A pre-Poll Straw Poll is underway at the bottom of this page to determine Question 1, as we move toward launching the poll. Please review it. : )

This poll and its talk page are a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Please join the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion

Archives: Archive 1 • Archive 2

... and to keep it open for 7 days until April 4 00:00 UTC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. We still need to reach consensus regarding the wording.

2. I strongly suggest that we not open the poll until after 1 April (because there's going to be a great deal of disruptive nonsense on that day). —David Levy 17:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that we need to resolve the wording, but I would argue we have beaten that horse to death already. Time to give up personal preferences and find a compromise. Having a deadline, would encourage compromise. As for April 1st, the whole project is in alert as we have done other years, and we do not stop editing because of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, I'm more than willing to abandon my personal preference in favor of a compromise. I'm just not sure that we'll be ready by 00:00, and I don't feel comfortable setting a start time until after we've agreed on the wording.

2. I'm not suggesting that we stop editing on 1 April, but we could spare the community some aggravation by not having this high-profile poll overlap the inevitable shenanigans. The last thing that we need is another wrinkle. —David Levy 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. So lets endeavor today to complete work in the poll' wording. All arguments have already been made. Given that you have been involved since the beginning and now all the viewpoints expressed, could you propose a compromise version? That would be very useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have previously suggested adding more options to the question (mostly, partially, and mostly not). Imprecise, but it covers the wide range of opinions, at least. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rush to judgment? Not a good idea. The current poll page is in terrible shape and will mean nothing; the current text of the poll page does not even make sense. What does "Do you agree in principle . . . ." mean in plain English? Apply that poor construction "Do you agree in principle . . . ." to any decision of your life; that concatenation of syllables will not assist you in 1) perceiving the options or 2) comparing the benefits of the options. --Rednblu 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Five days of discussion is not rush to judgment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And if the poll is in "terrible shape", help fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just readded: "If you do not support the merger in its entirety, any of "yes", "no" or "neutral" may be appropriate," which was intended to address earlier concerns. The one thing we need to establish is what to do about refactoring—1 and 3 may will see it. I don't see April 1 as particularly serious. Marskell 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Another "thing we need to establish" is consensus regarding the wording. We aren't there yet.

2. The above instruction doesn't make sense to me. Each response should mean something specific, and that seems to indicate that the answers are interchangeable (and largely meaningless) for some people.

3. As for 1 April, I can only say that the last couple of years have been ridiculous, and we shouldn't have yet another big thing to worry about on that day or during the polling. —David Levy 18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I don't have any concrete suggestions yet; I am watching closely the progress and work here. We're just not there yet, in my opinion. --Rednblu 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think it's too early. Few issues are still not resolved. -- Vision Thing -- 18:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And those are? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The wording on number 1 that everyone is up in arms over. Read my next section... - Denny 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wording, and comment by Jimbo that you keep removing. To what timestamp are you referring? -- Vision Thing -- 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove it, I moved it up to the chronology. Jimbo's last comment was the one the prompted this poll. All other comments were prior to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the timebeing, let's move it back 24 hrs: live at 00:00 UTC on March 29. There is never going to be consensus in the sense of unanimity, and there will always be something unresolved. I think 3 is problematic, for instance, as it holds the second option equal to the others when no one is really talking about it; I actually think of all the questions, that should be the open end. But interminable arguing is not much fun. Given that there is consensus for something like question 1, perhaps someone could suggest other alternate wording in the thread below. Marskell 18:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I seem to think we've established that Question #3 is quite fine, as no one is screaming about it or editing like mad on it and it's options now. Question #2 seems to be very stable, which leaves just question #1. The point of question #1 honestly DOES seem to be: "Yay or nay overall?" There is nothing wrong with asking that in an absolute sense like that, depending on the option that Question 2 actually represents. Question 1 may be all that some people feel the need to answer. Myself, I support the full merger. So, for me, I would simply say "Yay" on #1, and "Yay" on all three options under #2. Done, and done. Now: consider, what honestly is the point of the in-principle? I support the ATT idea, but I suspect that the in-principle is being included as a way out for the ATT developers... in case the poll for some reason shows the overwhelming majority doesn't care for merger, to perhaps come back around later with another idea. I think this is unneeded and couching the poll quietly in favor of the idea of ATT, if not the specific policy itself. Simply not right--and this is speaking as an ATT supporter!

On Question One

Why not just replace this:

1. Do you agree in principle with the merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into Wikipedia:Attribution?

With this:

1. Do you agree with the merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into Wikipedia:Attribution? If you support a partial merger, select 'Partial Merger' and see question #2.

Add a "Partial Merger" option under #1.

Summary

A mock up is here now: Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Dennyideamockup

Yes, I know that means having instructions in there. So what? That's a simple, straightforward, can't-be-confused or misintepreted question. If people support a more complex solution of a partial merger, that is what Question #2 is for. If they support none-of-the-above, well, they have ample oppurtunity to make that clear between #1 and #2 and #3. The status of pages desired at conclusion of the poll? Question 3.

"This a good idea? Or not entirely? OK, then look at #2. What about what to do with the policy pages after? Look at #3." Simple, linear... in fact, I'd wager that this simple change... will make the poll completely NPOV while not endorsing ANY side of the debate in any way. It's a straight: What do YOU think? scenario then, favoring via the questions neither endorsing, nor the idea, nor much of anything beyond what people enter... as answers.

