Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Working Group

Note Regarding Edits To This Discussion Page
As mentioned on the Working Group project page, "This page has been created as the home for a discussion between members of the Working Group." If you have not been nominated for participation in this group, it would be most constructive if you would bring your comments and concerns to the more public community discussion page. Members of this Working Group will not exclude one another's contributions through reversions, but they may revert any or all comments by other parties. Your comments may be entirely reasonable and well intended, but can still be removed in the interest of maintaining the integrity of a small working group seeking compromise. Thanks for understanding. zadignose 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting Started
A discussion took place on the subject of whether this working group should hold its discussions privately. Though some of the arguments in favor of a private forum were well reasoned, they did not meet with broad approval. In the interest of getting the discussion started, I suggest that those editors who have been nominated and accepted should meet here. Perhaps it would be best if all members of the working group should at least add this page to their watch list, and sign below with "I'm watching," so that we know who is aware of the discussion, and may become actively involved. Also, at the time of the creation of this page, there are more people identified as "opponents" who have accepted nominations than there are "proponents." If this is largely perceived as a problem, it would be wise to nominate a couple of more "proponents," or at least to see in what proportion the editors participate in this page. If it's necessary for the balance of this discussion, I suppose an "opponent" or two could step aside, and if it fell to my lot to have to exclude myself, I would. But in any event, it's probably best not to get so bogged down in process that the discussion never even begins... so let's kick start it. zadignose 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There were people in a section below the "real" nominations who also accepted (Jossi and PMAnderson among others); who ended up in that section vs. the "actual" nominations seems to have been entirely arbitrary, so might as well have them here as well. — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is workable in the current format. Discussions are ongoing at WP:ATT page and other pages. Maybe it is to late for this? I think this idea of a working group has lost its momentum. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the list is not representative, 1 neutral, 5 opponents, 3 supporters, 1 uninvolved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, as far as "momentum", SlimVirgin said she was going to propose the working group nominees to Jimbo for his acceptance (and to see if he had other nominees of his own). To date, we've not heard from Slim. As for representation, frankly, I think the onus is on the non-supporters – particularly the "opponents" – to first proffer options they think may satisfy both sides, and the "supporters" to say what they think of them and how they might be further improved, in their opinion. Of course, anyone can and should make proposals, but my point is that it may even be appropriate for the "opponent" group to be larger; after all, there was much more variation in their reasons for opposition than among the supporters for affirming it. In any case, pending whatever "closure" may come to pass for the WG roster, I don't think it can hurt to begin laying groundwork. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are the members who were nominated and accepted, at the present:


 * I'm taking this off my watch list WAS 4.250 06:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * - Watching
 * - Watching.
 * - I'm Watching
 * - we'll see
 * - Watching.
 * - we'll see
 * - Watching.
 * - we'll see
 * - Watching.

Reflections on the Poll, and a Perspective on Change
Here's my attempt to start a discussion, with a brief reflection on the poll, and what should be expected going forward. These points seem clear to me, though I'm sure some (or perhaps all) of them will be contested.

First, the result of the poll did not indicate a current consensus to merge the core policy documents and guidelines of V, RS, NOR into the single ATT document, using its current language.

Second, the ATT document, and the desire to demonstrate how our policies are related, were supported by a large enough number of people that we can't abandon the efforts that went into the attempted merger. Simply put, we can't go back to the way things were.

Third, it seems it's time to abandon the claim that what we are doing is not a change to policy. We are, in fact, editing policy pages. I accept that "the intention of the merge" was "not to change policy." But many objections were raised based upon concerns that policy was changing. It's clear that the community will not accept the idea that we can merge and significantly edit policy pages (with omissions, additions, and rephrasing of key language) without changing policy and the way it's applied, at least to some degree.

I would go further and say (as I have said before) that one can't change the wording of a policy without changing the policy.

Because we can't go back to the way things were, and because our edits represent an actual (though perhaps slight) change to policy, then we must accept that a change has taken place that can't be entirely undone. This doesn't have to be seen in a negative light. An optimist will see it as part of an evolutionary change. If we seek to restore any of the former language or structure of our policies, we must do so with an effort to preserve the contributions that have met with significant support.

