cough> (If it becomes too complex, we can rename it WGi. Very nice!) –Outriggr § 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You are badly mistaken colleague about WG-2. As I wrote, it will not be "cream of cream" nor pretend to represent "actual wiews of wikipedia community". It will represent views of the WG-2, which will be judged by community. `'mikka 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Would not WG-2 strive to represent "actual views of the Wikipedia community" in what it did? --Rednblu 23:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No. First of all, it will represent the views of a sample of Wikipedia community made into WG-2. And it is an important point: as you may have noticed I hate people who pretend to speak "for all" and I will never work into a commission with such item in its statute. Second, the goal in not to represent "the views of community", but to recast already formulated policies into a more digestible form. Third, while the "Action plan" is still a redlinked page, I intend to mention there that off-WG-2 opinions will be dutifully recorded and addressed. the proposed solution will be "owned" by the WG-2 until the moment of its final report. After that the community will take over the control of the result to do anything it wants, including letting it down the drain. `'mikka 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
So if you started with a good "sample," you would expect already to represent a good "sample." Would that be fair? --Rednblu 00:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions about the way forward

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have a few suggestions about the steps going forward. First, it seems to me a good idea to have a working-group (or two!) to work on a compromise. In my view, however, this group may be starting its work a little too soon.

Anyway, I want to point out that a working-group has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that the number of voices is small enough to actually have a negotiation. The disadvantage, however, is that we lose what is the great thing about wikis--that there are lots and lots and lots of ideas, and lots and lots of criticism of ideas. With the workgroup (or two!), you'll have 9 (or 18!) people giving their thoughts instead of hundreds.

I have a suggestion that can bring us the advantages of both. Hold-off on the working-group deliberation for a week or so. During that week, have a WP:RFC-style proposal section. One user can propose deleting ATT; another renaming WP:V to ATT; someone else transclusion, etc., etc. People can either subscribe to the proposal or proposals they support (RFC-style) or write up a proposal of their own. By the end of the week, we'll have a good sense of what specific approaches have the most support, and perhaps we'll have an idea or two more to get us out of the box we're in. Then we turn the question over to a working group (or two!) for a period of intense discussion/negotation. (Perhaps the proposers of the most thoughtful proposals might usefully be added to the working group.)

Now, this might add another week to the process, but this is a wiki and there is no deadline, and I think we're more likely to find a solution that most users are comfortable with. semper fictilis 02:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a good idea, but I’m afraid that approach tends to work best when there’s a single issue (or very few) to resolve and this mess is riddled with them. My understanding of the purpose for this working group is that it take the feedback from the poll (an RfC of sorts), and see whether it can’t come up with some small subset of options that can then be reviewed, chewed and possibly implemented by the broader membership in some like fashion. Part of what is being discussed above is how to allow the larger community to provide contemporaneous constructive inputs, because we know more heads are better than one (or 8 or 9 or whatever). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts to mulch on

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

While we’re waiting and working out what comes next, I thought I’d share some of my initial thoughts on matters to be addressed which might lead to a “way forward” – just some thoughts to chew on.

Having gone through every vote comment in the poll, and wrestled with attempting to summarize the issues raised by the different groups of voters, I’d like to take a somewhat different approach from my commentary on the “fundamental” issues (and Merzul’s helpful “brass tacks” summary of opposition issues) to identify prospective areas for constructive compromise. Rather than hack through the pros and cons, I’d like to offer my sense of what might be acceptable to the broadest majority of the voting editors, based on the sense of the issues they raised (i.e., the apparent perspectives lying behind the words) and certain proposed solutions offered.

As I’ve alluded to before, I think there’s more room for consensus than most others seem to. As I observed in my previous commentary on fundamental issues, it appears to me that a great many focus on unsatisfactory expressions of the “distinctives” of key policies or guidelines. To the extent that the problem lies in unclear or (unintentionally) misleading text, this is remediable. Fixing that alone would satisfy a good many – and perhaps the majority – of the complaints.

What can be reliably and effectively merged into ATT has a lot to do with how well ATT reflects – and, especially with respect to RS, strengthens – the existing policies/guidelines. (Whether each should be so merged is a separate issue – and will be the hardest nut to crack.) However, there appears to be considerable consensus on a strengthened RS, whether guideline or policy or merged or not. Much of the criticism of ATT was that its wording makes it appear (to many) that RS is instead being weakened, although I have no doubt that was not the intention of the authors. Insofar as chiefly wordsmithery is required, this is resolvable.

For a good many people, the “disappearance” of the word “verifiability” is quite problematic. “Verifiability” ≠ “Attribution” and the apparent substitution of the latter for the former is a key factor in persuading them that RS is being weakened. “Attribution” may be a fine name for a guideline that summarizes the principles being consolidated in ATT and illustrates their synergy, but not for a policy. A proposed solution that keeps a consolidated ATT policy should include a name change as an option.

At present, I find WP:SYN to be weakly wrought. It’s inextricably intertwined with ATT and NOR, and in ATT it clearly constitutes a new policy element in its own right (as opposed to remaining subsumed into NOR). As such, WP:SYN is weakly addressed and I don’t feel the example actually makes it clear. While I get the gist of it (and I’m not sure how it evolved), it certainly requires further work, and that may be beyond this working group’s purview.

