Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:47, 14 April 2007

• ]

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

There was a poll at Misplaced Pages:Attribution/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.

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

• Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Community discussion/Archive 1

Working party

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

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

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

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

All the work will be on-Wiki for others to watch? - Denny 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That hasn't been decided, but yes I don't see why not. SlimVirgin 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I could help out in reaching a compromise. I would be in the "No" category as per the vote. .V. 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who didn't vote in the poll and has no real firm opinion toward either idea, I don't mind donating some time to figuring this out if you're looking for volunteers. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the purpose of this working party to come up with an assessment of the outcome, or to come up with a workable policy framework as a result of the discussion and poll?

There are a fair number of contributors who have entirely valid arguments but don't clearly sit in either camp, having either explicitly gone neutral or having caveated their yes or no in some way.

ALR 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC) (copied from the poll talk page by Blueboar 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

I think the purpose of the working party will be to develop a compromise position, based on the comments put forward during the poll. SlimVirgin 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can live with that. fwiw I was in the broad support for the concept, but caveated, camp.ALR 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

You put forward some excellent points during the debate. :-) Does 10 sound about right to people, or too many? I'm thinking that with any fewer it might be too much work for each person. SlimVirgin 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

<ed conf> :In my experience in working with teams, I would suggest a party of 6 rather than 10 to make it easier and more efficient. Two neutral, two from proponents and two from opponents. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

There are several different flavors of no; so much less than ten would risk missing a significant voice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think 6-7 really is the top of this, personally I trust any of SlimVirgin, Jossi, Crum, Was, Blueboar to express my views, but the no votes were indeed more diverse, so perhaps 2 pro, 3 oppose, and 2 neutral. Note that many of the oppose votes were quite contradictory to each other, so it will not give them any advantage. --Merzul 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are difficulties in facilitating a group of more than about six to nine, particularly in an online and multinational environment, where peoples expertise with respect to the subject is unclear. I would advocate something between six and nine, tops

ALR 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

You are a large part of that section, yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks!  : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I would be very comfortable with the current proposal of eight editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who, but are any of them people who were not heavily involved in any part of that? It seems kind of weird to not have anyone who has no dog in the fight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that all the names proposed have such a "dog". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are those people, then? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Per "The strength of parliament is the strength of the opposition," what is ideal is having long term supporters matched with editors who have cogently disagreed and can present good arguments against. At least initially, the below eight are good in this respect. Marskell 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, bear in mind that the point of the working party is to develop a compromise, not to re-enact the arguments, so the "dog in the fight" imagery isn't quite right. SlimVirgin 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply concerned that the same people who are judging consensus are people who have strong feelings on the matter. Again, if I'm the only one voicing this concern, feel free to ignore me and move on, but I'm very concerned about consensus being judged by people heavily involved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the group would be working towards forging a compromise - i.e. a new proposal - not judging consensus or making a final decision. If so, the community would still be the final judge, and would have the right to accept or reject any compromise reached by the group. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was strongly opposed, but the poll convinced me we must try to forge a compromise that encompasses all cogent viewpoints. It's not a "dogfight" or a "pony in the race"; it's a new ballgame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Proposals

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

neutral/qualified/compromise/other

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

opponents

• SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) — I accept
• Askari Mark (talk · contribs) – accept
• Thebainer (talk · contribs) - if this is wanted, then I'm happy to help.

proponents

• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) - accept
• Crum375 (talk · contribs) - accept
• Marskell (talk · contribs) - accept

Uninvolved

• badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) - sure!

Declined

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

• To keep the team to 9 people, 3 proponents, 3 opponents and 3 other, I would be happy to decline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other suggestions

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

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

I would hope it would. It was a major issue (and I think it's more easily resolved than most people seem to believe). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The group is formed to discuss a compromise related to ATT, V, NOR and RS. Not to change, or propose changes to the principles upon which our policies stand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Mikkalai (talk · contribs) (controversial guy, started off opposing ATT's version of a merger, but his summary style proposal is now similar to WAS's position.)

  I second that, if it will help prevent a forking into two working parties. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 08:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Szyslak (talk · contribs) (neutral, good insights into RS issues)
• JzG (talk · contribs) (well-respected, and completely uninvolved.)
• Mackensen (talk · contribs) (if the RfB fails; very well respected, and uninvolved.)
• jossi (talk · contribs) - accept, but willing to withdraw if number of participants needs to be kept small

Fabulous Eight?