From all this, it seems we must arrive at a set of policy documents that will integrate the work that went into ATT, and gain consensus. To do so, we must recognize and acknowledge the ways in which we are changing policy. We have to accept the validity of many of the complaints and objections that have arisen. We must also address the desire to give "attribution" a place of prominence. We must demonstrate how our core policies are interrelated through attribution, even if the whole of policy can't be effectively boiled down to a single document. zadignose 12:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with what you say (other than to point out the poll was not worded to solicit a consensus for merger, but rather to approve the product after the fact). The more I study the issues, the more I too believe that "going back" will be quite difficult, if not impractical. However, if "going forward" is the only option, the less I like ATT/ATTFAQ as it is currently configured. Either way we go, the worst problem will be what to do with RS, something which the community has long had problems coming to consensus on. I'm dubious that the "old RS" can really be successfully restored. There does seem to be strong support for some aspects of the old RS to become policy rather than guideline, yet those elements did not really make the trip to ATT successfully and that's where a lot of the contention lies. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts
Over the past few weeks, I’ve been taking a “deep dive” into the relevant policy and guideline pages – more or less as they currently exist, since they are not static documents. In general, it’s helped to further strengthen my perception that many issues raised in the poll can be resolved by better wordsmithery; however, as I began considering what that might look like in several cases, I kept coming up against the question of “But where should it best be addressed (vice summarized)?” since where you do the rewriting affects how you approach it. That led me to mark up a copy of WP:ATT to help me see where particular parts of ATT & ATTFAQ originated and how they were handled in this transition. I’d like to share several observations and insights that I’ve gained by doing this. Because it is long and covers several topics, I’m going to break it up into subsections so that responses can be placed near the relevant remarks, rather than all piled at the very end. Please note that the “reference” versions I reviewed were “pulled” over several days roughly four weeks ago. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

“Overhaul” process proposal
First off, whenever there is a proposal to conduct a major or total rewrite, restructure or reorganize a policy or – especially – a set of related policies and guidelines, I want to strongly recommend that a careful process should be followed (and this applies to the working group as well). This process should take the form of setting a “mark” time at which all the affected documents are taken, as they are at that point in time, and copied to a sort of “Work In Progress” sandbox; the attempt to rework the material should be conducted there – independently of the standing “baseline” documents, which would continue to be open to “normal, business-as-usual” editing.

Why? Because over the course of time required to produce and gain community consensus approval for the major rework (which could very well go through more than one cycle), three overlapping processes are going on with the affected policies: 1) some editors are attempting to continue to improve some aspect of the extant policy’s content; 2) others are reworking the document toward the new objective; and 3) yet other editors are popping in and attempting to “fix” a particular issue they see with the policy at the particular transient state the article is in.  It is not difficult to see how editors working to improve the policy as it has been, as it will be, and as it is right now, can end up working at cross-purposes.

It may seem like I’m making a mountain out of a molehill, but because of how this quite natural wiki-process transpired, one of the consequences appears to me to be that there may no longer be an option to easily “go back to the way things originally were” – because there is no “there” there anymore. Any particular “time hack” you might choose to revert to will be “out-dated” … unless a bunch of people want to go back and sort through all the subsequent edits to recapture those improvements and additions that were made mid-process and then differentiate between those that were enhancements to “the way it was (baseline)” rather than “fixes” to “how it was at a particular (mid-point) time”. While this is indeed theoretically possible, I frankly doubt it’s actually practical. Think about it: Of the editors who would most likely be sufficiently interested in policy development, a majority likely participated in the three-month-long merger effort. Having had their efforts apparently go for naught would be demoralizing enough, so it’s hard to see them eagerly spending a like period undoing all their work to put things back to something like the unsatisfactory condition they began with. Will those opposing the result take up the restoration with the same dedication and energy of the editors who merged it? I rather doubt it.