Although little noted by any party, there also remain a number of loose ends left lying around after the making of ATT. (One example is what to do with WP:CITE.) I’m sure there are many other guidelines, etc. which intersect the domain of ATT, but have been “left hanging”. This is probably beyond our scope here, but should be kept in the back of our minds as work to be done (whatever happens with ATT per se). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the concept currently dealt with by WP:SYN is very important, and probably needs more work. I agree that the example given is not the clearest, at least not by itself. The concept is definitely part of the "no original research" concept, and we should be leaning against any suggestion that it relates mainly to attribution/verifiability. This was what swayed me to vote against ATT in the end. By removing the dedicated page on NOR, ATT tends IMHO to weaken that concept, and particularly to weaken the vivid idea that original research is anything that amounts to someone pursuing his or her own research program devoted to developing their own novel picture or theory or synthesis or narrative - even if every single statement can be attributed properly and even if the truly novel part is left implicit.
NOR is not just a prohibition on stuff that cannot be attributed - though this claim was made by many supporters of ATT. It is fundamentally a prohibition on using Wikipedia to advance our own picture of things. This often happens when obscure sources are used to piece together an account of some event in a manner analogous to investigative journalism, creating something new that resembles nothing ever previously published in secondary sources. Unfortunately, it's a matter of judgment.
What I think we must avoid is creating or perpetuating a situation where editors think of what is currently called WP:SYN as some kind of technical rule, rather than an attempt to articulate a key aspect of what NOR is all about. Somehow we have to get the message across that you should stop as soon as your meter is going off that you are beginning to indulge in your own research program or investigative reporting. I don't see how we can easily say that if the relevant material is tucked away as just another paragraph of ATT - perhaps looking like a subtle nicety of attribution practice, rather than like a related but separate core value.
However, I know that Slim Virgin is very aware of the issue. If she can find a way to do what I'm saying within the concept of a single consolidated page, I'll not be standing in the way. I also understand the claim that WP:SYN has actually been strengthened. That may be so, in its actual wording. But putting such an idea in a policy called "Attribution" really makes it look like the thing it is definitely not, i.e. just an advanced technical rule about attributing. Metamagician3000 05:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this was my primary reason for opposing the merger too, and seemed to be fairly significant for a number of other people. I definitely don't see it as part of the idea that one needs to attribute material to sources; I see it more as a corollary of NPOV if anything, an idea I've been working on here. --bainer (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just had a quick look at the content policy that you're working on. I need to think some more about it, and this is not the right place for any detailed response, but my immediate reaction is that you're doing a great job of explaining how it all fits together. I agree that this fundamental aspect of NOR is more closely connected with NPOV considerations than considerations about good practice with attribution. Metamagician3000 06:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
To register agreement with the earlier point, Mark is correct wrt to RS. One thing that troubled me on the poll was oppose votes on the basis of not wanting RS in policy. The concept of RS is already policy—you can't explain V without it, regardless of ATT. The working group might discuss this off the top. Marskell 09:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the concept of RS as used by the policy is subtly different -- and rather less strict -- than the concept of RS used in the guideline. This is important, I think: a guideline is expected to describe the majority of cases, while the policy is expected to describe all but very unusual cases. Therefore the guideline on assessing sources should give lots of restrictions: don't use newspapers that are considered sensationalist, avoid partisan sources, only use peer-reviewed papers for scientific content, etc, stuff like that. The policy, meanwhile, should have a bare minimum of restrictions: don't use self-published sources unless there's a good reason to think they're reliable; don't use extremist sources. This is why, IMO, WP:RS needs to be renamed -- to avoid the confusion that the two are talking about the same thing. And it certainly shouldn't be merged here. JulesH 10:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If it is more that we cannot advance our own picture of things, then it seems more closely related to WP:NPOV, not to WP:V. However, the fact that in order for such syntheses/theories to be included, they themselves must be published outside of Wikipedia, still gives a connection to WP:V. The "truly novel" part must be published and attributable. So you still can set up a WP:ATT policy. There is still that V connection, like it or not. If the "truly novel" part is implicit and unpublished, then it is not attributable. See? This is the rub. mike4ty4 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN -- very important!

TheBainer and Metamagician, I am also very much interested in WP:SYN, I think improper synthesis is one of the biggest problem we have from preventing Wikipedia being a compendium of well established knowledge. However, in my opinion the idea of synthesis is much easier to explain in terms of attribution:

  • NPOV formulation: avoid synthesis that serves to advance a position.
  • ATT formulation : avoid synthesis that isn't attributable to a reliable source.

There are so many problems with the first one, please have a look at Argument_from_love#Outline_logical_structure. This is a novel synthesis because this precise argument is not attributable to a reliable source. But this isn't a NPOV problem, the formalization reflects the POV of the sources adequately enough. The problem is that this precise formalization is logically flawed, and the argument is question-begging... In any case, the issue of how to formalize a philosophical argument is very important, and we can't just do this ourselves, and claim it is valid! Again, this is not so much a question of NPOV, because the current argument does capture the POV of the given sources, my objections has to do with accuracy and correctness. I don't mind the POV at all, I wouldn't mind if this very same argument was explicitly taken from some famous philosopher, because then Wikipedia is not responsible for making circular arguments. --Merzul 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this example. It's a nice example of how these policies fit (or sometimes fail to fit) together. It does advance a position - that a certain formulation of the argument is canonical. But it does so by way of presenting a total argument that cannot be attributed to anyone (it seems) even though all (or at least most) its various components actually are attributed. I do agree that the idea is that we are not supposed to create an overall vision that resembles nothing pre-existing. I.e., we don't create something such that the explicit or implicit synthesis cannot itself be attributed to a reliable source. That's a good way to explain it. But I also think that it isn't just a technical aspect of attribution - it's something more fundamental than that. After all, in such cases everything (taking the components one by one) actually might attributed "properly". The vision thing about it has to be grasped if there is to be an understanding of what has gone wrong, and why judgment is involved. I do think there is an element of judgment, because after all every Wikipedia aricle of any reasonable length has a degree of synthesis or else our articles would all be copyvios - people need to understand the point at which that kind of "good" synthesis of the overall article has involved "bad" synthesis of particular narratives, ideas, etc., within it. TheBainer's idea that a novel point of view has been synthesised seems helpful to me for making that judgment. However, I don't think that NOR or SYN is part of NPOV any more than I think it follows from V or from the rest of ATT. I think we all need to understand how all of these policies contain ideas that are different, yet complementary. I'm sure that everyone discussing it right here (e.g. you, me, TheBainer) understands that :) , but I see a lot of ignorance of it, and I'd just like to make sure that nothing the community decides about our policies tends to perpetuate or aggravate the problem.
I'm glad we're having this discussion, if only because it means that there's a bunch of people directing focus to an important and widely-misunderstood idea. As above, I'm comfortable that SlimVirgin is thoroughly alerted to the issue, as well - as well as some others who might be on the working group - so there is quite a lot of attention being paid to it.
Btw, surely someone like Michael Martin will already have produced a formulation of the "argument from love". I must go and have a look. :) Metamagician3000 23:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Metamagician, in practical cases it seems we fully agree on improper synthesis, I recall a certain list of Royal Society Fellows :), but the question is indeed how this can be captured in policy. I read TheBainer's essay again, and I have to think about it, because I fully agree with what he says, I also can't find any flaws in your reasoning here: you are absolutely right that people do not complain when you draw from many different sources, if the presentation is neutral and fair to the sources and just presents well-established knowledge in new prose. (I'm almost falling in love with this "well-established knowledge" phrase...) The question is then understanding when something "serves to advance a position", or what I would say "lacks attribution on the level of ideas": so let's say every sentence is attributed, but the general vision still fails to be well-established knowledge, how is this dealt with? --Merzul 07:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But then what if the synthesis was accurate? It still would be "Original Research" since it is a novel synthesis. The novelty does not disappear if it was accurate. And if you can't "do it yourself" then who does? Someone has to "do it themselves", otherwise nothing gets done. mike4ty4 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This is just the point. We are not here to conduct original investigations. It doesn't matter that we've uncovered the truth. If we had to do that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We are here as a compendium of existing knowledge, not a publisher of new knowledge. Someone in the position you describe should try to get published in a magazine or somewhere like that, not in Wikipedia. Metamagician3000 07:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course. But I do not see how this would debunk the concept of ATT. The very definition of "original research" involves the fact that such stuff is unpublished, and hence, unattributable. So attribution would not seem to permit original research, in fact it would forbid it. ATT still seems like a workable idea. Also, by "we" (in your post just above and the statement "In any case, the issue of how to formalize a philosophical argument is very important, and we can't just do this ourselves, and claim it is valid!" that I was responding to) do you mean Wikipedia -- as the people who work on Wikipedia can conduct original investigations, they just cannot put them on Wikipedia? mike4ty4 05:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I meant "we" in our capacities as Wikipedia editors. What we do as real-life individuals, but don't put on Wikipedia, is way beyond the scope of anything I was talking about. Metamagician3000 06:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The new lead...