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

No more polls. :-) SlimVirgin 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

no more polls, please. Let us keep these eight as the proposed team for a couple of days, and address any objections that may be raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• User:WAS 4.250 was supporter #27, and so should probably not be a neutral (etc.) representative. Bucketsofg 21:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought WAS was neutral. I'll check again. SlimVirgin 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, he was number 62 in neutral, but now that I look more closely, he was also number 64 there, so they were clearly only comments. SlimVirgin 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree, even if I think WAS 4.250 is an extremely neutral editor, his vote was not qualified in any way, it was an excellent vote in my opinion... :) --Merzul 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • We could move WAS over to the list of suggested supporter representatives. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Agree. I have moved him back to the first section. Hopefully there will not be objections ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

His transclusion idea was quite interesting. SlimVirgin 21:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider this an objection then, since someone just removed the actually neutral nomination I added. Certain people don't seem able to stop trying to stack votes and control the debate. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, the group here seems to be moving towards a nice compromise, please don't disrupt it as you did the previous processes. Thanks. Jayjg 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You use that word a lot but don't seem to actually understand its meaning here very clearly. I think a good example of disruptive editing would be moving people from the support segment to the neutral segment, asking if people object, removing their nomination from play, and then attacking them for objecting. <ahem> — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, as I said before, reasonable editors are working towards a reasonable compromise here. I have no idea how it will turn out, but I do know that you weren't able to interact on this in a constructive or consensus building way before, and you're doing the same kinds of things that made your actions so disruptive in the past, so it would be best if you devoted your time and energy elsewhere. I'm strongly recommending that you do so, and that others ignore you, if they want to have any possibility of achieving success in their endeavors. Jayjg 23:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing is, only three people say this to me: you, SV and Jossi (and with at least two of you, I've noticed a general pattern of labelling people one does not agree with, and who won't just shut up in awe of your grandiose adminship, as "disruptive", "trouble-making" and other dismissive epithets.) I've been thanked by others for my vigilance here. Repeatedly accusing me of disruptive editing like a broken record doesn't make it true. The only other people who've ever accused me of WP:DE my entire time on Misplaced Pages were (imagine that) also heavily involved in pushing their particular side of a policy/guideline debate without regard for balance, process or consensus. Hmm... — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take my own advice here. Jayjg 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We've agreed on nine, and we have nine at the moment. SlimVirgin 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is "we"? I see that Jossi thinks nine is a good idea, and I think one other person did, while others want 8, others want 6, and most of all people want a balanced number from all three "blocs". Moving people from the Support stack to the Neutral stack isn't helping achieve any balance. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about the lack of uninvolved editors. Did we learn nothing from recent situations? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo asked for a bipartisan working group, so that's what we're setting up. People aren't going to be arguing for one side or another, Jeff, but developing a compromise position, so we're moving forward rather than trying to win an argument. Jimbo may have some ideas for uninvolved people, and hopefully Jimbo will be part of it too. These names are just a suggestion. SlimVirgin 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Jeff, what do you mean by "uninvolved" exactly? People who didn't comment at all? Because not everyone on the list was deeply involved by any means. SlimVirgin 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean that people who were not involved in the formation or unformation of the merge be the people to take a look at the arguments and come up with a conclusion. With all due respect, you shouldn't be a person on this ad hoc because you were not only instrumental in its creation, but the lead person in the implementation. Likewise, people who came up with various conclusions, like Askari Mark, probably shouldn't be involved with this stage either, because they're already sitting on an opinion. Are we really saying we can't find a half dozen trusted members of the community who didn't give input in the discussion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo decided that a bipartisan party would be a good idea, and specifically asked that we look for the best people among the No votes. I'm not sure I see the point of picking people not involved at all, because they might not be familiar with the issues. But if Jimbo wants ininvolved people too, he'll be able to pick in addition to the names we suggest. SlimVirgin 00:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's his request, then that's his request - I think it's shortsighted, but it was his poll to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Every experienced editor is concerned with verfiability. It is clear that editors not involved with this discussion have different ideas of what this is or can be. I would suggest Mackensen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen is a good idea. Jeff, thanks for suggesting JzG. SlimVirgin 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The honorable User:SMcCandlish is correct in the observation of the flow of coordinated actions to stack votes and control the debate. And certainly any "uninvolved editors" who seem to be immune to stacking and control are ignored by those who select the working party. All you have to do to see the pattern clearly is simply to make a chart of who did what say 1) four months before now, 2) immediately pre-poll, 3) during the poll, and 4) now. Throughout the history of civilization, there have been several successful techniques for limiting the destructive force of stacking the votes and controlling the debate. One historically successful technique to minimize the destructive decision-making from stacking the votes and controlling the debate is to select the eleven electors at random from the total pool of thousands of willing and experienced editors, and then those eleven electors then vote to choose the working committee. --Rednblu 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the other shoe drops. I strongly recommend that editors here also ignore any of the comments made by this editor as well. Misplaced Pages is not a social experiment, as much as certain editors would like to think it is, or use it for that purpose. Jayjg 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rednblu, I have listened to you and tried to understand your position, I would be willing to do so here as well, but only if you stop trying to be clever, and instead tell us what should be done... Do you have issues with people's behaviour, then perhaps that should be taken up with them, or on some other forum, let's try to suppress the ego issues and think about the future of Misplaced Pages (on this page at least). Thanks. --Merzul 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My position is simply that I would like to see the Misplaced Pages decision-making process exhibit the behavior of a healthy decision-making process. In contrast, the decision-making process that led to WP:ATT was severely flawed by not making an actual measure of consensus--which severe flaw was evidenced by the actual comments in the Poll. What is missing at the current time is some means of selecting from the thousands of willing and experienced editors their input to the selection of this working party. I am sure we could among us think of an effective means to get sufficient input from the wide Misplaced Pages community in selecting this working party. That is my position. --Rednblu 00:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rednblu, I don't think you have anything to worry about, since the working committee wouldn't actually have any authority whatsoever to impose a binding solution. The theory is that if people on opposite ends of the spectrum, and a few people in the middle or off of the line, actually manage to agree on something, chances are that others will too. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, it would be good if those who accept would just add "I accept" or something like that after their name. --Merzul 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that some users that have been proposed, do not know that... Would be courteous to leave a note in their talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I already did that for the person I nominated, but many nominees have already commented here, so they are probably watching this page, but we should notify people like Askari Mark, who hasn't commented here yet. I think whoever nominated should notify. --Merzul 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll let WAS know. SlimVirgin 22:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