Is WP:RS “recoverable”?
With the above in mind, I’m not sure that WP:RS in particular is “recoverable.” RS has, in a sense, been “gutted”. At the beginning of 2007, it filled a little over 8 page frames (on my computer’s settings) and it currently occupies somewhat over 4 (and the last page of it consists chiefly of “see elsewhere” statements). Much of it has gone to WP:ATTFAQ, a fair amount has been integrated into WP:ATT, and something like a third has apparently ended up “on the cutting room floor.” A lot of the latter was content that explained and reinforced the theme of “why reliable sourcing is important” and expounded on how to evaluate the suitability of sources.

As it now stands, WP:RS is infrequently referred to. The example of WP:ATT that I examined, for instance, contained no material on or reference to WP:RS, although it is particularly relevant. In many instances, WP:V (a policy) has “taken over” for WP:RS (a guideline). WP:NOR has a section on Reliable sources, but it refers the reader to WP:V. Likewise, when the second para. of WP:NPOV or the nutshell of WP:Citing sources refers to “reliable sources”, the link goes to WP:V. (In fact, WP:Citing sources never links to WP:RS.)

Now, this is naturally all a result of the effort to merge it “away”; I simply offer it as evidence of the extent of rework needed to restore RS to “what it used to say” – and keep in mind that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with WP:RS before this merger effort kicked off. Keeping in mind the general disagreement over whether it should be policy or guideline, I’m not sure there’s a possible consensus version that can be “returned to.”

What exactly is WP:ATT?
One of the criticisms I recall being made about ATT was that it was “too long,” and it was pointed out that ATT was (at that time) only ~10% longer than NOR and substantially shorter than the three documents it supplanted combined. However, I don’t think that’s necessarily the case, because ATT is potentially as long as ATT + ATTFAQ.

ATTFAQ is a curious entity – it is neither a policy nor a guideline, but rather a collection of “explanatory notes.” It’s clear that its intent is to keep ATT becoming overly long and too burdensome to peruse by clarifying “peripheral issues” on the side, however, during the process a strange forking has occurred:  material from the RS guideline that made it into ATT became elevated to the status of policy, while that “left behind” was demoted from guideline to limbo. The rationale for what went where is actually somewhat opaque. If you look at the TOCs, it is obvious that the material in WP:ATTFAQ into WP:ATT, WP:ATTFAQ would fit well topically in WP:ATT, WP:ATTFAQ into WP:ATT, and WP:ATTFAQ into WP:ATT. Why does a topic like Citing yourself “make it,” while Weblogs or Other encyclopedias not only did not, but were relegated to “limbo”?

The only significant item left out of this mapping – and also relegated to limbo – is Doesn't Wikipedia care about truth? – and its absence was a major issue. While the fundamentals of WP:NOTTRUTH are often poorly understood among Wikipedians, I’ll submit that calls for better explanation, a clearer relationship with attribution, and a status in authority other than limbo (wherever it ends up).

Part and parcel with this is the observation I made earlier and which was noted in several poll voters’ remarks: a lot of the content that explained and reinforced the theme of “why reliable sourcing is important” and expounded on how to evaluate the suitability of sources ended up on the “cutting room floor” (or else to ATTFAQ). For instance, WP:ATT succinctly captures from the “original” RS (and IMHO improves on) the points that 1) Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources and 2) Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. However, the explanation of WP:RS was left behind. (I’m not sure whether the material still remaining in RS was to be “eliminated” along with RS when it was archived or what.)

Of course, if the relevant “left behind” material were integrated into ATT – and let’s leave aside for the moment that more “formerly-guideline-but-now-limbo” material would be elevated from guideline to policy – the length of ATT would grow from 9.5 page frames to roughly twice that (18-21 page frames, depending on how it was integrated). By comparison, NOR is about 8 page frames, V is 4.5 page frames, and the useful remainder of RS (excluding redirects to other main articles) is about 3 page frames. In short, ATT + ATTFAQ does indeed achieve the goal of “simplifying [i.e., shortening] the text of policy [per se],” but apparently only through the illusion of assigning an even greater amount of formerly guideline material to “limbo.”

I think that resolving what ATTFAQ is with respect to ATT and whether it should be part of ATT is a major issue to resolve.