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Following Mikkalai's idea, there has been some activity on the WP:ATT page too, but I just want to ask here, what do people think about the following intro:

Wikipedia is a compendium of well-established knowledge. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true: any reader should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia has been published by a reliable source. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.

I think it has fixed a number of "false dichotomy" concerns :) It is trying to explicitly address the concerns of SandyGeorgia by putting back emphasis on the need for verifiability, using the term as defined in WP:V. Also I'm hoping that perhaps this whole phrasing isn't as offensive to "truth-supporters" either, while still conveying the idea of WP:NOTTRUTH. The entire section I think flows reasonably well, any comments? --Merzul 08:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is going to result in a "huh?" response from a lot of people. Perhaps something more like
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- that is, a compendium of well-established knowledge.
would be more helpful to newbies. JulesH 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept the wording mentioned by Merzul above as a compromise. No comment re JulesH's suggested change. --Coppertwig 22:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the new intro with JulesH's change. The second sentence could also be written as, "Material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source. This threshold is the same regardless of whether we think the material is true. Any reader... (etc.)" Trying with a few extra words to avoid "threshold for inclusion...is whether material is" which might be confusing. --Myke Cuthbert 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion compromise

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Merzul has experimented with the transclusion compromise mockup at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/transclusion. Everyone feel free to check it out, experiment, improve, ... WAS 4.250 11:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What would this do?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi.

Would this be any good?

1. Turn WP:ATT into a brief summary of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS and describe the basic unifying concept of attribution.

2. For details on these facets of the concept, it woudl direct to each of the three.

3. They may be renamed to Wikipedia:Attribution/Verifiability, Wikipedia:Attribution/No original research, Wikipedia:Attribution/Reliable sources as the "unifying" policy would be ATT.

4. Promote WP:RS to official policy instead of merely a guideline.

mike4ty4 03:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite the page?

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hi.

A lot of the objections that have been raised seem to be counterable by a rewrite of the page, and don't truly demolish all hope of the merger. So why not keep the merger, but rewrite the page? mike4ty4 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the poll, the majority of the "opposed" comments were actually directed at the need for having a merger at all. Most of these comments stated that things were fine as they were before the merge. Only a (sizable) minority had issues with the language but not the merger. Of course the Majority of all comments were in favor of the merger in general. In short... there was and is not a clear consensus as to what to do. A working party of people representing all POVs has been formed, which will review the comments and make recommendations when done. I would say hold off on anything major until they have had a chance to do their work. Blueboar 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's been decided yet who is or is not going to be part of the working party; I'm not sure there's even consensus that there will be a working party. I think I've seen one proposal above about how to select the members of the working party. Maybe there were more, but I don't think I saw a consensus on choosing one selection method. --Coppertwig 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not just a matter of there being two opposing views. There are many more than two views on what should be on the merged page, if there is a merger, and assumptions about what that will be is what actually determines peoples opinions on the merger. DGG 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Well actually I was not planning on rewriting the page myself. There a lot of objections, so I really don't think I could do a _good_ rewrite anyways, and if I did I would probably put it on a separate page as a new "proposal". mike4ty4 02:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I consense with Blueboar's comment above: "the majority of the "opposed" comments were actually directed at the need for having a merger at all. Most of these comments stated that things were fine as they were before the merge. " --Parzival418 00:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between NOR and V

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi.

It does seem that a relationship between NOR and V does indeed exist. NOR means "no original research". This means that any original, ie. unpublished, research or thought of any form (including syntheses of published material, if the synthesis carries a new idea in it) is not allowed. So once again we are led to publication being required for inclusion -- V, or to use the proposed term, ATT. If a good way can be found to merge the two while at the same time not loosing the spirit of the rules, then I'd be all for it. mike4ty4 05:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but now that so many people are involved, and such a fuss has been made, I think we should demand more from the group. :) I would like them to think more fundamentally about the entire policy situation, a bit like Bainer has done, and propose something better than just a "copy-paste" merge. If we look at the very early drafts of ATT, such as this version, it actually more of an integrated policy than the current version. And why was the Tacitus section removed?? --Merzul 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That seems to make more sense. A quick up "cut and paste" merge doesn't really do what ATT is supposed to do, which is unite the two policies. If one wants to take a route like that (cut/paste) then one might as well just leave them separate instead of creating unnecessary and harmful confusion by just "cutting and pasting" them together. mike4ty4 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Working group #1 - Are we still doing this?

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments12 people in discussion

Just wondering. Also, public or private? As I have stated before, I would prefer private, but with a public summary and community involvement.

I've been taking a break from this page, but even so, it hasn't been popping up on my watchlist that often, so I guess I'm not the only one.

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 09:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I keep waiting for it to get rolling, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. With all the changes that have been made to A recently, I was kind of assuming it *was* progressing in private. JulesH 12:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, not unless it has started without me :) I think since the idea of having a working group was contributed to by Jimbo, we're waiting for some input on his behalf. --bainer (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I am unaware of anything going on in private with regard to this. WAS 4.250 13:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This page looks dead to me, I have also wondered. Is this a dead side path? if so should we archive it off or delete it? Jeepday 13:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a silly question. Talk pages are always archived (unless the entire article/whatever to which they are attached is deleted.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I would leave this page active for now... at least until there is a plan in place on how to move forward on the underlying issues. I still see it as a useful page. I just think it's purpose has changed... from commenting on the merger, to brainstorming ideas on where to go from here. Who knows, someone may come along and post the brilliant solution that we have been looking for. Blueboar 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interest in moving this forward, I started a private wiki for this. I was thinking the following confidentiality agreement would be good:

  1. Nothing shall be quoted to a particular editor from the confidential negotiations, unless you are quoting yourself. (most important) This does not mean summaries we work on together cannot be published, but they should be attributed to the group as a whole.
  2. All public summaries will avoid mention of which users did what, instead being vague, such as "some editors thought X....", unless you are talking about yourself.

Sound good? If so, and you were nominated, click on the email link in my signature, tell me you agree to that, and I'll send you an invite. We can have up to 50 members, so I don't see why nominees other than the actual working group members can't be invited, assuming they agree to confidentiality.

Sorry if it feels like I am making a unilateral decision. I'm not trying to - you can say "no" of course, I am just trying to get this thing going.

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea, but is it really the public nature of this that is holding anyone back? What exactly is the advantage of this private Wiki? Personally, I would prefer a public thing, because while I'm not going to take part actively, I would certainly follow the discussion with interest. --Merzul 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... somehow I had missed this! --Merzul 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who are "nominees other than the actual working group," nor who are "the actual working group." I'm confused about what direction this is all taking, and I'm not heavily in favor of a private discussion. But I'll poke my head in anyway to see what's going on. We're all looking for a workable solution. Perhaps I can contribute to that. zadignose 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering if maybe Jimbo was still suffering from jetlag or something and SlimVirgin hadn't yet heard back from him. I've been watching the page, but not posting much. What I have been doing is going through the major relevant articles and marking up a copy of ATT. It's given me some interesting insights into where it's possible to go from here. I'll try to post my thoughts on that after dinner when I get a chance to finish drafting it. As for the public vs. private issue, I've yet to see the reason for going private. Are we supposed to expect serial abuse or something? Askari Mark (Talk) 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I urge you to cease that immediately. That's far too productive. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
How did we get up to 13 members? Make it 15, as now we need to balance it with two more supporters... Marskell 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Privacy of working group and review

Latest comment: 16 years ago56 comments8 people in discussion

Hi.