If everyone is confident in the strength of their policies, and policy arguments, no one should have any problem with the idea of this, I'd imagine... - Denny 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But if someone supports a more complex solution, they shouldn't have to skip any questions entirely. Unless you want to group anything other than full support under "no", which would be the opposite problem as grouping anything other than full opposition under "yes". Or can we add more options along with this wording change? That question is more clear, at least. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am trying something similar, I think. Let's keep going. I am digging through the four months of arguments to get a "Statements from all sides" page. And the basic question seems to be something like the following: "Do you think there is a need to simplify into one page the policy on Verifiability to a Reliable source with No original research?" I do not have a concrete suggestion yet. --Rednblu 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't need something that complex, Red. Replying to both: They skip nothing. I just edited my idea so that #1 is YAY, NAY, and PARTIAL, GOTO #2. Look up. That covers ALL bases neutrally. - Denny 18:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise to move forward, I would accept Denny's proposal. Regarding to "Statements from all sides", please see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion in which editors are making their opinions known. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I put it here: Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Dennyideamockup for anyone who wants to see what it could look like. - Denny 18:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, looks like a good compromise to me. Thanks, Denny. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GOTO #2 (and don't leave your opinion here) isn't skipping? Why not have a section for "partial"? If it makes a difference, you can put "no need to explain here, we'll look at your answers to the other questions" in the instructions, although I don't know why that would be necessary. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

if someone supports it fully, then they really don't need to answer anything else but #1 ("adopt it all"). If they oppose fully, they don't need more than #1 ("reject it all"). Either all in, or all out in that case. If they want to get fancy, they move down through the poll. - Denny 18:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But then we'll end up with a statistically invalid sampling (because a substantial segment of the community will be excluded from one question but not the others).

How about splitting the "yes" response into "yes, and the merged pages should be superseded" and "yes, but the merged pages should not be superseded"? That way, proponents of compromise would be covered too. —David Levy 18:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bingo, THAT is perfect. Updating the mockup. - Denny 18:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But... is not that already in Q3? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More confusion of principle and outcome. What about: "Do you agree with the mergers at Wikipedia:Attribution? Yes / No / Partial (briefly describe)" and drop 2 and 3, leaving perhaps one open-end "How should it be arranged?" Marskell 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Dennyideamockup:

Question: 1. Do you agree with the merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into Wikipedia:Attribution? If you support a partial merger, select 'Partial Merger' and see question #2.

• Yes, and the old pages are superceded by ATT.
• Yes, and the old pages are NOT superceded by ATT, but supplement it.
• Partial Merger.
• No.

Leave Q2 as is, Nuke Q3. Eh? - Denny 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That would work. I already nucked 3 in your mock up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Yep, good call, you got me on the edit conflict. - Denny 19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A mish-mash. No thx, on this end. And is two arguing for the four pages? Who is still arguing for that? Marskell 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The poll notice on Watchlists will be seen by thousands+ people for seven days. Just giving it out there. And a mish mash, but the whole thing has been that anyway. Q1 now supplants Q3's with two options rather than the four there before. More streamlined, same end result. - Denny 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question 3 is what Question 1 should be. It includes two middle options regarding keeping all pages active but only some canonical, plus an option for people who think WP:ATT would be good after a substantial rewrite, and of course your extreme WP:ATT replaces other pages and they become inactive and WP:V or WP:NOR stay policy and WP:ATT becomes inactive. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Q3 is still there, but simplified into Q1. If ATT needs a rewrite, that can happen later. This whole process was to adopt or not adopt in some form. - Denny 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Q3 is pretty bad right now. It's offering "neutral options" that no one is seriously arguing for. Below, I suggest an open end. Marskell 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I am seriously arguing for one of the so-called "neutral options". — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're arguing for a lot of things, AB. Where's is the thread where people are seriously arguing for keeping all four live? (A stupendously idiotic idea.) In the absence of serious argument in that regard, why are we suggesting it? Marskell 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Q1: Do you agree with the mergers suggested at Wikipedia:Attribution?

• Yes
• No
• Partial (briefly describe)

Q2: Which arrangements would you prefer? [open ended] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marskell (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I will accept this compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How will be able to assess the answers if these are open ended? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The seven days won't be the end of things, is the idea. We get the basic question done (with partial offered as a compromise, given debates here) and we let the arrangement discussion be organic. Marskell 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of moving forward, I would go with Denny's compromise version, which I have copied to the main page. Take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That basically wipes out the tremendous progress that we just made. "Partial" would be interpreted to mean "only some of the pages" (which excludes the other compromises). —David Levy 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I just moved, David. Can't move back at all? What are the other compromises? Four policy pages? The most insane idea floated here? That 300 editors wasted six months to create more work for themselves?

Denny's compromise version is just another poorly designed scale (though the effort to move is appreciated). Marskell 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any proposals on how to avoid that, Marskell? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down, Marskell. We're all trying to compromise here, and referring to other people's opinions as "insane" is not helpful. —David Levy 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To jossi, yes, the proposal is above. If there is a large group of people arguing for four live pages it will come out in the open end.

