Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 14:44, 30 May 2022

Archives

/Archive 1 (Approx. steps 1-3) /Archive 2 (Approx. steps 4-5) /Archive 3 (Approx. step 6) /Archive 4 (Step 7)

Mini-RfC on drafts and questions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was base the RfC on proposal F/G. The proposal being drafted at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/RfC draft has the support of all the editors who participated in this discussion, even if not all of those editors think it is the best possible solution. Although individual editors expressed support for other solutions, none of those solutions have the explicit support of all the editors active in the discussion. I also note that turnout for this discussion was low, and that none of the mediation participants that were previously involved have come back to comment. I think this is a good indicator that, in North8000's words, it is "time to get this baby moving". Let's shift our focus to final tweaks of the RfC wording, and to practical matters such as where to host the RfC and where to advertise it. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Hello everyone! It looks like things have stalled somewhat over the last few days, so I'm starting this discussion as an attempt to breathe some life back into the proceedings. In this discussion I'd like us to decide once and for all about what combination of drafts and questions we should include in the proposed verifiability RfC(s). The discussion has become quite complicated, so this is my attempt at simplifying things so that the various proposals can be more easily compared and commented on by mediation participants who have not yet been active in discussing step 7. My hope is that by getting wider input from mediation participants that it will be easier to find a consensus about which structure to use.

I have made a summary of the different proposals below. Feel free to tweak them if I have copied any details wrongly or taken anything out of context. If you think of a completely new idea, then by all means include it. It's probably best to outline it in the discussion, though, to avoid any confusion. I have also made a very brief summary of the arguments for each type of RfC. As the summary is very brief, there are inevitably points that I have left out - feel free to add more if you think of any.

Finally, in the comments section, please indicate which proposal or proposals you would like to use in the RfC, and include your reasoning. Your comments should take into account the various arguments that have been put forward for the different types of proposals. After everyone has commented I will weigh the strength of the arguments and see if a consensus has been reached. You don't need to include all the previous arguments made on this talk page as part of step 7, as I will be taking these into account as well. If you want to include a short summary of your position, though, it might make my task easier! And as usual, let me know if you have any questions or comments about the process. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

• Proposal A: This is a proposal by North8000, and is a suggestion of how to organise an RfC on drafts.

• Proposal B: This is S Marshall's preferred proposal, and consists of two separate RfCs.

• Proposal C: This is a proposal by Blueboar, and also consists of two separate RfCs.

• Proposal D: This is S Marshall's second-choice proposal, with both drafts and questions.

• Proposal E: This is a proposal by Tryptofish, and consists of both drafts and questions.

• Proposal F: This is a proposal by Kalidasa, and consists of both drafts and questions.

• Proposal G: This is proposal F, except with a change in the first sentence of Draft C.

Arguments for the different proposals

These arguments are a vast simplification of all the discussion that has been held about this issue. While I feel that they sum up the discussion that has taken place so far, they should not be seen as an alternative to reading the full talk page. All participants are invited to add other points to the list - just remember to sign your additions so that people are aware of who added them. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

For two RfCs, the first one using general questions

• It's easier to proceed from general principles to specific wording than the other way around
• Shorter RfCs will be easier for editors to understand and comment on

— Mr. Stradivarius 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

For RfCs on specific drafts

• Editors who agree to general principles may not agree to specific wording in drafts
• Editors who reject specific wording in drafts give us a clear indication of how to revise the drafts to gain consensus, whereas this might not be so clear for general questions
• One RfC will take less time than two RfCs

— Mr. Stradivarius 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

For one RfC with both drafts and questions

• Allows us to hedge our bets - even if no individual drafts reach consensus, the general questions might

— Mr. Stradivarius 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• People are different. Some will find it easier to proceed from general principles to specific wording, others will want to see the fine print of a draft before making a comment.

— Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I still think it's a bad idea to include drafts, but I accept that drafts are inevitable at this juncture. I must admit to liking Kalidasa's version quite a lot.—S Marshall T/C 16:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think that proposal "A" is the best because it sort of combines the best of both worlds. By it's wording, it IS more a RFC on general principles, but it does lead to an action item/conclusion. I would like to ask S. Marshall if, on their poll items, they would consider asking people to give their comments on several or ALL of the choices. When you say "pick one" of many choices, you are introducing a serious flaw of randomness; choices most similar to each other will "kill" each other, even if they represent the most common opinion. While I think that "A" is best, I think that C, E & F are also fine. And if S Marshall made that one change, then I think that B & D would also be fine, if not, not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• On the "similar choices killing each other", we just have to trust the closer to see past that, North. We're not trying to create a "foolproof" RFC here. We're trying to create one that has some prospect of reaching a rough consensus in the closer's opinion. Having said that, I would expect RFC participants to endorse more than one option if there's more than one option that they like (and oppose more than one if there's more than one they dislike), and I have no problem with that behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

On your first point, IMHO that requires an immensely bold & complex and impartial subjective analysis which maybe 1% of people can do; IMHO the odds of them being the closer(s) are unlikely. On your second point, would you be willing to note that in those? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• That 1% figure might be overly cynical... Misplaced Pages admins seem to manage it fairly regularly and I'm pretty confident that they're not in the top 1% of anything.  ;-) On the second point, sure, you can add something to that effect as far as I'm concerned.—S Marshall T/C 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just clarifying, my "1%" comment was just for when you tell people to pick one choice from more than two choices, which is an unusual case. I'll try adding that note to your 2.

I added that. If it sticks, then my preference is still for "A", but then I'd say that B,C,D,E & F are also fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• No surprise here, but I like Tryptofish's proposal, as improved upon by Kalidasa. I see no need to have a questions-based RfC in advance of an RfC on actual improvements to the policy page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking at the current version of the draft RfC page, I'd be inclined to omit the "discussion" sections for each of the A–E drafts—just "support", "support with revisions", and "oppose". There should be an RfC talk page for general discussion, and I'd like to encourage respondents to discuss matters about the individual drafts using the "#:" notation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought the RFC would happen on a talk page, such as WT:V where the last one happened. To me, it seems very strange to open a Request For Comment and then put the actual comments on a separate page. I'll resist the temptation to trot out my line about the difference between a request for comment and a request for votes because that's getting old, but I do want to achieve something more useful than a numbered tally of views.—S Marshall T/C 23:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I better clarify what I said. I entirely agree that a productive RfC is going to require discussion. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking very specifically about the layout of the part of the RfC page where the draft options are. I'm actually advocating for more discussion within the !voting sections of that part of the RfC page! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• The similarities between drafts D,E,F and G -- all of which have a section with drafts, followed by a section with general questions -- show that this is an idea which has made sense to several of us here. It is not necessarily anyone's preferred option -- my own preferred option would have the general questions before the drafts -- but I think it is a workable option. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My thinking for having the drafts before the questions is that the questions tend, psychologically, to put respondents in the position of having "taken a stand". That's not a bad thing at all, but there could be an advantage to forming a reaction to the drafts before making up one's mind. Then again, I could be over-thinking it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It really isn't crucial to me whether the general questions come before or after the draft ledes. So why did I mention this? Basically, I wanted to say that it is slightly misleading to think of proposal F as Kalidasa's. Perhaps a better description is what you said above "Tryptofish's proposal, as improved upon by Kalidasa". Your proposal E, as I understand it, was based on S.Marshall's proposal D, which is really a compromise between a drafts-only approach (A), and a questions-first approach (B and C). Maybe we have been gradually moving towards a consensus, after all... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Just recapping, I said that I like "A" the best, and that ALL of the others are also fine with me. Time to get this baby moving! :-) North8000 (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What is "the information in an article"

Could someone clarify what is meant by "the information in an article". Does it refer to:

• A statement in the article
• The facts (information?) being described by the statement

For example, "According to Brie(1995), the Moon is made of cheese"