My first post about this didn't seem to get a response, so I thought I'd make it more "visible".

I think that with regards to this working group, even if the actual discussion is not open for public witnessing while it is happening, a record should be kept and disclosed to the public at large at the end of the discussion period. For example, if the discussion was carried out on a private wiki or message board, the board/wiki would be frozen (posting, modification, etc. locked out) at the end, and the doors opened to the public for viewing, or the contents copied to a special and publicly-accessible archive page akin to those of WP talk pages and the board/wiki dismantled.

The purpose of this is to allow the arguments presented for the various things to be examined, the logic to be checked, flaws to be found, and possible improvements or refinements to the proposal by the community (who ultimately controls what the final policy will truly be -- Wikipedia policy is set by community consensus) to be made, among other important and beneficial things.

This is an attempt at a compromise between no privacy at all and total secrecy, to try and address the concerns of both camps.

What do you think? mike4ty4 00:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that would defeat the point of having privacy in the first place, but perhaps I misunderstand. It can be easier to negotiate privately. It is more relaxed. You aren't constantly worried about what the whole Wikipedia community will think of every little edit you make. You won't be reported just because you accidentally break the 3RR rule. (Not that breaking the 3RR rule is okay, but reports hardly build WikiLove, and blocks don't help us reach a consensus.) Additionally, if you want to have WikiLove-building activities like Tic-Tac-Toe games, you won't be told you can't because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. All in all, it is easier to talk, and when it is easier to talk, it is easier to reach a consensus.
What I would support is a public group summary, without any mention of who said what. This would help keep participants feel safe, but still give the community insight into ideas that have come up. The community could comment on the group summary talk page. One member of the working group could be allowed to transfer the summary over to Wikipedia, to prevent revert-warring here.
In the end, the community can form their own conclusions about any suggestions made by the working group, and has the final word.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think the working group would make little edits to the ATT page while it was discussing. If they were doing that then wouldn't those edits be visible anyway, and thus the community could still "worry" about them if they see revertings going on for example? It doesn't matter if they see the talk, they see the reverts and edits! And if the discussion is conducted outside of WP, how could they be held to WP rules for it? WP rules only apply to on-WP discussions. Of course, some basic moral rules should hold, of course, like civility, however these are moral rules that are not specific to WP, and overall are good to follow anyway. Other than that, WP would be out of it's jurisdiction. (like the 3RR stuff you mentioned.) What I do not understand is how my plan would defeat privacy, since the community still could not examine and criticize the discussion _while it is taking place_, which is where it really matters -- they could not influence it in any way. And since this is a special case, if they were "caught" playing a TTT game on the forum, why couldn't it just be excused, since even though WP is an encyclopedia, the forum need not be subject to the same rules? The ultimate point of the discussion is to build something for the encyclopedia, and as long as the TTT games or other "fun" things don't interfere with that, I see no problem. And if you decide not to make an exception, a nonrecorded discussion would therefore potentially give them an excuse to violate said discussion rules in secret, knowing that such violations would never, ever be seen or heard of by the outside, unless a whistleblower makes it known. So either way you go, exceptions to those rules and/or jurisdictional issues should still be considered. mike4ty4 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Reporting it is probably not the best way to handle a problem with civillity, at least not if you want to de-escalate the dispute, and considering how much standards of civillity vary from culture to culture, I'm not sure you could call it a universal law that the whole world agrees with. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that they should "report" the "violation". mike4ty4 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Although this is negotiation not mediation, since we don't have a mediator, confidentiality is recommended for mediation. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
For mediation, but you said, we don't have a mediator, so there's no mediator to be kept confidential. In addition, I was talking about disclosing the discussion at the end of it, when it's over. How does that damage it? mike4ty4 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
In mediation, confidentiality is for the protection of the parties, not the mediator. No need to use someone's good-faith efforts to reach a consensus against them. Disclosing the discussion takes away that safety, opening it up to the criticism of all of Wikipedia. Safety makes the discussion less stressful, which makes it easier to reach a consensus. In private mediation, publishing of archives is strictly prohibited. You can't even show it to the ArbCom. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so it's because you wouldn't want the criticism of every little nit, then? Even if the discussion is not open as it's happening, the fact that it would be open later would still make it too stressful because they would know the criticisms are going to start coming in at the end. The proposal is the thing that matters, not how it was arrived at, since the proposal becomes the rules if accepted. Is this right? mike4ty4 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Let them use their judgement. This is an ad hoc arrangement, and whatever the agree, if they agree on anything, will then be discussed by us all. If they don't agree, they can bring in whatever separate reports they choose. DGG 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not see how providing an archive of the discussion after it's over prevents then from using their judgment. mike4ty4 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If editors are too stressed out to participate very much, are they using their judgement, or avoiding the issue? Look how much this page has slowed down. Confidentiality makes discussion safer, which makes it less stressful. Publishing archives removes that safety. In mediation (yes, I know this isn't mediation, there's no mediator), publishing archives of private mediation is strictly prohibited. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean that even the people participating in the group cannot disclose some of their own arguments/posts from the discussion at their own choice? After all, it's their arguments, they should be able to choose whatever they want to do with them. And if it's so secret, why even bother with an archive, period, if nobody else is going to see it? mike4ty4 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's privacy... no, that's not what it means. Scroll down to the numbered list and read the privacy policy I suggested. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so the person who made an argument could bring it out then. Thanks. mike4ty4 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There would still be exceptions, e.g. if the argument infringed on someone else's privacy. E.g. if an argument is that User X did Y and therefore ATT is bad/good, that would infringe on User X's privacy. It should be by the editor publishing it, and exclusively about that editor and his or her feelings. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What about arguments of the form "I percieve problem X with the logic of section Y of ATT so I think that should deserve some work"? When would disclosing those arguments infinge on someone else's privacy? And could "User X" in your analogy disclose the attack argument if the person who made it also agrees to a disclose? mike4ty4 07:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As someone who might be in the group, I'll be strongly suggesting keeping all deliberations public. Transparancy is key. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