To David: it is insane. *Shrugs*. Ask Slim, or anyone else who's been in this since October. The idea that V, NOR, RS and ATT are live is the worst possible outcome of a process that was meant to make our policies consolidated, maintainable, and precise. Marskell 19:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not four policy pages, one or two policy pages (depending), and two or three subordinate guideline or summary pages, with a clear heiarchy. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only respond with the following:

1. The above attack is hurtful and uncalled-for, and Armedblowfish's description is far more accurate.

2. If the community agrees with you, you have nothing to worry about. —David Levy 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What attack? I see the apparent "compromise" as advocating four pages, which is insane (or horrible or stupid, or whatever you like). AB is describing "one or two policy pages"—I don't understand. The people arguing for one are arguing for a merge in its entirety. Marskell 19:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so now my opinion is "insane," "horrible," and "stupid." Very nice.

Please let me know when you're ready to resume discussing this in a civil manner. —David Levy 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am discussing it in a civil manner. An attack is calling you stupid, not an opinion of yours stupid. I have friends who follow astrology, and I think astrology is the stupidest idea going. How about, "the idea is very very bad because it means I and 300+ other people have wasted a good portion of their editing time for the last six months in order to make wiki-life harder, rather than easier." Is that an attack? No. So come on, now. Marskell 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. If you honestly believe that the above posts' tone was remotely civil, I don't know how to address that.

2. Again, if the community agrees with you, you have nothing to worry about. You aren't trying to withhold an option that you fear may prove popular, are you? —David Levy 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe the above was civil; I was commenting on the content, not the person. In fact, I'll repeat it (with just one adjective, which sums up the others): I see having four pages going at once as a truly horrible outcome. Really, and truly. We can move to other threads, I suspect. Marskell 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, well I guess "two or three subordinate guideline or summary pages" is advocating for four. Yes, I find this insane. Not an attack to say so. Marskell 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys... concensus, consensus!! Look at this. We're nearly done. My change now makes every possibility possible, if enough people suggest it. All bases covered. But we need a basic structure, and the basic structure there now is why this began in the first place... - Denny 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To explain, I mean one of the following situations:

• Wikipedia:Attribution becomes the ruling policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are downgraded to subordinate guidelines. Wikipedia:Reliable sources remains a guideline in one form or another.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research remain the ruling policies. Wikipedia:Attribution stays as a condensed summary, with about the same status as WP:5P. Wikipedia:Reliable sources remains a guideline in one form or anther. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowsfish, see my last addition to the poll. Any eventuality if supported is now covered. - Denny 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There we go, ArbCom style. 500 words, responses go on Talk. 500 words so someone doesn't clog the Poll with a 9,000 word essay or new Policy page. Whats the meat of your statement/idea. People can always espouse more on talk. I think that covers now every possible scenario imagineable. - Denny 19:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If we have the open end at the bottom as you describe, why clutter the first two questions? Maybe very simple one, some options (but tight) two, open end three? Marskell 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because if it needs some structure that even an idiot can interpret, or else everyone is going to keep on arguing in circles over every last syllable and we'll launch the poll in time for Christmas otherwise. And having the open area at the bottom is fine, since now any good, bad, insane, or shockingly brilliant idea can be heard. This'll be... what, the most public, open decision on policy by the community in years? Every base is now covered. - Denny 20:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will add that I've been dredging my brain for the right "existential" question on ATT:

• Do you support the intention of ATT...
• Do you believe ATT should continue to exist... (sounds stupid, but that's sort of the question)
• Do you believe there's utility in ATT...

I dunno. Marskell 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

* Do you support renaming WP:ATT to WP:SOURCESAREAWESOME, except when controversially deleted because of no evil polling?

We can't cover every base in the poll itself; we'd have dozens of options. Best of both worlds. - Denny 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting all of those! I was thinking we could brainstorm one initial question. (You're using the "creation of" now, which is a little iffy). Marskell 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that was David simplifying more. FWIW it reads as what it is, really: do you support ATT? Which is what it comes down to in the end here. - Denny 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Do you support ATT? That's very close to what I think the initial question should be. Up-and-down. I'm suggesting at the same time, that two "yes" options and a "partial" option confuses the question, because you have a mixed scale. Marskell 20:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are there.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I mostly concur; the improvements in the last half-day are vast, but I agree with Marskell that the "creation of" language isn't it. It's actually really weird; it seems to be asking whether going to the Wikipedia:Attribution redlink once upon a time and clicking on "edit this page" to create the first version was a bad idea, which is certainly not what we're here for. Other than that quibble, this looks remarkably better than it did last night. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Tweaked to read, 1. Do you support the policy merger into Wikipedia:Attribution? now instead. March 29, here we come. - Denny 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I really like it the way it is now. Can we please please keep it like that? :) --Conti|✉ 20:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm good either way, David RV'd me. :) - Denny 20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't answer "Yes, but the old pages should supersede the new one" be added to Question 1? -- Vision Thing -- 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Other options" section at the bottom. We limited it to just the most likely common scenarios for the main questions, or else we'd never get this done - Denny 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To me that scenario looks more likely than "Yes, and the new page should supersede the old ones". How can we say what is more likely scenario? -- Vision Thing -- 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on what the page concensus here... thats all we have to go on, is the sample. Unless a significant number disagree before the poll date, no reason to abort... - Denny 20:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good one, Conti. - Denny 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if we are nearing an acceptable compromise version... good work folks. I know it was not easy, and you have my thanks if no one else's.

