Misplaced Pages

:Attribution/Poll: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Attribution Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:58, 31 March 2007 editSable232 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,034 edits →In broad opposition to WP:ATT← Previous edit Revision as of 17:01, 31 March 2007 edit undoFrozenPurpleCube (talk | contribs)9,603 edits →Support some merger, but not this one.Next edit →
Line 271: Line 271:
#***5) '''<u>Any and all policy must be ratified</u>''' by community consensus #***5) '''<u>Any and all policy must be ratified</u>''' by community consensus
#*On those terms I give a '''Qualified Support''' ] 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) #*On those terms I give a '''Qualified Support''' ] 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Marginal support''' I'm not opposed to the idea of a restructuring of these pages, and I don't feel that the arguments against it hold much weight, but I'm not convinced that all of the concerns relating to these policies are satisfied even by the merger. ] 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


=====Compromise/Neutral===== =====Compromise/Neutral=====

Revision as of 17:01, 31 March 2007

This poll is now closed.
This was a straw poll to gauge the community's thoughts about the Misplaced Pages:Attribution merger. The poll ran from March 30, 2007 at 00:00 UTC to April 7, 2007 at 01:00 UTC.

424 users responded in the section for broad support of the merger, 354 responded in the section for broad opposition, and 102 responded in the section for neutral votes, qualified opinions, compromises, and other opinions. Please keep in mind that these numbers are a rough approximation, since some editors might have placed their comments in an unintended section (most notably the third one).

Please see below for their rationales and related comments.
Shortcut

Background

Misplaced Pages:Attribution (WP:ATT) is an attempt to unite Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (WP:V) and Misplaced Pages:No original research (WP:NOR). It was worked on for over five months by more than 300 editors, and was upgraded to policy on 15 February, 2007. The proposal was e-mailed to Misplaced Pages co-founder Jimbo Wales, made public on various policy talk pages, on the WikiEN-L mailing list, and was announced on The Misplaced Pages Signpost.

More recently, on the WikiEN-L mailing list, Jimbo Wales suggested:

  • "A broad community discussion to shed light on the very good work done by a group of people laboring away on WP:ATT and related pages", (see: Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Community discussion), and then,
  • "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results."

References:

  1. Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales, "Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?" WikiEN-L, 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How to participate in this poll

  • Please do not directly respond on this page to opinions of other editors; discussion should take place on the designated talk page. Comments in the polling sections of this page should be limited to short statements (300 words or less ideally). Responses in the 'polling' section will be refactored and moved to the Talk page.
Notes

Question to all editors

Misplaced Pages:Attribution is a merger of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research into a single policy page.

Some aspects of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (WP:RS) were also merged into WP:ATT, with other material from RS to be incorporated into the accompanying Misplaced Pages:Attribution/FAQ (WP:ATTFAQ).

The intention is not to change policy, but to express it more clearly and concisely, and to make it easier to follow and maintain by having it expressed on one policy page, and discussed on one talk page.

What do you think of this? Reply in the below comments section with your statement.

Your opinion here, please

NOTE: Please keep your statement short and to the point. You may change or edit your statement. One total entry per person, please; if you want to endorse someone else's, do so as part of your total entry. Please bold key words (I support all, oppose all, support A but not B etc.).
Do not reply HERE to others. All threaded replies to points will be refactored/placed onto the poll's Talk page. If you wish to reply, copy their statement to the Talk page, and reply there.