All the transparency in the world won't do us much good if we never reach a consensus in the first place. I don't see why the community needs to see every detail, though. They can read the summarised arguments without knowing who said what. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with badlydrawnjeff. Although I've asked a couple times, I've yet to learn what problems people are expecting the group to be subject to that would make privacy of the working group's activity desirable (much less necessary). This isn't a case of "mediation"; if it isn't just the good-faith discussion and negotiation that normal Wikipedia practice is supposed to be, then what is it? (And what are "TTT" games?) Askari Mark (Talk) 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If we assume this a good-faith effort, all the more reason for privacy. I know this isn't mediation... each time I bring up the mediation analogy, I acknowledge that. However, I believe aspects of mediation theory can be applied outside of mediation. People can make mistakes in good-faith efforts... it is less stressful if you know the community won't pounce on you if you make such a mistake. Writing the Wikipedia:Attribution poll was a good-faith effort. There were still multiple 3RR reports. Violations of the rules? Yes. Bad-faithed or abusive? No. Just mistakes made under pressure. Does using a person's good faith efforts towards consensus against them help build consensus? No. Hey, even friendly criticism without any blocks can be stressful for some editors, and there will be a lot of that if this is public.
Tic-Tac-Toe games are just little games... they used to be played in the Esperanza Coffee Lounge, before that was deleted as unencyclopaedic. Personally, I think it's a good WikiLove building excercise, especially if there is tension between editors, although I never played it over a wiki....
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get that. One of the obstacles the working group needs to overcome is the resistance to their efforts that is likely to come from just about all quarters. They're more likely to be able to achieve this if people can see the reasoning behind what they do, and see that their points have been considered fairly. JulesH 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
All points are more likely to be considered fairly if the editors feel it is safe to do so. And we need not overcome resistance: if the community doesn't like the solution the group comes up with, it is best to just let them reject it. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
But if most of the points and arguments are kept secret, they cannot be considered, fairly or not, by any of the community! mike4ty4 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The community would be able to read a nice summary, which would include points and arguments considered significant without saying who made those points and arguments, and then form their own arguments. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
But who decides what is "significant"? An truly significant argument may be deemed insignificant simply due to opinion and different people have different opinions as to what is/isn't significant, and thus a vital point may get kept out of public view. This is the big problem I see with this "privacy" thing. I don't mind not knowing who made the arguments, it's what the arguments are that counts. In fact, hiding the person that made them is actually a good idea, sicne it helps separate the people from the logic, facts, and arguments, which are what should take center stage in a debate. It helps preclude the possibility of Warsieish ad-hominem fallacy attacks on the group (since you cannot attribute some argument to someone unless they come out, you have no idea who to attack to try to "bust" the argument with the ad hominem). But the big problem is what arguments will be deemed significant. There needs to be an objective standard of significance to be applied. My concern is that a potentially quite important in reality argument may get deemed insignificant and left out, which could complicate further discussion of the WG's proposal. mike4ty4 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no ideal answer here, but at least it wouldn't be one person. The entire group could work on a public summary together, with one editor trasferring it over to prevent edit-warring on Wikipedia, and removing anything that infringes on anyone's privacy. Significant would include arguments about the actual content and organisation of the policies and guidelines, but not arguments about the editors involved. So personal disputes (or ad hominem, as you might call some of it) would be cut out. Since each editor could contribute, each would have a chance to add their arguments which they consider significant. It could also cut out the repetition that often occurs in conversations. Is it possible to de-fork this conversation? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Personal disputes were not the type of arguments I was thinking would be important to community reviews, etc. It was policy-related arguments (ie. what really matters) that I was referring to. mike4ty4 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
And what/where would we "de-fork" this conversation to, anyway? And which parts? mike4ty4 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think part of the issue here is that (rightly or wrongly) people felt that the original creation of ATT and the mergers that went with it were all done by some sort of cabal... a few editors who pushed what they wanted through the system without gaining concensus first. In other words it is once again all about perception of bad faith... not actual bad faith. We want to avoid this perception carrying over to the working group. If they come back with a plan to move forward without input from the rest of us, people are going to say the same thing is happening all over again... a few editors are pushing their view on the rest of us. I know that is not the reality, but it could be the perception.
So... it is important that the working group conduct their deliberations with some openness. On the other hand, I agree that some back channel communication will probably make their job easier and more productive. So what I would recommend is that they do their work back channel, but give the rest of us periodic updates (on this page?) as to what is being discussed. We can then make comments or ask questions that might help them move to the next step... It would seem to be the best of both approaches. Blueboar 14:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree.  : ) Here's the privacy policy I suggested above, to give safety to the working group members while still allowing the ideas themselves to be transferred over here:
  1. Nothing shall be quoted to a particular editor from the confidential negotiations, unless you are quoting yourself. (most important) This does not mean summaries we work on together cannot be published, but they should be attributed to the group as a whole.
  2. All public summaries will avoid mention of which users did what, instead being vague, such as "some editors thought X....", unless you are talking about yourself.
In addition, I was thinking the working group could work on a officialish public summary privately, but that only one member of the group could transfer it over, so as to prevent editwarring on Wikipedia. The community could then comment on the talk page. It might be good if this were the only public summary, but on the other hand, working group members might need to individually respond to members of the community publicly.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Considering the number of voters in the poll (both pro and con) who complained they felt blindsided or overrun by a cabal, I feel it is important to keep the group's work as public as practical. From what I know of the editors recommended for the working group, it's a pretty mature and professional bunch. True, there are some personal issues between a few that occasionally devolve into sniping, and I can see where those might best be resolved in private; from my perspective, that might be the best use of the forum. Given a relatively small group capable of (mostly) working in good faith (which I think all the nominees can and would prefer to do) and operating with minimal "outside" interruptions and distractions, I think "private sessions" might best be done on an exceptional basis. That's why I recommended having separate "working group" and "community" talk pages; it allows the group to benefit from the community's input without getting caught up in the "interruptions and distractions" that would otherwise interfere with the group's work. For the most part, if a couple of members start sniping, the rest of us can pile on with a "time out" and direction to take a tea break.
