First I want to thank everyone who worked on the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR merger into WP:ATT. I do not think those changes are a good idea, but I know that a lot of people worked on it in good faith, and that reasonable people may differ.
I undid this merger of policy not because I think it is a bad idea but because there was not really a proper process. If ultimately approved, this is a MAJOR change of editorial policy structure (even if, at the outset, the policies are supposed to stay the same).
I am happy to restore the policy if there is community consensus to do. I am encouraging the creation of at minimum a "vote" page to allow people to register their opinions more systematically.
The reason, though, that I think this is a bad idea is quite simple. WP:RS (which has never been fully fleshed out as I think it could be) and WP:V and WP:NOR are separate ideas, not the same idea. They need separate policy pages so they can be explained separately, even when there is overlap. A combined page will tend to cause confusion as editors being to think that "attribution" (the word) is more important than verifiability, avoiding original research, etc.
Even when things like this are closely linked (and they are), they are actually different things.
--Jimbo
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 05:46:39 +0900, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The reason, though, that I think this is a bad idea is quite simple. WP:RS (which has never been fully fleshed out as I think it could be) and WP:V and WP:NOR are separate ideas, not the same idea. They need separate policy pages so they can be explained separately, even when there is overlap. A combined page will tend to cause confusion as editors being to think that "attribution" (the word) is more important than verifiability, avoiding original research, etc.
I agree, and I'd further note that I thought this had died months back and was amazed to see it had not just resurfaced but replaced two of our main policies. Of course, I am notoriously inactive on Wikipedia and the mailing list, right?
As far as I can tell, merging RS and the *examples* from NOR and V into an attribution policy would have real merit, but merging OR dilutes NOR by implying that we can perform original research as long as we cite the primary sources properly - it dilutes the prohibition on original syntheses and on having articles for which no secondary sources exist. Under the attribution policy we would, I think, have much less of a defence against a lot of pseudoscience pushers.
Guy (JzG)
On Mar 20, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
As far as I can tell, merging RS and the *examples* from NOR and V into an attribution policy would have real merit, but merging OR dilutes NOR by implying that we can perform original research as long as we cite the primary sources properly - it dilutes the prohibition on original syntheses and on having articles for which no secondary sources exist. Under the attribution policy we would, I think, have much less of a defence against a lot of pseudoscience pushers.
Have your read [[WP:ATT]], Guy?
Take the WP:ATT#No_original_research and the section WP:ATT#Reliable_sources
and tell me what we have "lost" in WP:ATT.
I'll tell you: Absolutely nothing. The defense is still there as strong as ever.
-- Jossi
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:20:28 -0700, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
Have your read [[WP:ATT]], Guy?
Yes. So did Jimbo.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
As far as I can tell, merging RS and the *examples* from NOR and V into an attribution policy would have real merit, but merging OR dilutes NOR by implying that we can perform original research as long as we cite the primary sources properly - it dilutes the prohibition on original syntheses and on having articles for which no secondary sources exist. Under the attribution policy we would, I think, have much less of a defence against a lot of pseudoscience pushers.
That's a good way of putting it. The concepts themselves need their own pages simply to demonstrate that they are independent, albeit related, concepts. But gathering all of the advice and examples together makes eminent sense.
On Mar 20, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I undid this merger of policy not because I think it is a bad idea but because there was not really a proper process.
Jimy, I may be missing something here, so maybe you can help me understand.
Here are some facts:
1. The proposal for the merger started circa mid October 2006 6. The effort was announced in this very mailing list on October 10, 2006: 2. More that 2,000 edits to the WP:ATT page itself 3. More than 5,000 edits to the talk page 4. Hundreds of editors involved 5. ATT was promoted to policy on February 15, 2007, and remained uncontested until your intervention of today three months later.
What I would want to understand related to "proper process" is:
(a) What was done that we should not have done; (b) What was not done that we should have done; (c) How do we gauge consensus as it relates to policy changes. (d) Do we need to involve you in the final determination so this does not happen again?