In broad support of WP:ATT

  1. I support all of Misplaced Pages:Attribution without prejudice against continued discussion to hammer out the details. Sourcing is one issue with many facets, and should therefore be covered in one policy page (Misplaced Pages:Attribution) with many sections. I think consensus was achieved in the several months worth of discussion which occurred on WT:A, that the merger should be remade, and that the other three should be superseded. Picaroon 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. I support ATT per Picaroon and per KISS. There is no change in policy — ATT is merely a relocation of the existing policies into dedicated sections in a unified page, where they can all be linked into separately if needed, while being maintained coherently and efficiently. Crum375 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - ATT does not change policy, only merges the principles upon which the policies of V and NOR were created, into one, concise, simple to understand and refer page.
    • Think of the thousand + new editors that register each month... WP:ATT gives them a concise and accurate presentation of our core policies.
    • Think of experienced editors lending a hand in content disputes: A single destination to send people to (in addition to WP:NPOV)
    • Need examples, details, etc? Go to the WP:ATTFAQ. It still needs work but it has promise.
    • In summary: WP:ATT is good for the project, for both newbies and experienced editors alike. The shortcuts such as WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS can still be maintained by linking these to the appropriate subsection of ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong support — most of my reasons have already been stated. ATT consolidates several policy pages and clarifies everything. Misplaced Pages stresses succinctness in its articles; it should also stress this in its procedures. — Deckiller 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. I support the general idea of a merger between WP:V and WP:NOR.
  6. I support WP:ATT although I really wish there was a better way to express it than to say that Misplaced Pages is not about recording the truth. That statement reads really badly. When I consult an encyclopedia it is because I want the truth - not because I want a list of attributed/attributable claims. Our goal is most certainly to express the truth - attribution is the way we find truth when many editors have differing opinions, when we have people trying to insert untruth, when a myriad of other bad things happen. Attribution is a test for truth - albeit a flawed one - it is merely that we agree that attributed statements are more likely to be true than those that are unattributable. SteveBaker 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. I support WP:ATT strongly, and have even though I never discussed it in process before. I was aware of the changes and feel that, while I didn't participate, I was kept well informed through the normal channels. I think this re-organization of policy is very helpful to newcomers and older editors also. The ideas are presented in a much simpler way, and is much more useful when explaining to people. - cohesion 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. I support WP:ATT fully. The merger will make life easier long-term for everyone. - Denny 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. I support the WP:ATT merger of WP:V and WP:NOR, although I would prefer that WP:RS remain as separate as possible. After a few weeks getting used to it, I think the idea of a single ATT policy rather than V and NOR separately is a definite improvement.--ragesoss 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. I support the WP:ATT merge, RS changes and all. The more simply and clearly we can state our policies, the more effective Wikipedians (especially the newer ones, who we need just as badly as experienced editors) can be, and the better chance we have of building a really good encyclopedia. Oh, and, any editor who speaks up now about Misplaced Pages's role in reporting "the truth" is encouraged to take the time read the Misplaced Pages article on truth, and it should become clear very quickly why pursuing "the truth" is far less likely to succeed than merely requiring attribution from reliable sources. -/- Warren 02:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. The merge gives us V, NOR, and RS on one page, which makes it easy to find, easier to read, easier to maintain. There was no change of policy, hundreds of editors were involved in its development, and people liked it. It was a genuinely popular move. SlimVirgin 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - the merge did not change policy, and made the whole package easier to understand and to manage. Guettarda 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support ATT, because attribution is at its core what we do. Verifiability and No Original Research are reasons why to attribute, and as such may deserve an explanatory page more than a subsection. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter if we're providing ways to verify our content or whether we're trimming WP:MADEUP; we practice what we preach. Nifboy 04:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support WP:ATT: I don't see anything being lost in consolidating these very important related concepts into subsections of one clear and concise overarching topic. Krimpet (talk/review)
  15. Support WP:ATT - Consolidation and merger into one page will make things easier, policy is not going to change.. If there are any editors who would like parts of the policy to be changed, they can be raised in its talk page and discussed and modifications brought if need be. Baristarim 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support WP:ATT, as I believe it sums up the three policies it merges quite well. Indeed, those policies can be summed up in a single sentence-"Do not use your personal knowledge or original research to write articles, instead use only verifiable information from a reliable source." Seraphimblade 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - Succinct and effective synthesis combination of worthwhile policies; nice to have them congealed into one spot. --EEMeltonIV 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support all. Policy reform is one of the most important things Misplaced Pages can do right now. It'll have lasting and important effects on how people view the project and how they act within it. Our policies thus far have grown up more or less to meet circumstances: that is why we've got so many policies, and so many who are pigeonholed, legalistic, or arcane. As Misplaced Pages becomes more self-aware, I think there'll be an increasing will to combine and otherwise reform extant policies to meet our mission and fit more circumstances. This particular move is a great step towards making our policy logical, accessible, internally consistent, broad, and simple. I've watched the attribution page grow into what it is for some time now, and I think it's more than ready to fill the shoes of our other policies technically. I urge everyone to support it. Cheers, -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 05:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - Specifically separate sub-topics, but all within the realm of attribution for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, clearly. Each can still be cited in the usual manner (normally done during talkpage spats) ;).--Keefer4 | Talk 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - I'm tired of editors who cite all three to build an argument against something. ALTON .ıl 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - The policy of "Attribution" does not contain any new information, but what it does do is simplify the policy situation which in this case is a Good Thing (tm). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - the merge did not change policy, and made the whole package easier to understand and to manage. The shortcuts such as WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS can still be maintained by linking these to the appropriate subsection of ATT. I think this re-organization of policy is very helpful to newcomers and older editors also. The ideas are presented in a much simpler way, and is much more useful when explaining to people. The merge gives us V, NOR, and RS on one page, which makes it easy to find, easier to read, easier to maintain. This particular move is a great step towards making our policy logical, accessible, internally consistent, broad, and simple. WAS 4.250 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - the more policy pages, and the more detail in those policy pages, the more opportunity there is for rules-lawyering and holding the letter above the spirit of the law. Merging everything into ATT brought together related concepts and simplified things greatly, but having all four pages running concurrently is a step backward. Remerge please. Bryan Derksen 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - Keep it simple. Iorek85 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support all of Misplaced Pages:Attribution. There is no changing of policy, only merging of the principles into one, concise, reference page. This makes the transition into WP easier. I believe the future benefits outwieght any negatives.