As Blueboar observed, we're much more likely to gain community trust and approval through an open process than a partially or fully closed one. The reason I (sort of) like the proposal to lift the 3RR rule for the "Work In Progress" page is because I think this working group can get along without it. However, I think it's best to work out issues on the talk page rather than directly editing proposed changes into the WIP. One poor practice I've noticed in the history of the ATT and some other pages was a tendency to "discuss" via reverts and edit remarks more than on the talk page, and I would urge us to avoid that as far as possible. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The community can vote on the committee's suggestion(s)... then they won't be blindsided or overrun. Everyone has been acting in good faith throughout this entire process: but there have been mistakes. Getting upset and breaking some rule can be done in good faith.
If one user refers to the efforts of other editors as "trolling" (is that what you were thinking of when you said "sniping"?), "Take a time out and a tea break" is an understandable response, but is likely to escalate the issue. A good faith editor who refers to the efforts of other good faith editors as "trolling" is obviously quite upset, and should be treated sensitively if the dispute is to be de-escalated. Telling them that they broke a rule like WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF will offend them and put them on the defensive. People don't listen well when they are trying to defend themselves. It is better to say, "I find that hurtful." You can read this. However, you can still do better even than an I-statement, although it can be difficult if you are upset. Read this. It is easier to share feelings - which helps resolve disputes - in a private setting. However, if you feel you are too upset to even make a sensitive I-statement, next best is to not respond and hope the issue goes away, or wait until you can write a good response. Who want to pour out their heart right here on Wikipedia? And, not having the word "trolling" in public history logs can make it easier for forgiveness to begin.
And if you want there to be a tea break, you may as well encourage it by example - list something you like about each of the involved editors.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Then you don't tell them they broke said rule. In fact, in a post here I suggested making exceptions to the rules, a post for which I have gotten no response. And if they break the rules anyway, would not this reinforce the behavior and potentially cause it in WP proper (where the rules do apply -- if the discussion is not conducted in WP proper such accusations of AGF/CIVIL violation would be null and void! My seemingly-unread post discussed these jurisdictional issues, and I'd be curious to hear some argument on this point.)? I can understand your concerns about this turning into a Warsie-like "You're a stupid dumb<expletive> scum troll" or something like that type of fight. (I've had to put up with a lot of that crap on ASVS, by the way, my previous debate obsession before WP (and CZ/Citizendium for a bit), so I know what this is like and I can understand your concern about it.) But we have to remember those jurisdictional issues and I think the community needs to be more understanding and respectful, instead of just saying "you're a troll", and not to pick on people over violations of rule X when such rule violations were just out of stress, etc. Especially if the people otherwise follow said rule very good in most circumstances. mike4ty4 00:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Askari Mark suggested making 3RR not apply, where did you suggest making exceptions to the rules? There already was an editor who referred to the efforts of other editors as trolling (and yes, that editor is on the working group: no grudge but it would have been easier to handle privately)... no expletives, something about disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. It takes me awhile to process posts which refer to the efforts of other editors as trolling, and I never got around to processing those posts because the conversation had already moved on. So I can't remember most of what they said, just the parts that stuck out.
In any case, we can't just override the rules because we want to... unless we go off-Wikipedia. I've tried to explain how private negotiation can make it less stressful and easier to reach a consensus... I can't think of what else to say at the moment. I think I'll just recuse myself.
Good luck,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
So why not make it not apply, or not make accusations? Also, how is 3RR relevant anyway? Are they going to actually start making edits to WP:ATT while the discussion is in progress instead of a separate draft page? And if you make it private and undisclosable, then doesn't that therefore provide a forum for rule violations to breed in? What's the problem with excusing them if the discussion was public, especially if they just come from stress and not malice? By keeping it private the breaches would still get swept under the rug anyway, so I don't see what the problem would be in excusing them if the discussion were public. And what's so bad about going off-WP, anyway? Then there could be no permissible accusations of 3RR, CIVIL, whatever, violation. mike4ty4 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if I don't file and reports or say anything about rules that are broken, other still might. Also, private conversations that have been published have been used as evidence before. Basically, anything that is public is fair game for anyone in the community to criticism or use as evidence in reports, as far as I understand it. And people might revert war on drafts and summaries - obviously, we can't make the real WP:ATT private. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
And since one cannot control others, then, well... And as for revert wars, if they are conducted off WP or 3RR is exempted for the drafting stage, then what's the problem? Why can't 3RR be exempted or the drafts be put outside WP while they are being edited so 3RR does not apply due to jurisdictional restriction? The type of arguments/debate material I'd like to see up for public use are those that are directly related to the content (ie. the ATT policy.). Why not disclose a "trimmed" or "snipped" archive with all the non-content-related arguments removed and just the content-only arguments there, with no names added unless the arguers specifically want them? Then there would be no "accusables" included (ie. like personal attacks due to stress, Tic-Tac-Toe games or other non-encyclopedic activities, etc.) for public viewing, while at the same time all the policy-related arguments, which are what really matter, would be up for careful scrutiny. mike4ty4 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as i am concerned, publicity is very important if the working group is going to announce a Verdict from the Working Group Appointed by Jimbo. <doom-laden music>. As far I can see, some of them have said they don't intend to do this. If half-a-dozen or a dozen editors make a proposal on one of these pages, and don't announce it as the New Consensus, supported by ATTCom, fine; I can agree or disagree with it then. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The rest of us would like to see progress reports though; even if it's "no progress yet." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
So would the group summary I suggested be satisfactory for that? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends, as above. If you are going to take the more modest approach, the group summary would be fine by me. Is anything actually happening now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, nothing is happening now. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(deforking) Mike4ty4, we don't need to continue this discussion, if you don't want to. I declined, so the remaining working group members can do whatever. It's not just that the potential of a public negotiation is stressful to me, although that is a major component, but I am also quite busy.