<end conf> Marskell is as eloquent as any one of us, and will do a great job, I am sure. As for polarizing comments that have been made above, I would strongly advise 'not to reply to them. Time to move on from "partisanship". The team will work towards a ccompromise and I trust that they will do their best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested Slrubenstein. I can't remember whether he voted for or neutral (I think for), but he knows a lot about policy, is in two minds about the merger, and has put forward some very good suggestions. SlimVirgin 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Purpose of working group

I'm agreeable to helping out. I'm not a wikipolicywonk and didn't participate in the prior effort, so I don't have any axes to grind ... and since I just safely drove home through a major tornado-filled storm, I suppose I can expect to similarly survive anything thrown at me here. :)

I am rather curious as to how this team is supposed to work — and just what product is expected of it. A revised draft of ATT? A way to approach revising it? "Just" identifying and resolving key problem areas? Or maybe a "steering committee" of sorts? There are a lot of thorny issues and it's unclear to me from the foregoing discussion just what we're to accomplish.

I don't know if the candidate selection is over, but I have recommended Coppertwig because he has offered some of the best insight into the "truth" issue among the votes I've reviewed. Someone for whom that issue was key should be included, since that was one of the fundamental issues I discerned in generating my synopsis of the issues raised in the poll. (BTW, yes, I am trying to finish a collation for the "third party". Done.) Another noteworthy commentator (from the third party) was Szyslak. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, we won't be rewriting policy or changing anything. We'll be looking to develop a compromise position between (1) keeping ATT and having V and NOR tagged as superseded, which was the position before the poll; and (2) ditching ATT and going back to the status quo ante. So we'll be deciding how many pages to keep things on etc. The names we're gathering today will be suggested to Jimbo. He may then make suggestions of his own. What we need are people who can debate constructively and cooperatively, and who have a good understanding of the policies, letter and spirit. :-) SlimVirgin 00:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The mandate is to work out a compromise solution based on the abundant input from editors in the poll and the community discussion. I would not preempt the work of the group with any specifics about the outcome, rather let them work their way through the issue and see what they can come up with. Concerning the "truth issue", that is not on the table. The committee is not assigned the task to reshape policy, and "Verifiability not truth" is policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, having looked over the "truth" criticisms, I perceive that there's no problem with the V policy but rather with how it was "captured" by ATT; i.e., it's more a wordsmithing problem than more anything else. That is (potentially) resolvable without "changing policy", but rather by expressing it better. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The first thing to do will be look at the comments in the poll and try to develop themes. SlimVirgin 00:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Why bother? So I can get tag-team revert warred over it again by the usual suspects? No thanks. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate very much, thank you, the invitation to make nominations for this working group. But the flaw here is not the people; the flaw here is stacking the votes and controlling the debate--not the people on the working group. If the current cast on the working group had been selected by a consensus process from the wide Misplaced Pages community, then 1) the working group would react more productively in response to comments and 2) the surrounding Misplaced Pages community would be able to converse with the working group more productively. Does that make sense? --Rednblu 07:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What's important is to find people who are able and willing to work constructively, with no repetition of the situation in the run-up to the poll. We need a compromise that genuinely reflects the bulk of the concerns people expressed during the poll; otherwise there was no point in having it. SlimVirgin 01:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not going to roll over on the things that matter to me, even as I work for compromise, but I'm wondering ... are some of the people worried about the makeup of the group expressing a concern that the "Pro" group contains too many of the original architects and strongest proponents of ATT? I put forward Marskell because I believe he listens, reflects, and then comes up with a new direction—a needed skill