--88wolfmaster 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - I broadly support the establishment of WP:ATT as policy; it is a worthy synthesis. However, that support is conditional on WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and other underlying policies and guidelines remaining valid and intact; vague portmanteaus do not serve our purposes. RGTraynor 06:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support per KISS. --tickle me 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. I Support the concept of merging several policies and summarizing them. This is a perfect remedy to Misplaced Pages's already many policies and guidelines, and the merge makes it easier for new and experienced users to grasp. Sr13 (T|C) 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support any simplification or coalation of Misplaced Pages's varied and sometimes byzantine policies. Openness and transparancy is important, and in a circumstance where keeping it simple is possible, it should be done. I think in this case the merging is both appropriate and necessary to an approchable body of work that needs less arbitrary restrictions, not more. Salad Days 06:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. The condensation of our policies is absolutely essential to prevent instruction creep, especially as the project grows ever larger and has to create additional mandatory/"core" policies like WP:BLP to deal with new challenges it faces. The merged pages dealt with only slightly different cases of the same subject, so there was no reason to keep them separate. WP:V told us that we had to be able to source our information, WP:NOR merely expanded on a detail of this, saying that our personal experiences were not valid sources. WP:A incorporates both elements quite cleanly and accurately, and does not change the spirit of the rules from their previous state, so it should be accepted. --tjstrf talk 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support; I agree that condensation and simplification of Misplaced Pages policies is for the overall better. Streamlining the system will make it easier for editors to reference guidelines and for new editors to understand those guidelines. Peptuck 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. This is very much an issue of simplifying red tape, and considering that a lot of users don't bother reading policies before they post (I know I originally was one of them :$), this should encourage people to abide by the positions. Simplication = Better understanding. The Prince 06:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support all. More precise, more maintainable, much easier to lead newbies to a correct understanding. Doesn't weaken NOR in the slightest—explains it better and places it in correct context. Using the guideline RS to explain the policy V never made sense. Marskell 07:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support because the three templates to be merged are all talking about the same thing. - 上村七美 | talk 07:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. A good idea. El_C 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support, I agree with above opinions.-Marcus 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Strong Support per Jossi and per Sr13. Merging these pages in WP:ATT will render a single policy, which will be easier to mantain (at least, inconsistencies will be easier to detect and correct). If you have any doubt when reading the policy, just scroll up/down... all is in the same page. (However, admins should be prone to allow modifications in the content, as long as they do not modify it meaning) Rjgodoy 07:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Strong support Very good merge, way more practical. Garion96 (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Insofar as this will remove redundancy and make the policy statement more concise for users, I support it. JDubowsky
  40. Support. This would keep everything in one page, making its n00b-friendly. __earth 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support, OR is and always has been a special case of lack of verifiability/attributability, so it only makes sense to cover it all in a single policy. As for the complaints about the loss of the word "verifiable", I think this is more than adequately compensated for by the long-overdue inclusion of a requirement for reliable sources in policy. Attribution to reliable sources is verifiability! Plus, ATT is more concise and clear, and less intimidating than V and NOR were separately. Xtifr tälk 09:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support the merger. Easier to understand, to remember, to reference and to maintain. There's still work to be done on the merged policy's content and wording. Itayb 09:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. I find ATT in its current form clearer than NOR and V, and it successfully presents the two as special cases of the root principle. Viewing the arguments for and against, I find the arguments against fairly alarmist, and the arguments for quite straightforward and compelling.--Father Goose 09:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support for WP:V and WP:RS to be merged, but think that WP:NOR should remain separate. However, merging all 3 would be better than the current situation too. -- Ynhockey 09:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support a merger. As I previously comment, a merger should work as codification making easier our life here: easier access, more methodical organization of relevant provisions. This is the idea.--Yannismarou 09:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support the merger. In order to become more reliable as a source, Misplaced Pages needs a more strict and more clear definition of what (external) information is reliable. Merging WP:V and WP:NOR results in this clearer definition, upgrading WP:RS into the policy WP:ATT should result in the use of more reliable sources, which in turn results in a higher reliability of the information in wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support WP:ATT absolutely. Keep it simpler. See my original comments at the discussion. Michaelas10 10:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support - "It's just a merger."™ Yonatan 10:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support WP:ATT because people are forgetting to do all 3 three things but only do 1 or 2. Getonyourfeet 10:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support because multiple overlapping policies are bad, and simple policies are easier to follow, and easier to learn and explain. We can keep V and NOR as separate for explaining the two important approaches to the issue. The merger basically changes nothing, except that it makes things clearer. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support - this is a lot easier to understand than the original pages. I haven't been editing here long, but I have seen the previous pages cited incorrectly countless times - this merged page should help reduce that. Doceirias 10:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support If we don't fundamentally re-think our core policies every three or four years, we're not a learning organization. If we're not a learning organization, we're dead in three years. ~ trialsanderrors 11:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  53. I support WP:ATT because it is a simpler, clearer, more useful structure and ideas behind the NOR and V. I found both "original research" and "verifiability" confusing, because the way Misplaced Pages uses them conflicts with their everyday meanings. "Attributable" is a much better term. --Jdlh | Talk 11:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support, I think this merger will make referring to the policies much easier, currently the huge amount of them can be daunting to new members and difficult to refer back to. Camaron1 | Chris 11:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support all --Sean Brunnock 11:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support -- A single "parent" resource is necessary for new and senior editors alike. If related concepts such as verifiability or original research need distinguishing or elaboration, we can still link to subordinate pages. The current system is too confusing for new users and cumbersome for experienced users when explaining things to the newbies. --Keesiewonder 11:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support enthusiastically. This will make life easier when dealing with people who say "If you guys are promoting Red vs. Blue, we should be able to write about our unreleased series that no-one has heard of."--Drat (Talk) 11:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support -- it'll just make things easier. Matt.kaner 11:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support a merger. I had almost every edit I made to the policy reverted, but I feel one can put ego issues aside and think about what is best for the project. The most vocal opposition to ATT has not been about the issues Jimbo raised, but about almost the opposite, namely that WP:ATT will limit our right to do original research in determining the Truth. Well...
    1. The role of truth has not changed! Verifiability meant "verifiable attribution", please, tell me what has changed?
    2. Obviously, we all want Misplaced Pages to strive for the truth, but this is a content policy, not our mission statement! Are notions of truth ever helpful in resolving content disputes?