• The statement is true and verifiable
• The facts are false

Articles often present information that is not true (eg. Phlogiston theory, astrology, Time cube).--Iantresman (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the rule is for (a condition on) the existence of the actual material (text etc.) in the article, but that which must be sourcable is the statements contained therein. True/false is not relevant to this particular requirement. Anything beyond that is the subject of this 18 month debate. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The word information has its usual meaning, for example as in the way you used it when you wrote, "Articles often present information that is not true (eg. Phlogiston theory, astrology, Time cube)." Also, in your article example of Phlogiston theory, there is the information that it is an obsolete theory, "The phlogiston theory ... is an obsolete scientific theory ..." .--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, a "verifiable" statement about false "facts" is exactly what VnT ought to be about. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

History

In the history of the RfC there is the sentence, "A previous RfC in October–December 2011 did not reach consensus as to whether the opening paragraph of WP:V should or should not be revised in order to address concerns amongst many members of the community about possible misinterpretation of VnT."

Actually, this is a false statement since the previous RfC reached consensus that the opening paragraph should be revised according to the proposal. What happened was that the three closers incorrectly stated that it didn't, and because of this the proposal was not implemented. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a can of worms, isn't it! The passage to which you refer is part of a series of edits I made, and let me please say, more broadly, that I would very much like for everyone in this mediation to take a good hard look at it, and fix whatever I got wrong. That said, for this particular point, something tells me that it will go over rather poorly with the community as a whole if we begin our RfC by saying that the three admins got the last one wrong! I believe that we need to keep whatever we say about history as short as possible, and also to avoid anything that will create needless distractions. But you may be right that any mention of consensus with regard to that last RfC will itself be a distraction. How about this instead: "A previous RfC in October–December 2011 did not result in any revision of the opening paragraph of WP:V in order to address concerns amongst members of the community about possible misinterpretation of VnT." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Or, probably better: "A previous RfC in October–December 2011, as to whether the opening paragraph of WP:V should or should not be revised in order to address concerns amongst members of the community about possible misinterpretation of VnT, was closed as no consensus." I'm going to make that change now, but please do not regard that edit as anything like final. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's probably about the best way to say it. My way of describing what happened would be far less gracious/diplomatic. North8000 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I added "controversial". --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And I reverted you. As North said, many of us, including me, have issues with the way things went last time. But here's the thing: what we should want for this new RfC is for those shenanigans not to happen again. If we go waving red meat in the faces of people who disagree with us, it may feel good for the moment, but the end result will be a repeat of what happened before. I feel very strongly that we need to be uncontroversial in the way that we introduce the new RfC, so as not to give anyone any reason to distract from what we are actually asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see you feel strongly about it, and I probably feel just as strongly, but I won't edit war. To simply say it was closed as no consensus is giving the impression that there was no consensus for the change. In fact, it was first closed as reaching consensus. Your version is essentially choosing to side with those that believe there was no consensus. To say it was controversial is very accurate and is not choosing sides.

My concern is that your version is setting things up for criticism of the existence of this RfC, for example in terms of WP:stick, with an argument like, "Why is everyone's time being wasted with another RfC when a similar proposal didn't reach consensus in the last large RfC." That would be the argument and that would favor Option B of this RfC, i.e. the old version that was retained after the last RfC because of allegedly no consensus for change. Something is needed in the intro to preclude the impression that there was clearly no consensus in the last RfC. Since you didn't like what I put in, could you suggest something else? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If we want to emphasise the controversial nature of the previous RfC, the best way would probably be the same way we do things like this in articles, i.e. outlining the actual history in more detail. For example, we could say that the previous RfC was commented on by over 300 users, closed as "support change", the close was reverted, and it was later closed as "no consensus" by three admins - the first multiple-admin close on the English Misplaced Pages. (At least, I'm not aware of any earlier multi-admin closes.) However, this would go against Tryptofish's desire to mention as little history as possible. Maybe a way to satisfy Tryptofish and also satisfy Bob's concerns about WP:STICK arguments, etc., could be to focus on how the current RfC is different from the Oct-Dec 2011 one. For example, we could re-jig the intro text to emphasise that while the previous RfC only had one possible draft to comment on, this one has a range of choices, and that this RfC differs from the previous one in that it also seeks to find editors' general opinions about if/how VnT should be used in the policy lede. Does this sound reasonable/workable to you both? — Mr. Stradivarius 11:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My short answer is yes, that's reasonable! My big concern is that we not say anything that will upset other people, or give them reasons to argue with what we said. I think a brief (WP:KISS) description of how this RfC is different than the previous one (and therefore not just repeating the same thing) is a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Vote

In the RfC intro is the paragraph,

"This RfC is a discussion, not a vote. You are strongly encouraged to provide informative and detailed comments that will help achieve consensus."