The idea of major refactoring - removing signatures and unrelated or negative parts of the conversation - is interesting, but I don't think it would work. People could guess who said what based on our respective writing styles. There would be a lot of material we would disagree over publishing. Shall we publish our arguments over what to publish? There would be relevant, positive arguments mixed in or as replies to things we wouldn't want to publish. And if we published it all at the end, we wouldn't get community feedback as we went along. A summary would be less for us to agree on, collaborative so no one's individual writing style could be identified, would remove repetitive arguments, and would allow us to rehash some arguments so that they would be publishable. In addition, it would allow two-way communication with the community. It might even be helpful for the group itself to organise their thoughts. It's still risky - personal information could still be leaked - but less so.

Good luck,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion... pick a neutral party to "sit in" on the discussions and act as a recording secretary of sorts... this person would not participate in the debate, but simply write up the periodic summary of the issues discussed. Just an idea. Blueboar 14:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be fine with me, Blueboar, as long as the secretary is trustworthy on this sort of thing. However, I doubt mike4ty4 would find it acceptable. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is an interesting suggestion, but I would prefer two judges, not one, to come to a consensus together -- judgments always seem better when they are done through more than a single person. And I would like to know what kind of criteria you would use to consider them "trustworthy". I'd use a good track record of neutrality, honesty, and integrity for one, as well as a good, as unbiased as humanly possible, understanding of the WP:ATT policy in question. mike4ty4 07:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
By "trustworthy" I mean someone I know understands the importance of confidentiality and won't publish anything personal. Anyone on the Mediation Committee would qualify. Trouble is, I don't know if you could find an active MedCom member who doesn't know me. But since the person would not actually be mediating, just summarising, that might not be such a big problem. But if a MedCom member believes he or she can be neutral, I believe one is enough. (Please note that we can't actually ask for mediation from the MedCom, since it is against our policy to mediate policy disputes.)
SlimVirgin also counts as trustworthy by my criteria, but obviously isn't neutral on this matter.
I find it interesting that you want someone who understands the Attribution policy. I don't think that would be good for neutrality. When I expose myself to arguments outside of the role of being a mediator, I don't hesitate to form an opinion. Even if I'm not interested enough to do so, I am still probably exposed to one side's arguments more than the other, so if nothing else I will probably get exposure effect bias. Within the mediation process, I can expose myself to those arguments in a balanced fashion. After that, it's a simple matter of not judging those arguments.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 14:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was just thinking it (understanding WP:ATT) may have helped, but maybe not. Anyway, you could do it with one -- so long as their neutrality has a good track record, not just that they "believe" they can be neutral. Also, I wasn't suggesting they would be performing mediation. And, just as an aside, does one need to be a mediator in order to be able to expose themselves to arguments in a balanced fashion to get a fair, unbiased understanding of a dispute? mike4ty4 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Two parts of your post came up here I'd like to discuss. First, you say: "There would be relevant, positive arguments mixed in or as replies to things we wouldn't want to publish.". But then why couldn't one retool the relevant positive arguments to stand on their own (ie. "de-reply" them) while at the same time retaining the essence of them? In addition, you also said: "And if we published it all at the end, we wouldn't get community feedback as we went along." But why not publish it as you go? In addition, you also asked if arguments about what to publish should be published, too. But then if we say yes, then there will be arguments about what publication arguments should be published, and arguments about whether THOSE arguments should be published, and so on and so on and so on. This obviously gets into an absurd "infinite regression" situation, so we need a cutoff level at some point. I believe that cutoff should therefore be determined by this: how much do we need to disclose to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the neutrality, honesty, integrity, and above all else, rationality of the group? The publication arguments, also, do not seem as important as the arguments directly pertaining to WP:ATT anyway. But the other problem is: how do we make sure that those arguments, even if all may not be presentable due to whatever concerns (space, redundancy, incapability of being "depersonalized", etc.) are applicable, that when we choose what to present, it is presented in as fair and neutral a way as possible? Neutrality and fairness are paramount in order for this to work. mike4ty4 07:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
To reply briefly since I'm short on time at the moment, that would involve a huge amount of refactoring. It would be far easier to simply summarise. Perhaps we could talk about Blueboar's idea? I'm not sure why you feel a third party would do significantly better than the group as a whole at summarising, but either way is fine with me. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe the group could do it then, but isn't Blueboar's suggestion to use a third party? And if the refactoring is done at the end, what is the problem if it takes a bit of work? Although one may be able to summarize instead of refactor, you'd still need objective criteria as to what points are most important that can be displayed to the public/WP community so they know that no truly important points were glossed over. The refactoring could also be a bit of an ongoing thing that need not be done all at once or as fast as possible. To allow for two-way community input (one concern you brought up about doing the refactoring at the end), one could summarize during the group's discussion as it is in progress, and then possibly refactor or make a more comprehensive summary at the end if refactoring is too much of a workload no matter the pace at which it is done. mike4ty4 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Either a third party or the whole group works for me. Even if the whole group works on it, only one person should transfer it to Wikipedia, and that person could be a third party with certain editorial privileges (e.g. removing things deemed personal, adding things that seem to be missing). While I can't say that the system is foolproof and nothing will be left out, remember that each member of the working party would probably be motivated to make sure their arguments got in there, and it would be less work spread out.
My criteria is that arguments strictly focused on policy content on organisation - no personal experiences, no comments on the editors involved - are relevant to the community and wouldn't violate anyone's privacy. Some arguments that don't meet those criteria may be able to be rehashed such that they do, e.g. converting a personal experience into a generic hypothetical situation. Would there be borderline cases? Most likely, but at some point people have to make a judgement call.
The problem with the refactoring is that by the time the material had been refactored sufficiently, a summary would have probably been written the hard way. Or, worse yet, we might never agree on how much to refactor, and hence never be able to publish anything. I was just looking through the Mediation Committee archives of a case I took. Large number of participants. Fortunately, it doesn't need to be summarised or refactored, but summarising it would be too much work for one person, and refactoring it by those criteria would be hopeless. And the case hasn't even run it's course to a successful conclusion, although it is doubtful it will ever do that, considering they went to ArbCom.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking: only policy-related arguments about the content and (not "on", was that some sort of goof?) organization of WP:ATT or related policies would be disclosed, nothing personal. Really, that's all I (and probably the community, too, at least from what I've seen here) really care about, I don't need to know who someone talked to in an all-nighter at the bar or something, or about what cookies they like to eat, or anything else that is personal. I'd just need to know about what's going on with the POLICY and the detailed reasoning of how those conclusions were arrived at. How comprehensive should this "summary" get, anyway, of those policy-related arguments? That's the rub: what should we include, insofar as real, relevant, policy arguments (not personal stuff!) go? And whether or not it's an individual or a group, I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another. mike4ty4 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It can be as detailed as the group or individual spends the time to make it. And if the community wants to know more about something in the summary, they can ask questions - two-way communication. (Yes, the "on" thing was a typing mistake.) Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That sounds a lot better. So, anyway, when is the working group going to start up? mike4ty4 22:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WG#2 last call

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is last call to set up an alternative version of the remake. `'mikka 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope it is not last call.  :)) Let's see what the other Working Groups do first. Maybe we will all be invited to join one of the others. --Rednblu 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-ATT Bias???

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi.

I noticed there are more "opponents" than "proponents" listed in the working group. Is this a whiff of anti-ATT bias that I smell? mike4ty4 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No; there are several different flavors of "no" here, some of whom oppose ATT for diametrically opposite reasons; the "yes" voices agree far more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. mike4ty4 07:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

These policies aint worth a crap without critique

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The problem with the Wikipedia policy is that there is no critique included with it. The policy is badly flawed, but stating the reasons here is a complete waste of time as these words will soon be archived and forgotten, included with all the rest of the drivel written here.

Any policy to have any validity must include its critique or it is just mindless nonsense. Once the critique of the policy is sharpened the policy itself will finally begin to approach validity.01001 02:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, we need a critique. mike4ty4 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I am confused... are you saying that we should include a section in each Policy that states why it is a bad policy? Blueboar 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps maybe not on the same page, but some page detailing a few arguments over various Wikipedia policies may be useful, and it would be to display arguments, not to say the policy is bad, but to show various common objections and criticisms. mike4ty4 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Working Party - Let's Get It Started

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There has been a lot of talk about process, there have been nominations made and accepted, but the substantive discussion has stalled before starting. Reasonable arguments have been presented on both sides of the issue of keeping discussion private, but a private discussion has not met with wide approval, and discussion has not begun in that format. Therefore, I suggest we get a discussion started, and do so in a publicly viewable place.

The discussion page at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group seems like a good place to bring the working group together. The issue of participation in the group, and proper balance, should be addressed reasonably quickly. One suitable approach could be to nominate one or two additional "proponent" members. Another approach could be to get together all of the currently nominated and accepting members, and have them decide on a fair balance, which might require one or two nominated members to remove themselves from the group (I'm well aware that I might be one who is asked to step aside). Or, we might simply start talking!