Once we do have a final version, the next step is to determine when to open the poll and when to close it. Given that part of Jimbo's concern about ATT was that the merger might have taken place without proper notice and community involvement, I think it is vital that we now advertize this poll at every step. Just as we put all sorts of notices about the discussion page everywhere we could think of (including on the watch lists)... we should do the same with the poll. In fact, I think we should start with a notice that says: "The Poll will open on <opening day> at and last for <number> days." Post this at least 24 hours ahead of time... then when the poll does open, again post notices to say "The poll is now OPEN for voting, and will close on <closing day> at ".

The one thing we definitely don't want is for Jimbo to come back to us saying lots of people complained that the poll opened and closed without their knowing about it. Blueboar 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You seen the watchlist notification? :) Maybe for the first 24 hours of the poll when the notice changes, we can include a discreet but impossible to miss graphic for it, then just go to all text for days 2-7. - Denny 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the announcement: This poll will open on March 29 00:00 UTC and will close seven days later on April 5 at 00:00 UTC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone uninvolved make the announcement? Or Jimbo just because this poll is being made at his request. I personally don't feel we are ready, and having a strict closing time might not be helpful. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The announcement will just go up on the Watchlist header at the magic time. Having a fixed closing date/time will be good so that every last person who screams "not yet!" can't make a stink, and so it has finality... - Denny 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Armedblowfishmockup. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Armed Blowfish, I think your mockup leaves out the most important part... The whole point of this poll is so that we (and more importantly Jimbo) can find out IF this merger has community support. That has to be a binary yes/no question (or at most, a tri-part yes/no/partial question). I understand that you think we need a range of options to cover all bases, but we have to ask that basic question or we don't address Jimbo's main concern. Blueboar 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just think of "The original pages become inactive. Wikipedia:Attribution serves as a unified policy on their subjects." and "Wikipedia:Attribution remains as the canonical policy, but the original pages remain active to describe the concepts in greater detail." as two different kinds of "yes", and "The original pages serve as the canonical policies (or guideline in the case of WP:RS), but Wikipedia:Attribution remains active as a condensed summary." and "Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive." as two different kinds of no, and there's your binary, except with different degrees of yes and no. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We do not need any more brilliant ideas... We have had all ideas already discussed. Let's move on by agreeing to a compromise version as per Danny's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current compromise. Thanks, Denny! —David Levy 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are still disagreements about starting the poll March 29 00:00 UTC? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is wrong to start with the current poll text. --Rednblu 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Rendblu's (edit conflict!) comment above (the "current" poll text has rarely lasted more than a few minutes...), I tend to agree with David Levy's earlier comment that waiting until April 2 would be wise. If this is "advertised" as much as I think it will be, it would be a top-10 April Fool's Day vandalism target. We've all (I think) agreed that it's really important to limit people's effective ability to rant and add comment-on-comment-on-comment on the poll to make it actually possible to parse it and determine the outcome. I think this rationale applies even more strongly to avoiding the utter bollocks monkeywrenching edits that would (I predict) absolutely certainly occur on 2007-04-01, some of them carefully crafted to not look like vandalism. (A secondary effect of course is that legitimate but poorly phrased votes could be deleted as apparent vandalism). A few extra days isn't going to kill anyone. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I support current version of the poll I don't see the reason for hurry. Aren't we having this poll because merge was preformed without enough community input and discussion? -- Vision Thing -- 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there concensus to go ahead? Or to abort? If we don't set a motion now... to go or hard stop, we'll endlessly debate just about that. Speak now, etc. - Denny 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but we're getting there. Abort? Certainly not. I second the motion (I guess it is Jossi's, ultimately) to proceed, with the caveat that this does not mean freeze the text of the poll. Tweaks need yet to be made. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I forked the new thread immediately below because it seemed to raise completely different issues; I believe what this thread was for what determining whether there is consensus that the poll is getting solid enough that proceeding is possible, and on some kind of schedule (not necessarily the one that Jossi or David Levy proposed, just that arriving at one is feasible.) If this fork was a mistake, feel free to revert, including refactoring away this note. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Two yes, two no answers is not what we had agreement for. Sorry. Back to square one, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That was not the compromise, David. That was last minute confusion added making this a joke. Two Yes answers, and two no answers? Changing the wording of the question? No, sory. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was satisfied with the two "yes" answers and one "no" answer." Why didn't you simply revert back to that? —David Levy 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As you type that, do you not see the potential error? Two yes answers and one no answers? How is that a well-designed question? Marskell 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it allowed people to express their actual opinions (including the one that you seek to suppress because you believe that it's "insane," "horrible," and "stupid," and you want to protect the community from itself). —David Levy 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see that you did, but now Marskell has decided to overrule the entire compromise. *sigh* —David Levy 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