It is a discussion and a vote. To say it is not a vote deprecates the significance of the number of editors supporting or opposing. It also justifies closers ruling one way or the other with little consideration of the number of editors supporting or opposing, which is basically what happened at the last RfC. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You are proposing, in effect, a rewrite of WP:VOTE and WP:CONSENSUS. Please, let's just stick to WP:V for now. And also please note that some participants in the mediation would rather not have an RfC with drafts to start, so encouraging discussion is a good way to respect the spirit of those concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh I'm not suggesting here a rewrite of anything but your sentence, "This RfC is a discussion, not a vote", for the reasons I mentioned, which you ignored. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think "ignored" is a strong word to use here, and it would probably be more accurate to use "disagreed with" instead. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Tryptofish.) My understanding of the "discussion, not a vote" phrase is that it tries to make users aware that the process at work here is not a simple, majority vote, and that the closer will take the arguments made into account, not simply the number of editors who "voted" one way or another. Furthermore, my understanding of WP:Consensus is that editor numbers should be taken into account, just not to the detriment of the arguments made. In the policy page it says that "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view"; however it also says that "The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible." So calling it a discussion and not a vote does not necessarily mean that numbers do not matter, just that they matter less than they would in a straight vote. Having said this, I think we can compromise on this - how about saying "This RfC is a discussion, not a majority vote", or some other qualification of the word "vote"? — Mr. Stradivarius 10:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. How about: "This RfC is a discussion, not simply a vote"? I'm saying that as a compromise, but I also want to point out that, once we put this in front of the whole community, even that compromise will elicit numerous complaints of "Polls are evil!!! I object to anything that's a vote!" The phrase "discussion, not a vote" is really just boilerplate (see, for example WP:DEM), and I'm actually surprised to see it becoming controversial here. And I also want to point out that S Marshall has been arguing for going even farther in the direction of not-vote for our RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Simply don't raise the issue in the first place, i.e.

"This RfC is a discussion, not a vote. You are strongly encouraged to provide informative and detailed comments that will help achieve consensus."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. How about:

"This RfC is a discussion, not a vote. You are strongly encouraged to provide informative and detailed comments that will help achieve consensus."

I see nothing at all wrong with it. Obviously, you and I are at an impasse, and it would probably be best if more participants would weigh in. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re "I see nothing at all wrong with it." — Tryptofish still hasn't addressed the points in my original message. Also, the link Tryptofish gave, not a vote, is a link to a page with a dispute banner.

{{disputedtag|talkpage=WT:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Guideline status}}

Again, Tryptofish's first sentence basically says numbers aren't meaningful, i.e. "not a vote", only discussion is meaningful. This means that the determination of whether or not there is a consensus can ignore numbers and make a judgement that can in principle depend solely on a subjective interpretation of discussion, to determine whether or not there is consensus. This isn't the way Misplaced Pages works. Numbers are important and are used in conjunction with discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If we're looking for policies about voting, then we have WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We also have the long-standing essays on meta m:Don't vote on everything and m:Polls are evil. Still, I don't think either of you are actually arguing that the number of editors in support of any given point does not matter. You both seem to be in agreement that numbers do actually make a difference - correct me if I'm wrong here. I have to agree with Tryptofish, though, that the phrase "not a vote" is firmly embedded into Wikipedian culture, and I have never seen it be controversial before. Maybe this is based on a misreading of Misplaced Pages:Consensus? That page doesn't say that editor numbers don't matter, just that they shouldn't be used in substitute of reasoned argument. I still think we could clear this little disagreement up relatively peacefully by just tweaking the wording a little bit, though. How about using something similar to the wording in {{Not a ballot}}, for example? — Mr. Stradivarius 14:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Bob, I apologize if it sounded like I wasn't being responsive to you. In my mind, I think I have been responsive, but I just really, strongly disagree with you. I'll go back now and try to respond very specifically. You argue that my preferred wording means that the numbers of editors supporting or opposing does not matter. That actually is not the case. The policy on consensus does indeed take numbers into consideration, and that has always been the practice. The issue is when editors simply append "26. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)" to a list, as opposed to saying "26. I support/oppose this because of X, Y, and Z. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)". What we say at the top of the RfC page is not so much a philosophical stance, as it is a guidance to the respondents about how they can best provide useful input and have their views heard. Based on everything I've heard participants say in this mediation, I really don't think we want people just putting numbered endorsements on the RfC page, but rather, we want informative comments.

