[WikiEN-l] Jimbo's rejection of [[WP:ATT]]

[jayjg]

I still suspect that this was based on a misunderstanding of WP:ATT,
based on the Langans article. I'm sure he'll change his view once he
realizes that they are unrelated.

Jay.

On 3/20/07, jf_wikipedia <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Slim Virgin wrote:
>
> > The merge was popular, smooth, there were no changes to policy, and
> > ATT has quickly become a widely used page, so I'm assuming this was a
> > misunderstanding that will be sorted out soon enough.
>
>
> I am not so sure, SlimVirgin.
>
> This is what he writes. He calls ATT a "monumentally bad idea". What
> needs to be clarified is that the distintions between V, RS and OR
> not only have been maintained in WP:ATT, but their formulation
> synchronized with one another as well.
>
> -- Jossi
>
> <snip>
> I take virtually no position on the details of WP:ATT. I think that
> it probably was a more or less accurate merger of the three separate
> policies. But merging three separate policies into one, even when
> that change is not intended to make any actual policy change, is not
> trivial and in this particular a monumentally bad idea. All over the
> site are hundreds or thousands of links to these policy pages, and
> the meaning of referring someone to WP:V versus WP:RS versus WP:NOR
> are overwhelmingly important to a coherent understanding of the
> arguments people are making. We must not merge these separate
> concepts, or we have no means of distinguishing them. Not everything
> is the same thing.--Jimbo Wales 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
> </snip>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>