when seeking compromise. But maybe others will be more comfortable with a less-involved-from-the beginning "Pro" group? Just a question ... not really understanding where the discomfort level is coming from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because I think this issue desperately needs some fresh eyes. It's not an issue of trust in this case as much as I think it's best for the project and for this issue to have disinterested people looking at the arguments and coming to a compromise and conclusion. If it's filled with people who created the thing and felt strongly about its implementation, it merely leaves the door open for people to cry foul. And while I appreciate the gesture of nominating me, whoever you were, it doesn't mean I am or should one of those people - the point is to have the best transparency possible under the circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So, can you go through the "pro" votes and put forward the name of a person who appeared to understand the issues, would make a good group member, but wasn't involved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to find people who had no opinion on the merger at all. We have more than enough active users where we could find a dozen or so who didn't express an opinion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How would someone who has no opinion and didn't bother to respond to a widely-advertised poll about the core policies of Misplaced Pages add something of value to the compromise needed on such a difficult issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We're working under the presumption that they'd be willing to be drafted into this, of course. The value is a fresh look at a situation with a lot of input and heated debate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What could a fresh set of eyes bring to the discussion (other than ignorance)? Is there any part of this horse that hasn't already been beaten to death? Is there something that's been missed; a stone that wasn't turned in all the discussions and on the poll? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a communication issue, much of the opposition was based on sound IM and collaborative principles but much was based on fear of, or resistance to, change or a lack of understanding of what the requirement was. A fresh pair of eyes can point out where the requirement could be refined, where issues of communicaiton exist and where the objections are valid and need addressing.

I have to confess I'm concerned that two of the proposed members were actively trying to find ways to discount objections during the polling process, rather than note them and find ways to address those objections whether substantive or interpretative.

Of course a clear statement of requirement would be a useful starting point, some of the fallout from the poll debacle actually makes the confusion problem worse and contributes to rules creep.

ALR 09:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And then what happens?

SlimVirgin, above, wrote:

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

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

Your first suggestion - submit it to a poll and then implement it, if the community likes it - seems best to me. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the working group will look at the comments made during the poll, work out what the main community views are, and come up with a compromise proposal which Jimbo will then look at. I can't see us having another poll, so I'm assuming Jimbo will make the final decision, but that's yet to be discussed. SlimVirgin 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I can't see how this would be the best way of resolving the present controversy. I would think the working group proposal would have to enjoy widespread support from the community before becoming policy. CJCurrie 04:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how much of an influence political factors had on the last poll.

I would hope that all of those who voted Support did so based on the merits of the ATT project. But is it possible that some of the voted this way because they feel that Misplaced Pages policies are best handled by a relatively small group of senior editors?

And I would hope that all of those who voted Oppose did so based on the demerits of the ATT project. But is it possible that some of the voted this way because they learned that Jimbo had criticized the proposal?

If the ATT project leaders and Jimbo unite in a common plan, then presumably those who voted for it because of those editors and those who voted against it because of Jimbo will automatically unify behind the new proposal. So it is actually possible for all of these "political" voters to be made happy. But those who had specific reasons for opposing or supporting the plan will (presumably) support the compromise plan only insofar as it satisfies their preferences, and thus these people cannot all be made happy at the same time.