Imagine if three of the drafts get very little support, and two do get a lot of support. Let's say those two both have 50 opposes, and one of them has 301 supports, while the other has 302 supports. Do we really think the second one, and not the first, has consensus and that's that? Of course not! It will matter very much how the respondents made their comments, whether they backed up their !votes with explanations that held up logically and factually after further comments came in. If the 302nd support was just a "mee too!", it shouldn't count nearly as much as an oppose that gave thoughtful reasons that were subsequently supported by many other users and never really refuted.

You argue that you think that last time the closers ignored the numbers. Whatever we do or do not think happened last time, it's water under the bridge. What happens in the new RfC is what matters now. Get respondents to give thoughtful responses, and a clear consensus will be impossible to ignore or hide.

The more I think about this, the more I see no reason to water down the "not a vote" language. If anything, I'd rather strengthen it by adding more language, saying that votes without explanations will be counted less. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously we want thoughtful comments... but when you are the 157th person to express support (or opposition), it gets hard to come up with something thoughtful to say that has not already been said multiple times already. As for discounting "me too" and "yeah... what he said" comments... if such comments are referring to a thoughtful comment that was made previously, then having lots and lots of those short "me too"s will speak volumes about what the community consensus actually is. In other words, while this isn't a simple "majority wins" vote... numbers do matter. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course numbers matter! That doesn't make it wrong to say that it's not a vote. And in an RfC where we're asking people to add themselves to sections with numbered comments, it's self-evident that numbers are going to be part of the analysis. You've actually just given an example of where judgment is called for in evaluating "me too" votes, looking at them in context. That's exactly the point: we don't just count them mathematically, but we evaluate the strength of the arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, we don't necessarily need to add the further language I said at the end of my longer comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Last time what went awry was about a 10 link chain of events, the most egregious of which I'd call hijacking. The second closers declaring "no consensus" was not one of the egregious ones, but was a link in that chain. I think that we're working on preventing the other links from occurring. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What IS much more likely to go awry this time will be if people just pick their favorite to comment on, in which case similar proposals will kill each other. The remedy is to emphasize that persons should feel free to comment on many of the choices, and also to pick more than one as their "top rated" ones. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to adding something like that. (And, again, this is one more reason why it's a discussion, not a vote.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC location and page protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was to use protection/transclusion. This was a close call, and as I said below, both sides have good arguments. As I couldn't really see any policy-based reason to favour one argument over the other, I based this close purely on the numbers who commented and the strength of their opinions. Those were:

• For protection/transclusion: 1 strong support, 3 medium supports
• Against protection/transclusion: 1 strong support, 1 medium support, 1 weak support