David, it's incredibly ironic, after three days of arguing with you, that you feel expressing opinions consists of dictated answers. What if I just want to say yes? LOL. Marskell 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What if I don't? —David Levy 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Really David, I've got a smile on my face. I've heard so much yip-yap about how blood will flow in the streets if we ask a yes/no question, and it's just soooo cool that you've actually removed the one option I wanted: yes. I just wanted to vote yes, and then wait and see how debate on RS develops. LOL. So cheers to (a lack of) simplicity and shitty polling. Marskell 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the two "yes" options precisely matches your position. And guess what? Now there's an option that matches mine too! An utter travesty, I know... —David Levy 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No David, "The new page should supersede the old ones" does not support (the new, little twinkle in my eye) that it's possible to leave RS as is. Marskell 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of which pages to include is covered by question 2. —David Levy 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact that I can't give a proper answer to the only thing I'm decided on. I mean c'mon! I can't give the basic yes I want to give? A yes to WP:ATT? Christ. Marskell 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can give a proper answer. You want WP:ATT to supersede the pages that it subsumes. That's an option. And astonishingly, I can express my "insane," "horrible," "stupid" preference! —David Levy 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it funny when the shoes are switched? I'm sorry my friend, you're splitting the Yes question says to me: "all three or ATT as a supplement". Just the divisions I've heard bemoaned for the last three days. And it's clever isn't it? Despite no real argument for it here, let alone alone the six months people have worked on it, the horrible idea of ATT as supplement is being given equal weight in the primary question. But whatever. Keep at the poor design. Marskell 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean the "insane," "horrible," "stupid" design? —David Levy 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did pick one and stuck with it, in the interest of brevity. I said it was horrible. Perhaps you can tell me why it will be good? Why eight pages (four main, four talk) is going to help Wikipedia? Marskell 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If all of the project pages remain active, we needn't have a separate talk page for each; we could use Wikipedia talk:Attribution alone (and redirect all of the other talk pages).

The advantage, in my opinion, would be that while we would have a page containing concise documentation of the relevant concepts, we also would have individual pages with expanded descriptions (which would be handy for citing in specific situations, particularly when someone doesn't understand one of the individual elements).

But I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to allow the community to decide. If most users dislike the idea, it obviously will fail. So what are you worried about? That they won't dislike the idea? —David Levy 22:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following simple plan:

• Day 1 (hours 0-24): Non-dismissable notice (so no one misses it or can later say they did). Small graphic to get your attention.
• Days 2-7: Dismissable notice, text only, no graphic.
• Day 7+: take down the notice altogether.

Once consensus is 'decided' however that goes for the policy, another 24 hour non-dismissable notice announcing it, and done. - Denny 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking this image on the header:

For the first 24 hours on the left side. I am not good at making pretty... boxes. Could someone whip up a demo? - Denny 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Non dismissible notice? This means you'll have to forbid people from editing their monobooks. (Best of luck with that.) If people don't want to see it, they shouldn't have to. Picaroon 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean with no "dismiss button" on the header itself for the first day. :) - Denny 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sample graphical template:

Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll. : )

Sample nongraphical template:

I will see if I can figure out how to do the dismiss part, or someone else can add that.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sample graphical template with smiley instead:

Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll. : )

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Middle version (no graphic), and no smileys (graphical or ASCII) in any of them. Smileys indicate something is a joke or was meant humorously and that is not the case here. Yes I'm a big meanie. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My intention with the smileys was to make people feel they were welcome to add their opinions, and spread good will. Some smiles can be more serious than humour. But if you don't like them, it's not a big deal. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a matter of "like"; I'm coming at it from a usability angle. A long time ago smilies (of the basic sort; there are literally hundreds of variants now, with their own nuances) could mean any number of things, but since the rise of IM, they generally equate to "JK!" or "LOL!". I think the wording can convey what you want to. The wording job you did on the merge template at WP:RS for example conveyed that very well (note that I kept it but removed the ASCII-smile in the proposed variant). Something like your very encouraging wording in that template would work marvellously here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To determine which version to use, as this seems to be what its come down to now. Everyone seems to support one or the other, so lets see what honest concensus is here. If you endorse it, say-so here. Lets go with what has concensus. Lets run this till tomorrow 16 24 hours from when I posted it? Polling evil (yes, yes, we KNOW) etc. comments are not helpful in this scenario. For sanity's sake, lets limit it to these please...

1. Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution?

• Yes.
• No.
• Neutral.

Endorse

1. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This does not include my opinion as an option. This would force me to either not express my opinion, join a category contrary to my actual position, or add another option while the poll was live. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Nor would it express either of the two I'm contemplating. Given this choice I would be forced to vote "No", despite that not accurately reflecting my opinion. Are WP:ATT supporters listening? Force us into a corner, we oppose.
3. Oppose. This offers no quidance to the chief purpose of any straw-poll: advice on "What do we do now"? Where do we go from here?" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Forces users to choose between extreme positions, but I prefer it to Medium version. -- Vision Thing -- 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose, per most of the above. Indeed, this would force me to vote "no," and I truly don't want to. —David Levy 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
6. - Denny 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution?

• Yes, and the new page should supersede the old ones.
• Yes, but the old pages should remain active to supplement the new page.
• No.
• Neutral.

Endorse

1. 2nd option ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. 2nd option. - Denny 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This does not include my opinion as an option. This would force me to either not express my opinion, join a category contrary to my actual position, or add another option while the poll was live. In addition, two kinds of yes and one kind of no isn't exactly balanced. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Worst of both worlds. :-) Still polarizing (though less so), but still does not accurately gauge opinion. Clarification: This is my next-to-last choice, short version being last choice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Updated: 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Unbalanced. -- Vision Thing -- 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you support the merger behind Wikipedia:Attribution?