    3. In short, the policies have not changed, this is finally stating them less ambiguously, and that's why I like this policy. Who would have known that "no original research" also disallows "mundane non-research" just because the conclusion isn't attributable to a reliable source. Well, let's be explicit about it! --Merzul 11:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support. Simplifies, clarifies and disambiguates a lot of the confusion that WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR had. Obviously, a numbers game is no way to determine consensus, but I throw my hat in to support anyway. Batmanand | Talk 11:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  61. In my mind, V and NOR are almost the same (specifically, NOR is a subset of V). I know some people think they're different concepts, but I couldn't find an example something which is both Original Research and Verifiable (in the meaning of the policies). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support. If someone hasn't edited Misplaced Pages before, explaining that we have two content policies WP:A plus WP:NPOV is slightly easier. Addhoc 11:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support. It just makes sense. darkliight 12:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support a one-stop policy for all attribution issues - RS and V are so intrinsically linked that seeing them separated is confounding, and NOR is sufficiently close that it can logically be included in the over-arching policy. Whilst I have not personally contributed to the community discussion, I have watched it carefully. --New Progressive 12:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support per KISS. Makes sense to me. --Deenoe 12:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  66. Strong Support - especially for new users. We must strive for clarity and brevity: three articles impose too great a psychological distance, and impose too much redundancy to meet the brevity requirement. To simultaneously relate and distinguish policy from guideline, I advocate a tabbed layout, or some other obvious distinguishing layout style as a means of clearly delineating the two.--Lexein 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support. Merge, merge, merge; the articles are similar enough for a merge, and have multiple guidelines on a policy that could be summed up as Misplaced Pages:Reliability or Misplaced Pages:Sources. That being said, I do disagree with the title and feel that Misplaced Pages:Reliability would be the most appropriate. Having all the policies accesible will streamline Misplaced Pages, make it easily accesible to the masses, and reduce confusion by keeping it simple. It is much easier to reconcile one set of instucutions then multiple ones that may contradict each other.--JEF 12:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  68. Strong Support makes a lot of sense, and simplifies things.-BillDeanCarter 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  69. Strong Support - There is enough overlap in concept for NOR and V to be merged. A merger will lessen the likelihood of these policy pages being edited so that they conflict with each other (as has occasionally happened in the past). The old policies should be redirected to ATT with links to the relevant sections. That said, I feal that the guideline WP:RS should not be redirected and linked to ATT at this time. WP:RS should be edited to bring it into sync with the Policy statements contained in ATT, with the idea that it will eventually be re-worked and incorprated into a new guideline. That new guideline - comprised of segments of the current WP:RS would be called something like: "Determining reliability", and focus on advising editors on how to deal with the grey zone issues of determining if a given source is reliable within the context of a given article being written. This new guideline would avoid language that could be construed as being "the rules"... pointing the editor to ATT and NPOV for such statements. Instead it would be a true guideline... offering guidance on HOW to determine if a source is reliable within the framework and policy set out in ATT and NPOV. Blueboar 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support. KISS. --MZMcBride 13:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support there is considerable overlap between NOR and V - and when a negative policy (do not do ...) is clearly linked to a positive policy (do do ...), it makes sense to draw them together into a comprehensive policy. And it makes it easier for people to follow our policies when there are fewer. remember, in the beginning NPOV was our only really dominant policy; NOR and V developed as independent attempts to address some of the same problems. ATT gets us to coordinate our policies in a way we really should have done long ago. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  72. I generally Support the merge. Many editors have adressed concern about some of the percieved changes in policy. Many of these concerns are valid, and policy should be changed accordingly. But in terms of the merge, I am in full support of one, broad, unifying policy. --Ybbor SURVEY! 13:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  73. Full support of the merging. Keep things easy on newbies. CSP 13:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  74. --best, kevin 13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support - I find it laborious to see admins who feel that by citing three policies, they're building some kind of monumental case against an article, when one policy is simple and sufficient. --WikiGnosis 13:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support - per above --((F3rn4nd0 )) 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support merge conceptually, agree with many that there are still some details to hammer out about final wording and inclusion, confident that wikifying of final product will continue post-polling. Jfarber 14:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support. Obviously some details to be worked out, but the merger of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS into one cohesive concept seems logical and prudent to me. -- Satori Son 14:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  79. Strong Support I believe the unification of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS is a great thing for Misplaced Pages, as it would make newbies to Misplaced Pages lives easier and it is a logical decision. I don't see why we should even have to have a poll. This should have been able to happen without delays. Xtreme racer 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support. All three prior policies are aspects of the same requirement - if a source isn't reliable then it can't be used to verify. If something's OR it's inherently unverifiable. MartinMcCann 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  81. Strong support. It would be more convenient for other users who don't provide citations. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support Abridged 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support on the condition that all information from the each policy is kept and transplanted into WP:ATT, while also improving the policy's quality. Taric25 15:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support Best to merge policies for user ease, I am not commenting on the details but on the broad proposal to merge 3 pages into ATT, which is an excellent idea, SqueakBox 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support This sounds very sensible - what about all the templates though? Benbread 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  86. Strong Support. The policies may be conceptually distinct, but they are practically equivalent. While someone contemplating the merge in their leather armchair in front of the fire may find it devastating, I believe in the field it will provide great benefit at trivial cost. And like Picaroon said, continued discussion can hammer out the details. Moreover, I feel that the essay in opposition presents silly, weak arguments. Punctured Bicycle 15:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support because when the policies were on separate pages, they often became inconsistent. I reject the argument that these are separate ideas, because the separate policies, as they existed in the last year or so, did not describe the ideas in a way that makes the differences apparent. --Gerry Ashton 15:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  88. Very Strong Support-I strongly support all of this :) Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  89. Support having this information located in one place is easier on both new and old users. It makes intuitive sense to have this info all in one place. --LadyShelley 15:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  90. Support reduces redundant and often contradictory instructions, no significant drawbacks I can see Simões (/contribs) 16:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  91. Support for reasons above, and for the more passive advantage of regularly leading confused editors to one single spot, encouraging them to familiarize themselves with these guidelines in one place. -Markeer 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  92. Support Having the policies in one place is an improvement when it comes to practical usability. Pax:Vobiscum 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  93. Support for reasons set out above, and for having a single area that, hopefully, will not contradict itself. Saga City 16:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  94. Support Leo44 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  95. Definately Support when I was a new user, I personally had a difficult time finding what I needed in the help and policy pages. Any way to make them easier to use is a good idea. VonShroom 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  96. Broadly supportive of a merger of policies however strongly oppose the inclusion of reliability issues as doctrine beyond the concept that sourcing should be based on reliable dcumentation. RS is not policy and shouldn't be policy. Support editors don't figuratively beat them.ALR 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In broad opposition to WP:ATT