Not the widest of margins, to be sure, but I felt it was enough to make the decision. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that the basic structure of the RfC has been settled, it's time to focus on the last few specific things we need to do before we put the RfC up live. One thing that we haven't worked out yet is where to actually put the RfC. We could put it at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability, like the previous RfC, or it could have its own page entirely, maybe at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/2012 RfC or Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Verifiability policy lede 2012. The location of the RfC ties in with the issue of whether we should fully protect the RfC page and only allow comments on transcluded subpages. If we have the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability then it won't be possible to use protection in this was, as doing that would disable comments on aspects of the policy other than the lede for the duration of the discussion. However, the opinion has been expressed that leaving the whole RfC editable would be more in line with the open spirit of Misplaced Pages. What does everyone think about this? Can you think of other arguments for or against protection or having the RfC at WT:V? And can you think of any other possible titles that we might use? — Mr. Stradivarius 10:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• 2012 RFC is a good title because it's descriptive and neutral. The natural place to have an RFC is on the talk page of the subject to be commented about, and the natural way to run a discussion on Misplaced Pages is to keep it open and editable by anyone, because this is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. The "locked subpages transcluded" smacks of distrust, and creates a wholly different atmosphere for the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 10:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Something I forgot to mention earlier: a compromise solution could be to have the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, but to host the drafts themselves on a subpage, e.g. Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/2012 RfC drafts. We could ask an admin to protect the drafts subpage, and transclude it onto the main RfC page. This wouldn't address S Marshall's criticism that transcluding locked subpages could be seen as distrustful, but it would allow editors to edit most of the RfC page directly. The technical disadvantage of this is that users could change the text that specifies which page is transcluded, meaning that in theory they could show an entirely different page instead of the drafts. In practice, though, I think this eventuality would be less likely than well-meaning users merely wishing to "tweak" a proposal before too many others comment on it. Just something else for everyone to consider. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Like S Marshall, I think that calling it "2012 RfC" is a good way to go; I don't think it matters whether it's a designated new page, or a subpage of WT:V. Obviously, one of the places to advertise it would be WT:V, but I wouldn't actually hold any of the RfC there. And I feel very strongly that we do need to use the protection-transclusion system. It doesn't prevent anyone from editing the places where they express their opinions, only preventing them from changing: (a) the instructions and introduction, (b) the drafts, (c) the general questions, and (d) the overall format. It only prevents people from, well, messing with the format. I cannot see how that would create an atmosphere of distrust. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. But just think what would happen if, several days into the RfC, one individual suddenly decides to start rewriting the drafts according to that one person's idiosyncratic whims. Then, other community members start opposing that draft because of the bogus wording. Then, a revert war breaks out. Then, people start claiming that the RfC is no longer valid and needs to be shut down. It would be a mess, and that would result in a bad atmosphere. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Does anyone else have good arguments for or against this? At the moment we seem to be stuck on this point, and I'd rather other people comment than try and wade in myself. (I'm sure the water's lovely, though.) — Mr. Stradivarius 13:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  Note - to try and get more input about this I've sent out a talk page message to all the active mediation participants who haven't commented on it yet. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think that we should agree on and then clearly communicate which pages / areas should and should not be edited. If somebody messes with one, just revert them; if a bigger problem arises, then protect it. That follows the Misplaced Pages way. We should arrange it (separation, transclusion or whatever) so that the latter can be done if necessary. This is just my recommendation; the other mentioned possibilities are also fine with me. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, that would mean transcluding the comments onto the main RfC page from a subpage, even if we didn't choose to protect the main page at all. I think the argument against this would be that if we transclude the comments in such a way that we can protect the drafts part at any time, it means that we are already showing that we suspect disruption might occur. And if we suspect that disruption might occur, we may as well just protect the drafts page to start with. I can see good arguments for doing things one way or the other, but not so much for only going halfway. If you had to choose either one or the other, which would you go for? — Mr. Stradivarius 17:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  IMO few people will equate transclusion to expecting disruption. If I came along I would just think that it was a way to keep a large complex RFC organized and avoid edits in the wrong areas by misunderstanding/confusion. But answering your question, if forced to pic between those two, its a near-tossup, but I'd probably go with unprotected / not transcluded, with very clear instructions on what areas should not be edited. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply! If I could bother you one more time, when you say "very clear instructions", where were you thinking those instructions should be placed? In the text of the main RfC, maybe, or in an HTML comment that can only be seen when editing the page? What would be the most effective way of alerting editors to the fact that they shouldn't edit a particular area of the RfC text? — Mr. Stradivarius 19:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly instructions at the top, and shade the "do not edit" area. I'm just giving my suggeation; all of the ideas and thought in this section sound fine to me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen RfCs go wrong because of further edits to the draft and explanation. So I would think protecting the basic structure of the RfC would be a good thing. I'm not worried about people feeling mistrusted. If I were worried about that, I'd oppose the headers on talk pages that warn people to behave. I do value openness per Marshall, but I don't think a little transclusion to keep things in order actually goes against that. B——C_ritical 18:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally RfCs should not be edited since doing so can create confusion. But it is important the wording is clear, unambiguous and neutral which isn't always the case and which in certain instances has led editors to adjust wording an action which I can understand and agree with. In this instance we can make sure the wording is appropriate before the RfC opens. Most editors will respect a clearly worded request not to edit the RfC, and those who don't want to abide by the boundaries which are in place to benefit all editors should probably be asked move on to something else. I know this sounds harsh but I've been involved in several RfCs that were pretty horrendous. I hope this one can be peaceful with a useful outcome.(olive (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