• Yes, and the new page should supersede the old ones.
• Yes, but the old pages should remain active to supplement the new page.
• No, and the new page should become inactive.
• No, but the new page should remain active as an explanatory summary.
• Neutral.

Endorse

1. - Denny 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. This is the only one which accurately includes my opinion. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   I'm still endorsing this, but now that the option to restore the third question and get rid of the first question entirely has been added to this poll, this is now my second choice. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Also: Stripping the yeses and noes is fine with me, although at that point I see no reason not to just remove this question entirely and use the former 3rd question, which is my first choice anyways. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

3. This includes my opinion, and it is balanced (two yes, two no, one neutral option). -- Vision Thing -- 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
4. This is a fair and balanced compromise. —David Levy 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
5. 2nd choice; first is below. Support per nom. Just kidding. I think this adequately assesses the available options and will provide a realistic if not 100% accurate account of what the community actually thinks about the issue. Dang, why didn't we do this two days ago? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Updated 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Second choice; my first choice is below. Alternatively, strip the Yesses and Noes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Per Septentrionalis's elaboration (further below) on the "strip the Yesses and Noes" point, I would definitely support that, if long version is the consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. this is skewed to rejecting the primary aim of ATT. You have one answer that supports the current merger, and three options that negate it. Totally unacceptable≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I assumed neutral wouldn't hurt or hinder. So it's 2 for, and 2 against and balanced for ATT to stay live at least. - Denny 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Three of the options mean that WP:ATT survives, and only one means that it doesn't. —David Levy 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   No, you do not get it. You are basing your understanding on the wrong premise. We do not need 4 policy pages. This is not about balance of questions but about what is best for the project. Do you really want to have 4 policy pages, or just one? That is the question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Some do in fact want 4 pages. This has already been discussed at the community discussion page and elsewhere. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   I don't want four pages myself; but the way to do that is to vote against the option that goes there - as I will, not to suppress it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Purpose of this poll is to find out what editors think what is best for the project. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

2. LOL. This is truly awesome. Marskell 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead restore some version of question 3. For reference, the last version said:

Which of the following do you support?

[You can vote for any of these options or mark them as your first choice, second choice, etc.]

In the alternatives given below, the original pages means: those policy or guideline pages that, in accordance with consensus established in response to question 2, should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution.

The original pages become inactive. Wikipedia:Attribution serves as a unified policy on their subjects.===

Wikipedia:Attribution remains as the definitive policy, but the original pages remain active to describe the concepts in greater detail.===

The original pages serve as the definitive policies (or guideline in the case of WP:RS), but Wikipedia:Attribution remains active as a condensed summary.===

Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive. (Parts of it that reflect consensus are integrated into the original pages.)===

WP:ATT is not everywhere verbally identical with its sources. Its supporters assert it makes no changes in policy, but is better phrased.

Endorse

1. This is my preference. For example, I support WP:ATT, but find both the first and fourth alternatives here acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. This is the best option.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Question: would this allow to vote 1st option, 2nd option and so forth? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   • Yes; that line seems to have gotten lost in the edit conflicts while I was trying to copy it without breaking the poll format. Now fixed; thank you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Definitely my first preference; revising earlier !vote. As has been said for something like 3 days, this makes way, way more sense. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Second option. -- Vision Thing -- 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm of the firm mind that at the core of the Q1 needs to be an element of "stays" or "goes" for better or worse, since thats what it seems to be coming down to... - Denny 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions/Comments

• Question: Can someone put the last version of Q3 up here in this section as the alternative? Going AFK a long while. - Denny 22:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Erm, was that intended to be an oppose, or should we put that in a comments section? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  It was a question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, the last version with question 3 is this one; but I may have missed a reversion in there. Denny, if you meant to oppose, please put the header back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you leave that up, for say, 16 hours? We had a good consensus yesterday for a simple version. The "consensus" appearing tonight for these poorly-conceived mixed scales is at best partial.
Or maybe we should spike the poll. Just a thought. Marskell 21:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

16 hours works for me. Spiking it... I disagree. We need finality/a gauge of concensus - Denny 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There was absolutely no consensus yesterday. I'm shocked that you would make such a claim. —David Levy 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday qua yesterday, there was consensus. There was like nine people v. you and AB. I was only underscoring that you can't claim general consensus given the last two hours. Marskell 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You know darn well that numerous other editors expressed disapproval of the previous wording. —David Levy 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that the page was protected for hours, and Jimbo-in-official-capacity issued a stern-ish warning. Fer foak's sake, let's not be so revisionist we look silly. NB: I was one of the numerous others on virtually every point that D.L. raised yesterday. It's curious that one ATT proponent says I'm "disruptive" and otherwise basically implies I'm making too much noise, while the other doesn't notice my presence at all. Highly curious, that. They can't both be right. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean, 16 hours, counting starting when the poll starts, and then remove options which people have not voted for, if there are any? I guess, although 24 hours might be safer to cover everyone's time zones. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Switched to 24, with the theory that whatever has concensus will be live version come poll day. - Denny 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What? I'm sorry, I misinterpreted this. I thought Marskell meant to leave these up for the first 16 hours of when the main poll went live, and then remove options that no one voted for.

