Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

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 maintainable, 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.

• Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/Archive 1

Working party

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)

Proposals

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

neutral/qualified/compromise/other

• Armed Blowfish (talk · contribs)
• CP\M (talk · contribs)
• WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs)
• badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

opponents

• SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) — I accept
• Askari Mark (talk · contribs) – accept
• Thebainer (talk · contribs)

proponents

• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) - accept
• Crum375 (talk · contribs) - accept
• Marskell (talk · contribs)
• jossi (talk · contribs) - accept, but willing to withdraw if number of participants needs to be kept small

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

• Pmanderson (talk · contribs) (Septentrionalis) (neutral)
• Slrubenstein (talk · contribs) (mostly neutral, has some good ideas)
• Coppertwig (talk · contribs) (oppose, good insight into the "truth" issue)

The "truth" issue will not be part of the working committee, I would say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Fabulous Eight?

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

Utterly ridiculous

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)

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. -

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)

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)

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)

Numbers

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