  1. No on WP:ATT. No on any merger idea at this time. Verifiability, ReliableSource, and No personal research are very independent components of high quality Misplaced Pages pages such as gravity and truth. That is, without a standard for "Verifiability" that is far higher than what mere Attributability requires, editors could not trim the gravity and truth pages to follow faithfully just the facts, not the mere attributions, as established by ReliableSources. Similarly, without a standard for "Verifiability" that is far higher than mere "Attributability," editors cannot trim pages on living persons to exclude fully attributable personal attacks that are baseless, false, and unfair. --Rednblu 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    You present your no vote as if you were defending verifiability, when in fact you are attacking verifiability, because verifiability explicitly makes editors' views as to what are facts, or factually accurate sources, irrelevant. If this is your reason your vote ought to be discounted. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. I oppose the proposed merging of pages, because I believe it's important to keep policy pages separate, in order to prevent the creation of one excessively large (and thus probably ignored) page. I believe it is best to keep the policies on their own separate pages. Philippe 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. I oppose WP:ATT as it exists. I oppose the changes that have been made to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS by people who use the argument "we aren't changing things, we are only clarifying things" while making major changes to the spirit of our policies. I oppose the promotion of WP:RS from a (very good) guideline to a policy. - O^O 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. While I appreciate the hard work and well-intentioned effort put into this proposal by many editors whose work I respect, I oppose every aspect of this ATT proposal and discussion.
    • More broad-based and open-minded discussion could have occurred before the poll was launched. I also oppose the poll itself, because the presentation is one-sided and the poll itself makes claims that aren't rebutted.
    • I don't support the idea that there was ever consensus for ATT. I was aware of ATT because I work closely with and follow the talk pages of a number of the main "architects" of the proposed policy. I weighed in several times (hence was one of those "300 editors"), but was under the impression that a revamping of fundamental Wiki policies would never happen without broader community input. I didn't see that broad consensus, and was quite surprised when ATT was enacted and core policies disappeared into redirects.
    • I don't agree that ATT merges existing policies, rather that existing policies were molded to ATT before work on them was somewhat abandoned.
    • I strongly agree with Jimbo's statements that each policy expresses a significantly different idea and am opposed to any merger of the core policies. I don't agree that one policy is either clearer or streamlined; I believe it obfuscates important aspects of our policies and weakens each of them.
    • I oppose having ATT as the overarching policy, while still maintaining links to the original three pages, as that creates a maintenance/syncing nightmare. I see no need for any merger.
    • I strongly disagree that ATT did not or will not change in practice our policies, and believe it will and already has weakened our core policies.
      • I am most opposed to the way interpretation of ATT interacts with the "experts" (think, Essjay controversy) scenario. Attributable but not necessarily attributed can be a means of avoiding providing sources for material, while verifiability supports that notion that Wiki's credibility depends upon the ability of our readers to verify that our information comes from reliable sources. Attributable but not attributed opens the door to "experts" to challenge the need to cite information. ATT falls into the "expert" problem by the subtle switch from verifiable to Wiki's readers to attributable to someone, somewhere, sometime, but unless you're an expert on the topic, you don't have the right to ask exactly where it's attributed.
    • My largest concern is that the approach to changing core policy wasn't optimal; while respecting the emotions and hard work invested in this process, I believe the shouting should die down and more voices should be heard before any core policies are changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. I strongly oppose ATT, because it denigrates factuality and accuracy (i.e. truth). Attribution is very important, but not more important than accuracy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    Your reason for voting "no" is not really that you object to ATT but that you object to one of the prior core polciies that ATT subsumes: Verifiability (not truth). Our V policy explicitly makes editors' views as to what are facts, or factually accurate sources, irrelevant. If this is your reason your vote ought to be discounted. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. oppose Agree per Jimbo regarding the three being separate ideas. No merge. Navou / contribs 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I think it is fine the way it is. There may be deficiencies, but this is not the way to fix them. Each one is a stand-alone principle.Mike Searson 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose - As per others in this section, WP:ATT is not a good idea. The 3 separate components merging into ATT are important on their own, and make up an extremely valuable part of WP's verifiability standards. Merging them will only serve to confuse rather than clarify. Thor Malmjursson 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - I agree with Philippe and SandyGeorgia's arguments and feel that this would be a huge mistake that would result in many people ignoring the guidelines. --Bishop2 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. I oppose the WP:ATT merger. I feel that I have been forced into doing so after once being neutral on the issue, by the overcontrol, "I know what's best, dammit" and editwarrior behavior of too many of the ATT proponents. These policies have been successfully separate for a long time, represent separate (albeit related) ideas, too many have raised concerns that policy is in fact being subtly changed in deeply fundamental ways, and ATT never had consensus and is being pushed, hard, now instead of being openly appraised and thoughtfully weighed. Just on the process issues alone I must stand against it. This is not how policy is made at Misplaced Pages. — SMcCandlish ツ 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose That was weird, someone removed my earlier comments. Anyways, merging parts of RS in is not a good idea, and the seperate ideas should remain seperate. - Peregrine Fisher 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose in this form; I do support a merger of WP:V, WP:RS and similar pages (and "attribution" would be a great name for that) but I don't support merging WP:NOR, because the three key content policies operate in different ways, and the best way to reinforce this is to have separate pages. I really don't see the benefit of merging in NOR. --bainer (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose These are separate notions. Merging them will inevitably dilute understanding and even-handed application of all three. Gwen Gale 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose ATT is a monster, really. I was leery when I heard that it was being formed out of WP:V and WP:NOR, but now WP:RS too? No, no, no...okay, in all seriousness, I agree with Jimbo that they are separate ideas that should remain seperate. Hbdragon88 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Separate ideas belong on separate pages. Nice analogy one above too. — MichaelLinnear 05:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per "Separate Ideas, Separate Pages." oncamera 05:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. I oppose the proposed merge, but feel instead WP:ATT should be marked with Template:Policy Summary and maintained as such. Sdsds 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Articles that encompass too much are tagged with {{main}}, per Summary style. Having these policies merged would create a policy that encompasses too much, and by the same logic, they should ideally be separate. Verifiability and No original research are critical concepts in Misplaced Pages; they deserve policies that explain them fully, not a bad amalgamation. Titoxd 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. (edit conflict) Strong oppose. Our separate policies/guidelines have worked just fine for a long time now. Why the sudden need to combine them? While I do respect the hard work of the editors who attempted this, I honestly don't see how a unified theory of policy could ever come out of this, nor the need really. The separate policies should remain separate, and the whole WP:ATT should just be swept into the trash. ^demon 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. oppose Hopelessly naive, I can cite all kinds of controversial or even false things to generally 'reliable sources'. Truth matters, not just attribution. Verification and original research are not synonyms. Derex 05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    Your claim that the truth matters directly contradicts our earlier policy, verifiability, not truth. You are not really opposed to the new ATT policy, you are rather opposed to one of Misplaced Pages's oldest, most important policies. If this is your reason for voting no, your vote ought not to count. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose: the WP:ATT is cumbersome to read. I can't see the justification in having the three separate points on the one page, as they are discrete issues. I think we lose more than we gain as a proportion of editors will not read the new page because of this. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strongest oppose possible ATT chops up and destroyed the policies it in tends to replace some of the core parts of the old policy are completely re-defined and changes the guideline that we have. Betacommand 05:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. As it was pointed out these two (or three) notions are quite different. WP:Attribution just puts both of them to a single page and I don't see a point there. Alaexis 06:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. I oppose a complete merger.
    I remember first hearing about this and thinking it was odd, because I did not see anything major issues with having those pages separate. However, I am mindful of our instructions creep problems we often have because of the raw number of policies and guidelines we have.
    Having read the concerns, and thinking more about this, I feel that the pros outweigh the cons for keeping those pages split. Just having to cite WP:V and WP:NOR in this last week I've seen the value on being able to send a user to one specific page over the other. We do need to clean up the raw number of guidelines and policies we have, but these pages don't need a merge.
    If you want to have WP:ATT in some form, fine, but the value in split pages is more than enough to not completely merge them.