In any event, procedure can't be allowed to get in the way of opening up discussion. Ideas need to be put forth, collaboration must begin, and the various parties, of various perspectives, need to start negotiating if this anticipated compromise is ever to occur. So, let's get it started. zadignose 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's procede and see what happens. WAS 4.250 19:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Might as well be bold as bored. ;-) It doesn't seem like we're going to hear from SlimVirgin; I left a message on her talk page on April 26th, but received no courtesy of a reply before my query was archived. Since she's merrily working away on ATT when she's not rousting LaRouchies, I guess that means we're being left to our own devices. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Attribution and dispute resolution

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

All this talk about how to structure Wikipedia's core policies is missing an important consideration. I believe editors need better tools to enforce these policies on a day to day basis. In particular, I would propose that the various dispute resolution activities on Wikipedia be asked to use a two step process. In the first step, disputants would be asked to list the sources for the positions they are taking, the nature of the sources, if they are not generally familiar, and what they actually say. If one (or both) disputants cannot provide sources supporting their positions that meet some threshold of acceptability, the dispute resolution should end there. If there are acceptable sources, but they are disputed because of alleged bias or relative authority, say, that would be dealt with in the second, substantive phase along with other matters raised. Based on my recent experience, I think a significant number of disputes would be speedily dispatched in this way. More importantly, I think editors would be more aggressive in removing poorly sourced material if they didn't fear getting involved in lengthly, argumentative processes.--agr 15:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Which dispute resolution activities? The Arbitration Committee, for example, rarely if ever deals with content issues.
As for mediation, mediators are not judges. Mediators cannot tell editors that they are wrong. Secondly, that gives a distinct advantage to more experienced editors, something a mediator may want to mitigate. Thirdly, that could be overwhelming in a dispute with 20+ participants. Fourthly, the more serious content disputes, which is what mediation handles best, are often focused around neutrality, with sourcing only being an issue in so far as it affects neutrality. Not to mention that if it's a simple matter of one editor not providing sources, the mediator might be able to easily resolve the dispute by doing a bit of research him or her self, leaving the judgement of whether or not sources found by the mediator are reliable to the parties.
I suggest we let the arbitrators, mediators, and other dispute resolution people decide for themselves the best way to perform their roles.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What happens though when no source can be found, and the claim is removed? Does the user get blocked or banned even if their edit was in good faith? mike4ty4 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea!! Gorgeous! Thank you! If we just had a formalized process for each side presenting in a two column table the 1) assertion and the 2) the ReliableSource that has Verified the assertion that the particular side cannot keep inserted in the Wikipedia page, that would a great advance. That could bypass all of this turf war of reversions over which OriginalResearch by the editors wins the page. --Rednblu 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I know very little of ArbCom's workings but from what I understand it is not a scalable system and directly affects only a minute fraction of Wikipedia pages. The bulk of conflict resolution is handled by some form or mediation. I think mediation is a great system and in my experience the mediators do a terrific job, but the goal in mediation is to reach a consensus that everyone can live with. Core policies like V, NPOV and NOR are just another factor to take into consideration in reaching a compromise. That means a determined editor who adds unsourced material into a Wikipedia article can generally keep it there. If the community thinks that's fine, so be it. If the community finds unsourced material unaceptable, then that view has to be reflected in the day-to-day mechanisms by which edit conflicts are handled. Otherwise these policies become merely advisory.--agr 13:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing is important to neutrality. However, I personally would rather deal with broader, holistic issues like content forking before dealing with nitty gritty details like whether this sentence or that paragraph is indeed supported by some source. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While this sounds like a good idea in theory, I don't know how it would work out in practice. I would think to get a better feel from the Mediators that it would affect, you might want to try bringing this up on the talkpage for the MedCom. Thanks, ^demon[omg plz] 19:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No WP policy will do any good...

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

(This may not be relevant directly to this but it is an important issue)

...unless it is enforced as strongly as possible. We really need STRICT enforcement of Wikipedia policy -- whether it's ATT or NOR/V, or NPOV, or whatever. An editor should not be able to game the rules and get their crank theory, opinion, unpublished research, or other policy-violating material put in an article, period. Tougher admins, clearer policy, and other things are all important to doing this. If we want a high-quality encyclopedia, this is absolutely, unquestionably a necessity. Right now the enforcement just seems too lax. mike4ty4 06:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think the Arbitration Committee rarely, if ever, rules on content? Content policies must be interpreted by the local consensus. How would you enforce due weight? Which people are in the best position to decide how reliable a source is? Neutrality involves making compromises. A content policy which is clearly enforceable, which says one side is right and the other is wrong, is bad for compromises and bad for neutrality. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
But how also do you manage to keep editors from breaking the spirit of the rule? The problem is when it can be gamed so that a true violation of policy can be "agreed" to happen, like if someone succeeds in manipulating the system to give their opinion more weight or something. The system needs to be difficult to manipulate in a way contrary to WP's goals, namely of producing a good encyclopedia. mike4ty4 19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Enforcing due weight is a hopeless cause. The problem is systemic bias - the opinions of the world are not proportionately represented on English Wikipedia. People from non-English-speaking countries are obviously underrepresented on English Wikipedia. This includes a lot of people from developing countries, who are even more underrepresented than people first world non-English speaking countries, due to lack of internet access and less education on foreign languages. The Chinese are underrepresented, not only because their native language is Chinese, but also because of the Great Firewall, and the fact that a number of administrators hardblock TOR, an open proxy the Chinese can use to get around the Great Firewall. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Articles with editors from various sides of a dispute can do their best to reach a consensus, which is probably the closest they can come to neutrality. Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View is really more of an ideal to strive for than a rule to enforce. The better represented the various viewpoints are, the closer the article can come. However, saying that one side is right and the other is wrong will prevent this from happening.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you really get what I'm saying. I'm not saying that it is something other than an ideal, I'm talking about people who deliberately game the system so as to go against that ideal -- to go for more bias, not less. mike4ty4 22:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's unlikely for people to try to push for more bias. What happens, rather, is that each person tends to believe that their own point of view is the unbiassed one, and they try to push the articles closer to that point of view as an attempt to make the articles less biassed. This is then seen by others as making the article more biassed. It should not be seen as trying to make the article more biassed -- it isn't. --Coppertwig 14:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What does not need to be cited

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Currently the policy discusses what needs citations, but what about what does not need citations. Currently there is an essay called Wikipedia:Common knowledge, but it is just an essay and currently is not a policy or guideline. We should make it clear in the new policy things that don't need citations.--Sefringle 04:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an essay for a good reason -- it shouldn't be followed. If it's so common that it doesn't need to be cited, why are we writing it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not the whole story. Essays don't carry much weight, but they often are explaining a particular facet of policy. Wikipedia:Common knowledge is just explaining that you can't use "common knowledge" as a source. As far as your original comment about making it clear what things don't need sources, that's just not going to happen. If it's ever in dispute, it needs a source per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Sxeptomaniac 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The real problem here is cases where somebody tries to make a procedural point by slapping {{fact}} tags on truly uncontroversial statements (such as "There are many Usenet newsgroups about computer programming" or "Most years are not leap years"). The question is then whether one needs to appeal to WP:POINT (or, God forbid it, WP:IAR) when one summarily removes those tags, or whether we need some specific policy language to say that disputes in demonstrably bad faith do not count as disputes. I'm not quite decided myself, but lean towards thinking that relying on common sense here is preferable to more explicit rules; an attempt to codify the common sense in question will just give disruptive editors more chances of finding a loophole to wikilawyer through. –Henning Makholm 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the best solution in that case would probably be taking it to the talk page. Wikilawyers will expose themselves quickly, as they won't have any reasoning beyond "it's the rules." Sxeptomaniac 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If the article cites any decent sources at the end, then the statements will be supported by those sources and the tags can be removed as such. If it doesn't, then the article deserves to get tagged and questioned. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it over?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this discussion over? there have been no edits on this page since 6 June 2007. That is like two centuries in real time. Should we take the merge tags off of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and such? Jeepday (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion&oldid=1137402627"