(What I mean by "we" are those editors that put a considerable effort in this initiative.)
-- Jossi
jf_wikipedia wrote:
(a) What was done that we should not have done;
The change was made before a sufficient process had taken place to make the change, with the result that many good editors were unaware that such a fundamental change was about to take place. Many have reported being baffled and unhappy with the change.
(b) What was not done that we should have done;
A process which has worked well in the past is a process of discussion to arrive at a specific proposal, followed by a broad public poll (or "vote"), followed by a certification of the result.
This achieves something quite useful: broad notification, a serious assessment of the strength or weakness of support for some proposal, and a defined endpoint so that people know that policy has been changed. All of these things serve to promote harmony by making policy changes democratic rather than power struggles.
(c) How do we gauge consensus as it relates to policy changes.
We do not have a simple clear definition of this.
(d) Do we need to involve you in the final determination so this does not happen again?
I think this would be a good thing, yes. I do not want to have a veto over policy changes (other than perhaps WP:NPOV - if a vote of 90% of all editors was to turn Wikipedia into Conservapedia, I would not accept it at all of course :) ). But I think it is important that for really major shifts of policy, we have a clear and defined endpoint.
--Jimbo
On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
(b) What was not done that we should have done;
A process which has worked well in the past is a process of discussion to arrive at a specific proposal, followed by a broad public poll (or "vote"), followed by a certification of the result.
Broad is the keyword here. To really get everyone notified, a specific announcement should be made to this list, to Village pump/policy, and probably several other key on-wiki discussion pages (including User talk:Jimbo Wales). And probably on the IRC server too. Notifications during the discussion phase, and during the !voting phase.
(c) How do we gauge consensus as it relates to policy changes.
We do not have a simple clear definition of this.
Yeah. Newbies' opinions should somehow not be given equal weight.
it at all of course :) ). But I think it is important that for really major shifts of policy, we have a clear and defined endpoint.
Definition of "major shift of policy", anyone? :)
Steve, who admits to having been "baffled" but not "unhappy" by the change to WP:ATT. ymmv.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:41:31 +1100, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Broad is the keyword here. To really get everyone notified, a specific announcement should be made to this list, to Village pump/policy, and probably several other key on-wiki discussion pages (including User talk:Jimbo Wales). And probably on the IRC server too. Notifications during the discussion phase, and during the !voting phase.
I think it's telling that so many people express surprise at the change. I don't think it's wrong to say that I am one of the more active Wikipedians, and I had no idea the change was coming. I thought WP:ATT has stalled long since.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/21/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
(b) What was not done that we should have done;
A process which has worked well in the past is a process of discussion to arrive at a specific proposal, followed by a broad public poll (or "vote"), followed by a certification of the result.
Broad is the keyword here. To really get everyone notified, a specific announcement should be made to this list, to Village pump/policy, and probably several other key on-wiki discussion pages (including User talk:Jimbo Wales). And probably on the IRC server too. Notifications during the discussion phase, and during the !voting phase.
Yup that was done.
I knew about it. Looked in a couple of times but things seemed to be going fine and the debate over fair use policy was more interesting.
Part of the problem is that it is very hard these days to contact a significant section of the communiy other than say through MediaWiki:Watchdetails.
it at all of course :) ). But I think it is important that for really major shifts of policy, we have a clear and defined endpoint.
Definition of "major shift of policy", anyone? :)
One that has an impact on the day to day activities of people on the ground..
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:34:59 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the problem is that it is very hard these days to contact a significant section of the communiy other than say through MediaWiki:Watchdetails.
Maybe we should hook into a meta page or something, like with the fund-raising drive. Proposals for significant change to policy get flagged up in an info bar, and stay there until you click-through or dismiss the thing.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:34:59 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the problem is that it is very hard these days to contact a significant section of the communiy other than say through MediaWiki:Watchdetails.
Maybe we should hook into a meta page or something, like with the fund-raising drive. Proposals for significant change to policy get flagged up in an info bar, and stay there until you click-through or dismiss the thing.