As for which one has consensus/majority, I'm not sure what will happen if the poll goes up in a version that does not include options for everyone's opinions.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... once the main poll goes live it should not be changed for options. Ever. I meant that this straw poll ought to run 24 hours. - Denny 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen people add options mid-poll before, most commonly "voting is evil", although I've never seen options removed mid-poll. Also, take this poll, for example. Someone added an option to get rid of question 1 and restore question 3 mid-poll. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, true, but the Poll Poll will be a huge site-wide deal. Anyone making anything beyond cosmetic tweaks will get RV'd left and right (as I would hope). - Denny 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing votes after they've been added, just because they created new options, seems rather like an attempt to prevent people from expressing their opinions in the poll. I hope people would not do that. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Or people rv'ing others who are trying to accurately express their views without harming anyone else will get rather plausibly ArbCom'd by the revertees for vote tampering. Ths is not Controlipedia, remember. I think it is near-100% certain that more than one party will "Polling-is-evil" this poll; let them. No one can rationally have a serious disagreement with some wikipundits adding a spot to complain at the bottom. If I had a scale of 1-100, with 1 being the most important, on which to rate WP issues, someone adding a PIE section as a point (note not a WP:POINT since it wouldn't actually disrupt jack-squat), I would rate that as about #24,594. Not an issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the above. All of these are designed to bias the poll towards rejecting the policy. They are all unacceptable. Guettarda 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All of them let people decide whether to adopt or reject the policy. Can you explain why you disagree with that? - Denny 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it biased? It allows all options I can think of, provided question 2 is kept to discuss which pages, and assuming people note any conditions in their votes. I can't see how it prejudges the issue. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda: Your suggestions will be most welcomed. A pair of fresh eyes would be really' helpful We are stuck, as you can see... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed more eyes are needed, and welcome! to Guettarda. But how are we stuck? I think the minipoll-on-poll is very clearly laying out what the opinion ratios are. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 1 - yes/no/neutral

Most people don't vote neutral - it says "I don't care". Yes says "I endorse what was done". A certain proportion of people who support some of the goals of the merge, but not all, will vote "No". That will inflate the no votes, biasing the poll to reject the move.

Option 2 - Yes (supercession, non-supercession)/no/neutral

This just splits the yes votes. In addition, it makes people focus on supercession, which some people will see as radical. Again, it pushed people toward voting "No".

Option 3 - Yes (supercession, non-supercession)/no (active/inactive)/neutral

This one shares the problems of the first two (making the choices too stark), but it also pushes "no" voters away from no, because it makes them think of shutting down the page.

All of these options also hurt the discussion by polarising people up front. Most people are not going to come here with a clear understanding of what is going on and what is proposed. They should not be faced with poll questions that push them in one direction or another. Guettarda 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On the same token... we can't get questions that are more 'neutral' than this. The poll should be about what people want, unbiased by advocation if possible... right? It seems like there was no concensus at all until I threw out my neutral question changes... - Denny 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) Thanks, Guettarda, then what do we do? What do you propose? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes we can, we can strip the "Yes"'s and "No"'s from the verbose version. That makes assumptions which I know to be false by introspection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My basic point is that we shouldn't be asking people "vote yes or no", we should ask "what do you think". Guettarda 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If words to the effect of "poll to change policy" come up, people are going to come here on edge. There will be a lot of information at the top of the page, and even more links. Most people are going to skim past them to the point where they get to vote. So, with very little knowledge, they will be faced with up/down questions. People are going to vote on their gut rather than their head.

If we want to guage opinion in a reasonable manner, we need to ask a series of questions that assume ignorance. That's the first thing. The options must be presented in a "friendly" manner, and we need to rely on the questions to educate without biasing things one way or another.

The page starts off with a very terse "familiarise yourself with the debate" (Go and do your homework!) The first one is fairly clear, but has far too many words. The only thing that jumps out at me is the quote on the right about "everything must be attributable". The main point is squeezed into a box. The text is too squeezed - my eye slips past it, I got back, it slips past it again. No good. And that's all I see on one screen (never assume anyone scrolls). So many of the people who are diligent enough to click through won't read the discussion. The "Jimbo's comments" (yeah, who is this Jimbo again?) Too many words, diffs, all I get out of it is the headline This merger is a really bad idea). Finally a pointer to a 329 kb debate. Mmmm..no.

So, with little explanation, BAM! Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution? How the heck do I know - I'm just here to do my civic duty by voting, I'm not here to spend a month sorting through a debate.