    Another concern is that we'll lose focus of each concept when it's in a single document, as that document grows and develops, as all pages should do, it will unavoidably mix and combined it's own contents. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. There is not much to add that has not already been stated; however, I cannot help but think that merging distinct but related concepts necessarily has a neutral effect on policy. To merge implies that the different aspects of the different policies are one and the same. The name of the merged policy reflects this. Attributing something and verifying something are quite different things and have clearly different meanings. While a rose by any other name is still a rose, the meaning of words cannot be ignored and the new name says a lot about the impact of merging different concepts. Agent 86 06:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose - In my opinion, these issues are different and should be awarded their separate policies. WP:ATT exists as a nice guide, but this merger is taking it too far. --Nick—/Contribs 06:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. These different issues that people need to cite frequently to explain problems with articles. Doczilla 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose WP:V and WP:NOR are different things. Verifiability is merely that something can be verified...it has little if anything to do with NOR.--MONGO 06:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    This is not what "Verifiability" means - if you would just read the V policy page. Verifiability means that the view is included in Misplaced Pages not because it is true or because anyone thinks it is true, but because it reflects a point of view that can be verified i.e. attributed to an appropriate source. NOR means that editors should not present their own research and views but must instead rely on views of non-editors that come from appropriate sources. Two sides of the same coin Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Oppose as resulting page would be too massive and unmanageable. All the acronyms currently used would just link to subsections of the new giant page anyway. Carson 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oppose - I've waxed and waned about this all week. I think the work that has been done is good, and I hope it can be used even if ATT is rejected, but I just don't like the idea of WP:V and WP:NOR being in one policy. They are very different concepts, and this exercise has been reinforcing the widespread misconception that they are merely two sides of the one thing. Eliminating separate W:V and WP:NOR pages will make it even harder for newbies and others to understand that that's not so. If W:ATT does survive, at least expand the "nutshell" comment at the top so that the main aspects of both policies are referred to. Metamagician3000 06:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Strong Oppose - Disgusted that attribution is seen as more important than truth. This needs to be remedied before any other changes are made. michael 06:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    Your claim that the truth matters directly contradicts our earlier policy, verifiability, not truth. You are not really opposed to the new ATT policy, you are rather opposed to one of Misplaced Pages's oldest, most important policies. If this is your reason for voting no, your vote ought not to count. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Oppose as a waste of time. There is no policy change, only endless reorganization of the various components. Let the policy stand as it is so that the culture can evolve around it without a constantly shifting unerpinnings that really doesn't change. Simply rewriting the policy only creates challenges without a strong historical precedent. --Tbeatty 07:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. I don't want to see WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, turned into redirects. El_C 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Oppose -- While I appreciate the efforts and intention to "streamline" policy, this merger, to me, is not the way it should be done. While sometimes it may be expedient to Ignore All Rules, we really need some "meta-policy" about how sweeping changes such as these should be enacted. We would never have gotten to this point, if not for a few, well-meaning editors who took it upon themselves to effectively strong-arm the form and language of Misplaced Pages policy they wished to see. I'd prefer to see a working group-- a Misplaced Pages policy committee-- formed specifically for the purpose of reviewing and proposing what changes, if any, need be made to improve Misplaced Pages rules. Any such decision-making needs be done with deliberation, open-ness and more robust input from the community. The concerns raised by individuals here should demonstrate that the consensus favours status-quo; unless a solid case can be presented otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.--Leflyman 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Strong Oppose Cjrs 79 07:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Oppose - Agreeing with above opinions --Spebi 07:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Oppose - what is the need for merging? Admins will still find themselves breaking it up for the newbies. Its easier for newbies to understand V, NOR and RS one at a time than all in one gulp. And yeah, retain ATT for 'historical' purposes. Sarvagnya 07:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Oppose on several grounds:
    • Firstly, "attribution" and "attributability" is somewhat ambiguous and carries less clear meaning of the actual intent than the current forms. Many en.wikipedia editors are second-language and we should make it as easy for them as possible to contribute in accordance with policy. (I agree with SandyGeorgia's concerns raised above also on this topic) The chosen name actually seems to promote WP:OR at the expense of WP:V, although the text is neutral.
    • Secondly, I agree that each point loses something if merely a point in a bigger document.
    • Thirdly, there was no consensus for the change, it was effectively foisted onto most of the community - despite being fairly active I first heard about it *after* the change had been made, not before, and I have heard many in that situation. This needs far more discussion.
    However in spite of all I have said (and comments made by others which I agree with), I do agree with the principle that the two policies and the guideline should be treated as a bundle from a policy development point of view, and I would not be opposed to a WP:5 style summary of them being created. However, I believe the pages should remain separate in order to improve clarity, exactly as we do with articles, which may be in three different places but are managed by a task force or WikiProject to keep them consistent with each other. Orderinchaos 08:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Oppose - I do Agree with the above opinions Theturtlehermit 08:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Oppose - I, too, agree with the arguments of the above wikipedians and oppose this move. Instead of merging, why not expand on the terms so that the user will be better able to determine which to apply? TeamZissou 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. Strongly oppose: The articles are better kept separate; they are not entirely related and the policies and guidelines would be hard to find. The terms need clarification, not merging. I agree that "In my opinion, these issues are different and should be awarded their separate policies." I think that WP:Attribution deals with different issues than separate pages on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Citing sources or WP:Cite (which are also directly related and aren't even mentioned in the poll); it appears a kind of watering down of long-standing documentation policies and could even lead to confusion. WP:NOR is particularly important concept that requires its own article. I can see cross-linking related concepts, but merging them is going too far and blurring distinctions among them, in my view. I do not think that the current page Misplaced Pages: Attribution is thorough enough at all and that it could lead to less and poorer documentation of sources in Misplaced Pages rather than to more and better documentation of sources in Misplaced Pages. Too many articles in Misplaced Pages already lack proper verifiable and reliable sourcing. The proposed merger could create even more sourcing problems, especially from inexperienced and/or poorly-educated editors. --NYScholar 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Oppose - I don't think this will solve any problems, I believe that a universal "super-page" may intimidate fresh members; whilst separate pages will allow them to view policies in sections rather then present the need to read through the whole policy in one sitting. Ashnard talk 09:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  43. I oppose WP:ATT, for several reasons: the concepts of V and OR are similar yet distinct, RS needs to remain a separate guideline, and the term verifiable not true is much more appropriate than attributable not true. The pattern of voting so far also encourages me to oppose, it is obvious that the change does not enjoy support from many in the community. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 09:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Oppose per WP:ATTCON, especially the manner in which this merger came to exist repels me. The current policy pages are good enough. --User:Krator (t c) 09:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Oppose I agree with many of the arguments above. Catchpole 09:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Absolutely no need for it - why not merge every single policy together, after all they are all relatively related? Clarification, detail and distinction are good - the more of it we have the better - merging policies for the sake of it is just pointless; and actually harmful. SFC9394 09:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Oppose The current policies are distince from one another. Further, consensus is not determined by vote. Tompw (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  48. Oppose merge and ATT as policy
    • This is difficult to follow and confusing. It may be shorter than verifiability and NOR, but it took me easily twice as long to read and I retained little. Verifiability and NOR are simpler, deal with more than ATT does and while I have not read them much, it is easy to remember phrases and ideas from these policy pages because they are well written and well laid out.
    • This is not, IMO a merge of two policy pages into one page--this is a change of policy in some key areas. It's policy change I'm not ok with, and I'm not ok with how this flew under the radar either.
    • I've only spent a few minutes looking at how the page was put together, but I have serious concerns about it. Opposition seemed to be ignored, and some very bizarre arguments were used at times for not listening to editors. If someone comments on the talk page and doesn't receive a response, that silence isn't a disagreement, it's wiki editors not bothering to comment. You have to show up to make your feelings known, and IMHO, that's pushing WP:OWN on an article, telling users not to edit because unless they get a response, it's a no.
    • Even if this was well done and didn't change policy, these are seperate ideas, seperate policies (while related) and they shouldn't be in one policy.
    • One last note, I'm suprised that this has a policy tag. It doesn't have approval from Jimbo, IMO this does not have real consensus, and that means that it fails grounds for policy. Btw, Tjsrf neither number of editors nor edits has anything to do with consensus Questions have been raised about whether the page should exist, and users have tried to put dispute tags on the article and had them taken down, being told that there is no dispute, and I'm disappointed that consensus is being lauded and this merge is being presented as a merge of canonical policy. ATT needs community consensus to keep its policy tag, but having the policy tag during this poll, means that the changes between ATT and verifiability and NOR are brushed over, because, after all, they're all policy. But while verifiability and NOR actually meet the standards for policy and having that tag, ATT doesn't--not right now anyway--consensus may have been lauded, but I couldn't find it. If the policy tag was put on, and consensus fell by the wayside, the policy tag should have been removed and replaced with proposed policy, or at least a dispute tag should have been placed on it. Having a poll asking what editors thought of merging verifiablity and NOR to ATT and ATT becoming policy would have been much more appropriate and would have made up a bit for not letting the general[REDACTED] population know about the ATT page and proposed policy changes earlier. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  49. Strongly oppose per Jimbo's initial comments (here and here.), and the way this merger was conducted. -- Vision Thing -- 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  50. Oppose These has been seperate policies for a long time, and are more concise as seperate Af648 10:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  51. Oppose as per Af648 sbandrews (t) 10:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  52. Strong Oppose No keep the seperate pages and send a clear message to those editors who want to rule over the rest of us and feel the need for a little power trip. --Fredrick day 11:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  53. Oppose as per SandyGeorgia (MichaelJLowe 11:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC))