• I think we need to make it incredibly clear why the drafts / questions shouldn't be edited. But I'm not sure that just "making it clear" is actually enough. I can't actually see that having the drafts and questions protected and transcluded would constitute a problem; we could explain that it's been done that way to avoid any unintentional / inadvertent changes while the RfC is in progress, to avoid causing confusion, as it's likely that an awful lot of people may wish to comment. Having thought it through, I think that's actually the better move. So long as there's an explanation of why it's done that way (to avoid mistakes), I think folks would be okay with that. Pesky (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• I've gone ahead and made an example of what the RfC would look like if we use transclusion and protection for the comments. This is just to spur on the conversation, as we still seem to be pretty evenly split on which choice to make, and we could still use some more input. For convenience, here is a permanent link to the draft RfC page with the transclusion scheme, and here is the comments subpage. Let me know your thoughts. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've already expressed my arguments of course, but I think it looks good. One thing occurs to me, though. The way you have it now, there is one "click here to edit" for Part 1 and another for Part 2. Given how many people may be trying to edit at the same time, and the resulting tendency for edit conflicts, I wonder (not sure) whether it might be better to have individual "click here to edit"s for each of the draft options in Part 1, and for each of the views in Part 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would agree with Marshall's naming scheme, but honestly I have to say I do not have a preference re page protection. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• There's no reason any change to a draft text should be urgent. These texts can safely be protected. The comments on them should be as organized and as easily editable as can be achieved. In nonmediawiki systems, that would be addressed by allowing appendonly permission only, but semiprotected comment subpages ought to be close enough for this purpose. Avoiding editconflicts should be eased by tryptofish's suggestion of seperate subpages for comments to each proposed alternative. Time to stop navelgazing and put the question. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up question

As a follow-up question, what is the decision about what the page will be called? (I mean, whether or not it will be connected to WT:V.) It's a smaller point, and I personally don't care about it, but I just figure we should know. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's make it Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/2012 RfC. I suppose I didn't mention it in the close because no-one really disagreed. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Advertising

On the draft page, it says that the RfC will be advertised at: "WT:V, WT:NPOV, WT:NOR, WP:Village pump (proposals), WP:Centralized discussion, WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals, and through a Watchlist notice." Does anyone have suggestions for other places we might advertise the RfC, or disagree with any of the above suggestions? — Mr. Stradivarius 11:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I made that list, but I really think it's important that everyone think hard about whether there's anything more to add to it. Remember, the shenanigans last time began with claims that the previous RfC wasn't widely enough advertised. This time, we need to make such claims utterly impossible. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that, no matter what we do, there will be some people who don't find out about the RFC and will complain (In other words, they will complain that because they didn't find out about it, it could not have been "advertized well enough".)