Q1 needs to spoonfeed far more. Wikipedia:Attribution proposes that the current Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policy with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline be merged into a single policy page. Do you:

A Support the merger of the three pages [I think we need some word better than "pages"] in the current form

B Support some form of a merger, but not the current proposal

C Support maintaining the current [pages] in their current form

D Have some other opinion (just vote here, discuss in the discussion section)

E m:Voting is evil (sucks for you, we have been told we have to take this poll)

Q2 If the pages are merged [this allows people to participate even if they say no to the merger] should they include:

Vote in the appropriate section,

Wikipedia:Verifiability yes

no

other (please express your opinion in the appopriate sectiong)

m:Voting is evil (sucks for you, we have been told we have to take this poll)

Wikipedia:No original research yes

no

other (please express your opinion in the appopriate sectiong)

m:Voting is evil (sucks for you, we have been told we have to take this poll)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources yes

no

other (please express your opinion in the appopriate sectiong)

m:Voting is evil (sucks for you, we have been told we have to take this poll) Guettarda 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I read Jimbo, we can consensus on m:voting is evil; but if we do, unless the discussion is an extremely clear endorsement of WP:ATT, Jimbo will then revert to the old policy structure - so the real problem is that that option is almost redundant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but people are going to vote that option - if there's a poll, people will vote that way. The question is whether we should add it up front and let people know that this poll is going to happen whether they support polling or not, or whether we want to wait until someone adds it because once it's there, people will vote that way. Guettarda 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I support adding more options to Question 3, or alternatively the verbose version, such as "other" and m:Polling is evil. However, I think all of the options in question 3 should be available as separate options. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that Guettarda's prediction is plausible (I think it is very plausible), I have no objection to specifically adding a PIE section. Has been added before by several others already. I don't care much, either way, since if it is absent, someone will add it later. If people editwar over that addition in mid-poll, all hell will break loose. The option will appear either way, because a substantial number of WPians feel strongly about that meta-issue (pun intended). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil as an option is meaningless since Jimbo asked for this, and since it's going to be the most public poll for policy since... what, someone said 3rr? It will stand... I don't know how much more leading the whole thing can be after that header basically lays it all out repeatedly. The purpose of the poll also isn't to endorse or not endorse ATT, or the merger, or anything. It's to gauge concensus on it. The problem with having a million options and even somewhat spoon-fed or leading options is that someone will have a problem with it. You want them in... so that the policy isn't biased against ATT. Someone wants a 7th, 8th, 9th option for whatever reason. This is the problem--everyone wanted a specific thing, and the debate has been going on for days with no forward action and only backward action. Having very simple, stripped down questions is the only fair way as the poll should not lead people in any way. All the pro/con stuff (in fact, mainly pro) is all up top in the header. Our job isn't to ensure that ATT goes as policy solo, goes in as policy with 4 pages total, goes away altogether, or anything. It's to give people the options, as Jimbo asked. My suggestion that everyone seemed to like was to give everyone the MOST COMMON LIKELY OPTIONs, based on what people here were saying, and a place to put in their own feedback at the bottom.

If the policy sinks or swims (I hope it swims fully myself) it does. If it ends up only 80-100 of us support it and ten times as many don't... well, c'est la vie. Thats the wiki way. I think we should go with the variants on the original compromise that everyone seemed relatively fine with, and not fork more and more and more each time one person disagrees however... loudly. No offense. - Denny 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "meaningless since Jimbo asked for this" — I don't quite buy that, because Jimbo isn't a god :-). He's important, and has some trumping authority, but it is OK for the community to disagree with him, and he knows this and often acknowledges this (I saw on the mailing list the other day a comment something like -paraphrase not quote! - If the community every comes to a consensus to remove me from my position of authority, I hope they understand the consequences and really think it through. I don't think we'll be offending him or making a mistake if we collectively tell him he's made a mistake on this point or that. Honest. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: No one has proposed 7+ options. Hyperbole does not help anything. — SMcCandlish (updated ver.: — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC) )

Sorry, it gets tiring when every little thing is dissected by everyone to get closer to the end result they are ultimately after (which is human nature, but still tiring). - Denny 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood; that wasn't meant as a barb, but as "let's not, and go this way instead". :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried Guettarda's version. Do not know if it will be accepted, and I need a break from this now. It has been an exhausting exercise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that each lone new dissenting voice (no offense again to all) shouldn't be able to completely suspend movement forward at this point... - Denny 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Much progress has been made here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My proposal isn't about the number of questions, it's about how to ask the questions. The point is that we need to ask the questions in a way that's non-prejudicial to people who are clueless. The old questions are likely to push things one way or the other, and that's not right (even if they push things the way I want them to be pushed). Guettarda 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If no one complains, I'd be fine for the current live mix of yours and the consensus version to fly. - Denny 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with suspending things is that they go fast. It looked ok this morning, it's only when I got back to it this afternoon did I see all these changes - and trying to see which version I favoured I realised they all had the problem of pushing the voters one way or the other - especially people who haven't had months to think about this issue. Guettarda 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth I'll live with the live version. - Denny 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright; what do we do if the live version fails to achieve consensus, as is not unlikely? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say deal with that then, and not sweat the stuff we can't foresee. - Denny 23:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll live with the live version as well even If I have some misgivings about it. I encourage others to put aside personal preferences and accept it. Maybe it is not the best option, but is the best we can expect given 5 days of back and forth. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Live version is biased towards ATT. Best solutions are "Verbose version" and, perhaps more acceptable to some, "No question 1" variant. -- Vision Thing -- 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, stop for a minute. No poll at this point in time please. We've managed to create a huge mess. We are going to need time to tidy up that mess first.

Starting a poll in this situation is not helping anyone get anything done, and can only cause more mess.

I'd like to at least postpone the poll for a week or two until we (which includes several mediators) have gotten the initial mess sorted out.

--Kim Bruning 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) People are holding polls about poll content. Do you really think a poll would be useful at this point in time? ;-)