  54. Oppose 3 clear seperate distinct policies are better than a merger. No need for this merger to take place. Davewild 11:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  55. Oppose With the vast amount of redundant guidelines/essays littering the WP: space, I can't fathom why it was decided to merge these two, which tackle two separate issues. This merger will make it much harder to tackle the acres of pop culture original research as it will retain the misguided defense that articles can be entirely "attributable" to a single primary source while making it harder to point out that articles based entirely on primary sources are contrary to the goal of an encyclopaedia, which should be based on secondary sources, and tend to involve novel syntheses. --Sam Blanning 11:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  56. Strong oppose - 1: They are, to a large degree, distinct policies. There may be some overlap, but that is not a negative, given the importance of these policies. 2: A large article (which would be too large in this case) is harder to follow and digest, and therefore less likely to be observed. 3: Attribution may be considered by some to be a de facto parent policy (it is not quite like that, in my view) but it would not function well in that rôle. When I was new to these policies, I found ATT - in comparsion to the other policies - to be the least helpful. 4: This seems to be being pushed through - it is not a well-considered, thoroughly thought out proposal. 5: We cannot risk diluting the existing NOR and Verifiability policies. Adrian M. H. 12:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  57. Strongly oppose. WP:V and WP:NOR are overlapping slightily in principles, but they are simply not the same thing - and each rule has its own quite distinct raison d'être and context. Here the masses are being asked to vote on something already-decided by what seems to be a few - if you would involve the masses in the developing the idea perhaps you would get a more refined - and practical - one. I suspect that this vote is counting on the "sounds good" crowd to see the motion through - and depending on such sometimes 'easy' input to see such a major change through is not a good thing. With all due respect, I consider it even to be a form of manipulation. THEPROMENADER 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  58. Oppose. Nah, I like it the way it is myself. Though I can see some similarities, and the reasoning to merge I'm the type that likes to leave things as they are. Fr0 12:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  59. Oppose - Verifiability and No original research are different bunnies, and the one is weaker without the other - one can cite verifiable sources with a conetntious reading that amounts to OR.--Red Deathy 12:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  60. Strong Oppose - you can attribute anything. Verifying is much harder. BillMasen 12:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  61. Oppose I am in general opposed. WP:NOR in particualr is a policy which prohibits particular kinds of content, and is only partly a matter od sourcing or attribution. Something like WP:ATT might be a good joint summary, particualrly for new editors, but the separate polices should, IMO, remain separate. DES 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. Quite apart from the concerns that people have presented above about the change in Misplaced Pages policy (as a result of merging two distinct policies and one guideline into one policy), I think there's also the risk that this new page combines several ideas into one, making it more confusing for new users. RobbieG 13:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  63. Oppose merging WP:NOR. Everything else could probably live together, but WP:NOR is a distinct concept. --BigDT 13:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  64. Oppose the merger. Also, not thrilled about the evilness of voting here, either. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  65. Oppose - I don't mind if WP:V and WP:RS are merged, as they could easily cover the same material; but WP:NOR must be kept separate; No original research is a focus that defines an encyclopedia and Misplaced Pages itself, in that it is the publication of a compilation of work from other people, and that needs to be stressed in its own article. Verifiability and reliable sources are important for stylistic reasons, in that for people to write good articles, they need to reference correctly and use the correct type of sources required for a good encyclopedic article. They are different things. This keeness by those few users on WP to merge and wreck every bit of policy is not right - there must be two separate policies for these two things I have mentioned, and ATT doesn't adequately cover either of them, or separate them out enough. JRG 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  66. Oppose - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I agree that NOR is distinct enough to need its own page. pfctdayelise (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  67. Strongly Oppose - The issues in both policies and the guideline are not fully thought out yet, in my opinion. Merger will only compound the problems inherent especially the WP:RS policy which globally skews very many articles WP:NPOV(Sarah777 14:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC))
  68. Oppose merge. Raystorm 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  69. Strongly oppose. Merging the three distinct policies into one is an excessively broad-brush approach from both a practical and conceptual standpoint:
    • Practically, the policy pages’ most important role is as a guide to settle content disputes, which requires tools of precision. Policy components need to be formulated in bite-sized concepts in order to be of value to users;
    • Conceptually, the merger misses the mark by blurring important distinctions and placing undue weight on peripheral issues, notwithstanding adherents’ assertions that it reflects the existing policies. In particular, the resulting product (‘Attribution’) suggests that the fundamental test for inclusion at Misplaced Pages is one of form rather than substance.
    To be specific, attribution was originally designed to ensure a representation of the variety of views that exist on any given subject. Whilst this is a laudible goal (particularly on controversial topics), placing it up front and centre creates the impression that the existence of a source for information is more important than its quality. Whilst all at Misplaced Pages agree that ‘truth’ is an unachievable standard, the purpose of the policies is to try to get as close as possible to an objective presentation of the facts, i.e. to make sure that Misplaced Pages is an high-quality, reliable information resource. That central aim is obscured by the current proposal. -- Really Spooky 14:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  70. Strongly oppose, particularly with regard to WP:NOR (which I think needs to be more flexible), they are distinct, key content policies whose merger would only make them more difficult to evolve further as new problems need to be addressed. The best way to keep them adaptable to new situations, as well as to keep them easier to understand, is to keep them separate. --Jim_Lockhart 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  71. Strong oppose. These need to remain separate to be a vital Misplaced Pages resource. I agree that one large policy will easily be ignored. GreenJoe 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  72. Oppose I also agree that one large resource will be more easily ignored. Bmg916Sign 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  73. Strong oppose Something can be attributable, but not verifiable, due to reliable-sources concerns. Everything can be boiled down to NPOV, but that doesn't mean we should. Xiner (talk, email) 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  74. Oppose merge and keep all. Carlosguitar 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  75. Oppose I don’t think combining WP:V and WP:NOR into one policy is a good idea. WP:NOR stands on its own very nicely. I also agree with Miss Mondegreen's input entered above. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 15:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  76. Oppose. The existing policies were working, even though there were arguments. This is a huge policy change, not a combination of existing policies. For example, the "unpublished synthesis of published material" section is new policy, not in WP:RS. This "Attribution" page suddenly become policy, just from commentary on its own talk page, which is wierd. --John Nagle 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  77. Opppose the merge. Two reasons: first, "no original research" needs to be retained as a stand-alone policy because of its usefulness in communicating our purpose to cranks and POV-pushers (and its conceptual distinctness from mere "verifiability" and "attribution," which both seem like broader ideas in scope, but also weaker and less specific). Second, as I have said since it first appeared, I strongly oppose the apparent attempt to make WP:RS into policy, since I believe it is a misguided attempt to enforce reliance on (what seem to Wikipedians with all our general systemic biases) majority opinions and mainstream sources, and hence would be a major and undesirable change to policy. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  78. Oppose, not everything can be attributed. Truth is more imporatnt thant attribution and these policies and guidelines should be seperate. They are all different concepts and merging them will only cause havoc and some confusion at first, especially with some editors who are newbies or edit Misplaced Pages occasionally. WP:RS as policy is a no-no for me. Terence 15:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  79. An emphatic No: We are talking of different principles evolved over a period of time to be merged into one. In my opinion, it will create more confusion than bringing into any cohesion. Simplicity is a nice attribute, but for the sake of simplicity and popularity, we should not merge things which are different in nature. I am reminded of these words: Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together . --Bhadani (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  80. Oppose. They stand strong on their own, and no longer having them distinct may, over time, weaken how they are viewed. Combining the policies may also discourage further evolution. --Czj 16:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  81. Strong oppose. Works fine as it is... -- xompanthy 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  82. Oppose. Two different principles, should remain separate. --Bookworm857158367 16:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  83. Oppose per Jimbo and other comments here. NOR is a distinct principle from V. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  84. Oppose I agree with all other comments. They are different principles and should be kept seperate. Computerjoe's talk 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  85. Oppose, as per all other comments. --Releeshan 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  86. Oppose for the same reasons as everyone else ^^^^. Smomo 16:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  87. Strong oppose. The arguments above say it well enough. --Sable232 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral/qualified/compromise/other