Guy (JzG)
there would be a very high risk of it being abused.
On 3/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:34:59 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: Maybe we should hook into a meta page or something, like with the fund-raising drive. Proposals for significant change to policy get flagged up in an info bar, and stay there until you click-through or dismiss the thing.
Guy (JzG)
there would be a very high risk of it being abused.
How could it be abused, Geni?
On 3/21/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
How could it be abused, Geni?
Everyone with any kind of message insists they must be allowed to use it to contact to the community.
With the proper safeguards this could be got around (say make it bureaucrats only).
Generaly though solutions that require a change to the software are not the best first line of aproach.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:05:03 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Generaly though solutions that require a change to the software are not the best first line of aproach.
When was the last time we did anything quite this far-reaching?
Guy (JzG)
On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:05:03 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Generaly though solutions that require a change to the software are not the best first line of aproach.
When was the last time we did anything quite this far-reaching?
Board elections perhaps.
If the foundation statement on copyright moves out of beta without becomeing largely meaningless that would be another one.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:19:47 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
When was the last time we did anything quite this far-reaching?
Board elections perhaps.
If the foundation statement on copyright moves out of beta without becomeing largely meaningless that would be another one.
Right. So using the banner code would not be such a bad thing, then.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:19:47 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
When was the last time we did anything quite this far-reaching?
Board elections perhaps.
If the foundation statement on copyright moves out of beta without becomeing largely meaningless that would be another one.
Right. So using the banner code would not be such a bad thing, then.
except you have the problem of getting people to stick to that. Perhaps whenever WP:CSD gets changed people will want to put up a notice. Perhaps when we get yet another guideline tuning up.
Unless you are careful this will happen because it will be seen as only one click.
On Mar 21, 2007, at 12:01 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
jf_wikipedia wrote:
(a) What was done that we should not have done;
The change was made before a sufficient process had taken place to make the change, with the result that many good editors were unaware that such a fundamental change was about to take place. Many have reported being baffled and unhappy with the change.
(b) What was not done that we should have done;
A process which has worked well in the past is a process of discussion to arrive at a specific proposal, followed by a broad public poll (or "vote"), followed by a certification of the result.
This achieves something quite useful: broad notification, a serious assessment of the strength or weakness of support for some proposal, and a defined endpoint so that people know that policy has been changed. All of these things serve to promote harmony by making policy changes democratic rather than power struggles.
(c) How do we gauge consensus as it relates to policy changes.
We do not have a simple clear definition of this.
(d) Do we need to involve you in the final determination so this does not happen again?
I think this would be a good thing, yes. I do not want to have a veto over policy changes (other than perhaps WP:NPOV - if a vote of 90% of all editors was to turn Wikipedia into Conservapedia, I would not accept it at all of course :) ). But I think it is important that for really major shifts of policy, we have a clear and defined endpoint.
--Jimbo
Thank you for the reply.
I was not aware of the need for a broad public poll. For example, WP:BLP, which I was quite involved in formulating, went from proposal to policy without such public poll.
As for the argument that "many good editors were unaware", I find that puzzling: How could such editors *not* be aware with all the discussions, involvement, redirecting of high-traffic pages such as NPOV and V, the referencing to WP:ATT in ArbCom cases, etc?
As for your last point, that is very clear and useful as it defines an unambiguous endpoint.
-- Jossi
On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The change was made before a sufficient process had taken place to make the change, with the result that many good editors were unaware that such a fundamental change was about to take place.
Jimbo, this simply isn't true. First, there was *no* fundamental change, just a merge of three untidy pages. Anyone who says there was a change needs to read NOR and V, then read ATT, and explain what the fundamental difference is.
As for the process, the discussion and editing lasted four or five months, and involved hundreds of editors. It was discussed all over Wikipedia, and the way we knew it was okay to make the merge live is that people *started to use* WP:ATT of their own accord, refer to it to support their edits, link to it, quote it. It was evolution, not revolution, which is the best way to form policy, exactly the same way BLP developed.
Sarah