However, maybe I am missing the whole point here. SlimVirgin stated that "I'm assuming Jimbo will make the final decision, but that's yet to be discussed". Can I infer from this that ultimate authority over Misplaced Pages policies has always resided in Mr. Wales, and any "polls" or "votes" from anyone else, even Administrators, have been permitted as a courtesy on his part? — Lawrence King 05:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Lawrence, you shouldn't assume that. :-) Please don't assume anything. The fact is that we've not done this before, and so we don't know what's ahead. I very much doubt that anyone will want another poll, that's all I can say. But that's just my own opinion. The differences between most supports and most opposes are actually quite slight, so I can't see there will be much of a problem in producing a compromise, so long as everyone who gets involved fully understands and respects everyone else's position. That's why we need a team of people who are able to work constructively with each other. SlimVirgin 08:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Sorry if I sounded too hostile! I do fear that this whole saga will test Misplaced Pages's political resilience. In many ways, Misplaced Pages is an anarchy, and I usually like that fact. But one problem with an anarchy is that one or two very violent people can completely derail the activity of a devoted group -- even a devoted majority. Perhaps what is needed here is a kind of aristocracy, but a transparent aristocracy, where the Special Committee does its work in public, hearing the voices of everyone but not being bound to respond to any of them? If that happened I personally would support the final product, whatever it was. — Lawrence King 08:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What normally happens when we have a poll is that one admin closes it by reading the comments and deciding the consensus. They do this partly by looking at the numbers, and partly by judging the force of the arguments. Usually it's not tricky. Sometimes if the issue is contentious and the number participating was large, the decisions can be controversial. In this case, because the numbers involved were large (nearly 900 people took part), and the comments quite diverse and complex, it would be very difficult for one admin to close it. Therefore, we decided to form a small working party to produce a bipartisan solution; that is, something that will take both sides into account, and try to develop a compromise bearing in mind the various nuances of the main positions. But in essence, it's no different from the closing of any other poll, deletion debate, or request for adminship. It's just bigger. :-) SlimVirgin 08:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Most organisations also have some strategy and effective leadership.......

But the point is valid, what's needed here is some clear direction from Jimbo. He triggered this and it's reached a stage where he needs to offer some guidance about where it should go. and getting that second hand from a heavily involved party probably won't be acceptable to most people.

ALR 10:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous

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

I fully concur; this much seems obvious, and any successful working group will have to listen to all points of view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur as well, especially about the "listen" part. As said below, I'm unconvinced that the following oppositional committee proposal is a good idea. I think it's probably more productive to simply no longer allow three people to continue to control the process here. Oh, but nevermind, I forgot: I'm "disruptive" (--Jossi), a "trouble maker" (--SlimVirgin) and should be "ignored" (--Jayjg), so I guess my views, such as process is important in Misplaced Pages, and consensus actually has a definable meaning aren't worth anything. Silly me. I guess I'll go back to writing an encyclopedia while some people here continue to pay themselves out a whole lot of rope. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 08:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Working group #2

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

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

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

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

What, what, what? Jimbo asked for a bipartisan group to work on a compromise. What is wrong about that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

May you consider that it is your proposal that may be ridiculous? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please go away, if you have nothing useful to say. Let me again to express my disgust with your attempts to shut alternative approaches. `'mikka 23:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

May be you need to go away and cool off... You are making many assumptions that are not useful; to say the least: (a) that this working party will impose anything (they will not); (b) that these people are an elite of policymakers (which they are not), and other nonsense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually have to side with Jossi on this. Duelling committees will get us nowhere. There needs to be one, with fair representation of the major sides of the debate. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Who says they have to be dueling? Who says that duelling is bad? Why decides that the representation will be "fair"? Do you know how many "major sides" are there? What to do with monor sides? Are they morons not worth mentioning or representing? `'mikka 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. This has promise. How would you get wide Misplaced Pages community input to the selection of this competitive working committee? Would wide Misplaced Pages community input be beneficial? Would it be necessary? How important is the appearance of wide Misplaced Pages community involvement in developing consensus? Any ideas? --Rednblu 00:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

May I ask why, when someone questions how some people decide to do something, that they're "seeing dark phantoms" and are "ridiculous?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with anyone questioning others. But when someone diminishes proposals on the basis of fears that are unfounded, I take exception. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