Note: There were originally not subsections here. The subsections were added after many votes had been cast since some people objected to having their votes lumped together as neutral.

Support some merger, but not this one.
  1. I deprecate this poll, as started by suprise, without consensus on the wording. The one thing on which there was consensus was that this was going to start, if possible, on 00:00 April 2. See here
    • I came to this poll intending to support WP:ATT
    • I agree with most of it, at least as I understand it; nevertheless
    • I strongly oppose the notion that WP:ATT has, or has ever had, consensus; any appearances to the contrary are probably the result of the same bullying and reversion which has resulted in this pseudo-poll.
    • I strongly reject WP:ATT as the merger; it will have to be thoroughly considered to be acceptable as such.
    • I recommend that if there is no consensus to merge to WP:ATT, that its separate paragraphs, which do have considerable value, be considered for inclusion in WP:V and WP:NOR. By the time that is over, we will see what is generally acceptable, and they will have the necessary common language so that a merge, if approved, will be a largely mechanical process, not involving significant rewriting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. WP:RS should not be promoted from controversial guideline to core policy. People shouldn't make changes while saying "We're just clarifying what was there!", and then turn around and claim that nothing at all was changed. And all opinions which are not "Yes, every part of this idea is good" or "No, every part of this idea is bad" shoudldn't be lumped in this section as they are. -Amarkov moo! 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. I, liked Armedblowfish, support Misplaced Pages:Attribution being kept as a summary with a status like WP:5P, but I do not have Armedblowfish's qualms about including WP:RS in the summary. Thus, I think WP:ATT should summarize WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS but I'm unconvinced that it should replace any or all of them. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm with Jersyko on that. WP:ATT can be used for general reference on the broad policies regarding attribution, while it will still be useful in the future to be able to refer to the individual WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Even a brief mention of WP:CITE would keep it in context. Having this system will keep Misplaced Pages organized and familiar in the same style for those who are navigating WP:PAG for the first time. V-Man - /C 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. I Moderate SupportOppose WP:ATT -- Merger is nice to help clarify these policies into a more definitive one. I do believe the merger shortens the definitions down too much however. Their current form does not represent the former policies and all that they entail. MrMacMan 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    Let me try to clarify my views -- WP:ATT is a great thing. The summary of the 3 policies is very nice to have... but it shouldn't replace them. I don't believe in this 'poll'. Keep it separate, you can have this as a guide... not policy. MrMacMan 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. I support the concept of merging the articles, but I do not support putting attributability above truth. False content should not be included just because it is attributable. Jwolfe 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    Your claim that the truth matters directly contradicts our earlier policy, verifiability, not truth. You are not really opposed to the new ATT policy, you are rather opposed to one of Misplaced Pages's oldest, most important policies. If this is your reason for voting no, your vote ought not to count. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that WP:V is not intended to mean that truth matters, and I am surprised to find so much sentiment (also among the straight oppose !votes) that it does mean that. But disenfranchisement for that judgment is going rather far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support with qualifications I like the idea of consolidating and simplifying the regulations where it would seem to contradict itself. However, I'm still a little concerned about it being an official policy. That's too strong for me. It should instead be a guideline. The reason being is that policies are too rigid to handle each individual case. For example, I could find sources to say that African-American people are feeble minded. I absolutely abhor that notion and think it's totally untrue, but it could be cited as such nonetheless. I think this brings up a huge issue that is beyond the scope of this discussion concerning Misplaced Pages. Do we want to be correct or do we want to be verified? We need some way of weaving out the fiction, published though it may be. I certainly don't have the answer to that.--Analogue Kid 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Qualified Support
    • Given that policy is scattered... without a doubt the structure of wikipolicy is generally scattered and untransparent, where most users don't even know how to tap in to reading all the wikipolicy - in fact I don't even know of a complete wikipolicy directory! and
    • Given that policy is untransparent... admins and editors alike constantly refer to policy without linking - especaially in AfD discussions - where once again policy is unreachable, unfamiliar, scattered, etc
      • Therefore I support in principal a merge (if it will help policy centralisation and policy transparency) -
      • With the following qualifiers:
        • 1) The existing policy articles are kept intact for an extended period of time (e.g. 6 months) before they are remove, if at all,
        • 2) The existing policy articles are to remain part of policy - even if this means amending the policies with community consensus.
        • 3) The WP:ATT article is to have anchors such as WP:ATT#Reliable_sources
        • 4) There must be shortcuts or redirects to anchors, so that
        • 5) Any and all policy must be ratified by community consensus
    • On those terms I give a Qualified Support Rfwoolf 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Marginal support I'm not opposed to the idea of a restructuring of these pages, and I don't feel that the arguments against it hold much weight, but I'm not convinced that all of the concerns relating to these policies are satisfied even by the merger. Mister.Manticore 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Compromise/Neutral
  1. I oppose Misplaced Pages:Attribution being policy. I support Misplaced Pages:Attribution being kept as a summary with a status like WP:5P, should people choose to maintain it. Otherwise, it can be marked as historical. In such a summary, I support Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research being kept in the summary. However, I strongly oppose Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources being part of WP:ATT. Firstly, I believe WP:RS is more of a Misplaced Pages:Neutral Point of View, particularly WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, issue than a WP:V/WP:ATT one. Secondly, this blurs the distinction between policy and guideline. Thirdly, WP:RS has been historically controversial when it comes to the details, and it is best if it has it's own page for us to attempt to reach consensus on. I am neutral about whether this poll is in fact open or not. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC), 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. (ec x2)I oppose opposition to this poll, as it is merely a poll; if you feel that a differently-worded poll should take place, you are free to make one. A poll exists simply for us to discuss a consensus, not to vote on a choice of two or three pre-worded items. See Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY for the difference between "voting" and "discussing," as we are doing here. V-Man - /C 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. I do not care what happens. I think there's too much fuss over exactly where the information lies. It shouldn't matter where it is, so long as it exists in an easily accessible location. The page isn't important; the content is. --clpo13 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Erm... Neutral? While I do agree that WP:RS should definitely remain separate from WP:ATT, I don't object to the union of WP:NOR and WP:V in WP:ATT, provided there is broad concensus to do so. -Jeske 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. weak abstain Salad Days 06:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. I strongly protest this poll. I can't even tell what "merge" means, which is why I'm "voting" everywhere. El_C 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I like the wording of WP:ATT, I think it is an easier read for new users, which I'm clearly for, and lays out good ideas for an encyclopedia. I'd probably support it in some form as[REDACTED] document. In the end, both WP:ATT & (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR) reach for the same goal but use different terms to achieve that goal. Whether or not we should replace one set of terms for another is a question that I'm not so sure about. I'm concerned about consistency as far as old discussions go, but[REDACTED] is a constantly changing document so that would work itself out shortly. In the end, I don't think either option will effect things much as long as we a lot of smart people working together who are friendly enough to bring new users into the fold. —Mitaphane ?|! 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Partial opposition towards merging in RS. I'd also strongly prefer merging WP:NOR into WP:V name, rather than pulling out a new policy. CP/M |Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project| 09:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Partial opposition due to the merger of large portions of WP:RS into the policy, since this would promote that material to the status of a policy even though it is currently a guideline. A determination of whether WP:RS should be promoted to policy, and what form that policy should take, should be a wholly separate issue from what has been purported as a procedural merger of WP:V and WP:NOR into a policy that is equivalent to the two policies in their separate forms. --DachannienContrib 09:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Partially oppose because adding WP:RS into WP:ATT changes the essential balance of V+NOR with NPOV as "twin pillars". The ATT treatment of "reliable sources" is far too simplistic without mention of bias. Issues of systemic bias have not been answered in discussion. I could support ATT now if the RS material in it is stubbed while work on that aspect continues; or in future I could support a bigger, more balanced reworking with NPOV too. VSerrata 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose the poll. It does not serves to build consensus; it just splits the "population" into two blocks. There are supporters of WP:ATT that might include WP:RS and those that might keep WP:RS (like me). No, totally biased poll that I won't be part of. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 10:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Qualified support - the original three policies were partially overlapping, rather long, and IMO three sides of the same issue. A compact attribution policy page would be easier to digest, especially for newcomers. Some objecters make valid points about the new policy being different from the three old ones together. So an Attribution policy page would be better a reasonably short summary rather than a replacement of the three old policies. Boundary cases and more esoteric examples can stay on the V/NOR/RS pages. Han-Kwang 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep all, have ATT as a summary-style policy of the other three, allowing people to refer to any one or all three together easily. I don't see the need to only have non-overlapping policies. —Pengo 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Partial Support For merging especially Verifiability and Reliable sources. Although IMO, No original research seems a bit different then the first two and probably should stay separate. --JForget 13:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep all per Pengo - ATT could well sum up the basic principles of these different areas, but they also need there own more extensive discussion. We're not limited in our ability to provide space for each. bd2412 T 15:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Apathetic Who cares where the policies are written? Hardly anyone will read them anyway, let alone follow them. More to the point, people should stop wasting time on policy debates and get on with writing the damn encyclopedia. Modest Genius 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Misplaced Pages editors could be having discussions over whether the content of the various articles on WP was, in fact, factual or not. Instead they are being diverted to these omphaloscopic discussions. Why? RandomCritic 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Attribution/Poll: Difference between revisions Add topic