You are welcome to sign up into WG-2. Why is it so difficult to take a break and read or write a[REDACTED] article Alternative or Plan B or Multiple choice? Don't you think it is ridiculous that only select people have rights to interpret words of Jimbo? I am setting a "work group", just like Jimbo said. Only I don't pretend a kind of "fair choice" by excluding self-nominations (which is just buddy-buddy way: I nominate you, you nominate me) If no one wants to set up an alternativr WG, fine with me. `'mikka 00:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You see... you keep assuming bad faith. You keep making more unfounded assumptions about the motives of your fellow editors. I must say, I don't like it a bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I grew up in Soviet Union and know very well how certain things work. I may be but an idle wistleblower, but I see some dangerous signs all over the place. But for Jimbo intervention, you all were ready to push your "severel months' work" down our throats, say no? Shall we just as well rely on wise Jimbo? And don't you try to read my mind. I am sure your motives are for wikpedia benefit. I am questioning not motives, but your right to be right and me wrong. `'mikka 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I grew up in Morocco, and lived in Spain, Israel, Argentina, Switzerland, England and the US, but that does not mean that I can cast aspersions on the motives of others or "know know very well how certain things work", Mikka. Please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see the difference between Soviet Union and your list, then no surprize you don't understand my worries. `'mikka 00:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you've never lived in Argentina, Mikkalai :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, working group picks you!! Anon/–Outriggr § 04:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Far less dramatic than Jossi or SlimVirgin; and somewhat more likely to listen to other people. I repeat that I agree with what WP;ATT says on truth; but this attitude is not promising. On the same token, Coppertwig may not be the best interlocutor here. Unless this committee is willing to listen to every point of vies, at a minimum, what's the point? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That "attitude", PManderson, is not such. Policy is policy and this group has no mandate to change one bit of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And this WG-2 (if it will be formed) will not ask you about any mandate. The community will judge the outcome of its work. There are quite a few quite questionable "bits" starting from the very intro. Not to say I am quite puzzled to understand how a WG is going to make "a compromise version" without possibilities "to change one bit of it". I guess you will be the bit counter to decide which words are "bits of policy" and which are not. `'mikka 07:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

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

Both could work, SlimVirgin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly no more than a baker's dozen, but as long as it's a constructive, mature and copacetic group, a precise quantity for a subjective judgment is perhaps unwise. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A genuine balance matters more than the number. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that. Facilitation of face to face groups gets quite challenging beyond nine or ten members, for various reasons. Facilitating in the online environment is even more difficult so making any progress with more than that is well night impossible in the short term. This is exacerbated when there is no clear facilitator anyway.ALR 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that a lead should be nominated to actively facilitate the process, preferably from the uninvolved side of this triad. Mackensen springs to mind as most appropriate.ALR 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is crucial that each and every one of the nominations to this working party have the appearance of deriving from the actions of the thousands of Misplaced Pages editors willing and eager to have input to who is to serve on this working party. The current slate for this working party is praiseworthy. But this selection process is not acceptable. Where has the wide Misplaced Pages community had input to who is nominated? How about an announcement on the WatchList page inviting input from the thousands of Misplaced Pages editors wanting to have input to this nominating process? --Rednblu 10:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I go away for a week, and look what happens - action! I'll just twist Jimbo's arm, while expressing my views, when he's in town in two weeks. Hehe. Seriously, this sounds like a good move. It's not unlike a tiny bit like what I proposed a week or two ago, on the assumption that it would still ultimately be Jimbo's decision how to close the whole thing. Is that how it is supposed to work? (Goes and reads more.) Metamagician3000 11:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Shall I start?

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

Sounds good to me, so long as we bear in mind that we've not heard from Jimbo yet, but there's no harm in laying out some ideas. I was very interested in how your transclusion idea would work. It sounded like a technical solution that might keep everyone happy. SlimVirgin 13:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't sound good to me :-) There have been procedural and methodological problems all along the way here, some possible caused by folks being in too much of a hurry. Every time people start talking, someone puts up a list or a summary or a poll or a categorization of issues, and people stop talking and start dividing and fighting. I don't think that's the best way to start; there's so much division that anything anyone puts up will just generate more heat. The entire process has suffered from too many precipitous moves. We don't have to put up polls within hours of their proposal, we don't have to decide on working groups less than 24 hours after they're proposed, and we don't have to propose a compromise before there's even been a dialogue among the (as yet undecided) group members. There isn't even consensus on the working group; it's too soon to put up proposals. Folks should slow down here and recognize some of the past methods that got this proposal into trouble. The community wants to feel that it is heard on this important issue, and doesn't want to feel that something is ramrodded through or shoved down their throats. It's too soon to propose a compromise; let people get comfortable with who the group is, how it's supposed to work, and what Jimbo's involvement or position in the matter will be. My mantra is "It's a new ballgame"; it's not the eighth inning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)