However, we can limit such complaints if we include a list of links (in the RFC itself) to any page where we actually have advertized it. It can be as simple as a line that states: "Notice of this RFC has been left at <link>, <link>, <link> and <link>". Then, when someone does complain, we can simply point them to that line and say... "Surely all these notices qualify as wide advertizement. Sorry you didn't see any of them." Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree, and actually, that list is at the top of the draft RfC page already. Particularly since you bore the brunt of those complaints last time, I really hope that you will look very critically at that list, and rack your brain for anything else that could be added to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But I would also like to note that those complaints were a part of the hijacking process. If we see hijacking again, we need to also be playing offense, not just defense. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

North, I think one of the best offenses (with a nod to Mr. Strad's caution below) is to act ahead of time to make absolutely sure that anyone who might be disruptive will simply have no recourse to even begin. All I'm really saying is that we need to advertise the bleep out of this, so that anyone who says it wasn't advertised enough will look downright silly. I'm just trying to close all the loopholes. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You are very right on that. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with your use of "hijacking", "offense", and "defense" here. I can appreciate that you might have been annoyed by the concerns raised by other editors about the last RfC, but I would be very wary of labelling the act of raising those concerns as "hijacking". This reminds me of the very good advice found on WP:GLUE: it would be much better to keep the RfC process as open and transparent as possible, treat any concerns that are raised entirely seriously, and assume that the editors raising them are acting in the best of faith. This is simultaneously the best way to avoid falling into the trap of assuming other editors have bad intentions when they do not, and the best way to deal with the very small minority of occasions when they do. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You are soooooooo diplomatic!  :-) I'm going to have to disagree with on this one, but such is a sidebar anyway. And once one has seen it happen, there is no more "assuming" as the "A" in AGF for those particular editors, it is replaced by knowing. Even Jimbo weighed in and said that the first close was proper and that what happened afterwards wasn't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Finalising the statements in part two

Currently in the RfC draft, editors are asked to indicate whether they endorse, oppose, or are neutral about, the following statements:

1. "I think the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' needs to be part of the lede."
2. "I don't think the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' needs to be in the lede itself, but it should be mentioned elsewhere on the policy page."
3. "I don't see any need for the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' to be mentioned on the policy page."
4. "I would like the lede to say more than it currently does about the distinction between perceived truth and verifiability."
5. "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then I would like it to clarify that this phrase means only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion."
6. "I would like the lede to mention 'verifiable but inaccurate' material."
7. "I would like the lede to be just about verifiability, I don't think it needs to mention 'truth' at all."
8. "I support a large-scale restructuring/rationalisation/simplification of Misplaced Pages's policies, such as WP:ATT."

Would any editors like to change any of these statements, or add any more? — Mr. Stradivarius 11:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO in each case "VNT" should be referred to as a "phrase" rather then as "words". "Words" makes the question ambiguous, it could be construed as talking about excluding each of those individual words. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I could see people wanting to exclude individual words ... such as omitting the words "not truth" but retaining the word "Verifiability" (so the sentence would read: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is Verifiability."). Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That is consistent with my point. Which is that as currently worded, the statements could be read as saying that all of those words should be excluded. E.G. exclude the word "verifiability". What we're REALLY asking about is either that particular (VNT) phrase, or about the words "not truth". North8000 (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that what we are really really talking about is the entire sentence: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is Verifiability, not truth." We are asking whether that whole sentence should be retained or removed... or added to, or moved, or re-written, or... etc... and if so how? Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. What should we do about that? Either way, we don't want anythign that could be taken as excluding the word "verifiability" from the lead. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing "words" to "phrase", but I also don't feel strongly either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just amended the RfC draft so that the questions refer to "the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' ", as North suggested... Regarding Blueboar's point about the sentence: "The threshold for inclusion... " That entire sentence is already in the RfC draft, in Option B of Part 1, so people will be able to support it or oppose it there. But maybe the statements in Part Two could also include a statement like: "I think the word 'threshold' needs to be part of the lede." It could come second in the list, immediately after "I think the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' needs to be part of the lede." Does that seem like a good idea? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. And yes, I would be in favor of adding that additional "view". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just added in the additional "view" re "threshold", and renumbered the others... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, and again it looks good. I recently added a bit about North's concern about the need to encourage support for more than one option, and I added Village Pump (policy) to the advertising list. I really hope that everyone in this mediation will start looking very closely at the draft RfC page, particularly with a view to whether we have remembered to close all of the loopholes that might, otherwise, lead to the RfC running into trouble. Let's close them loopholes! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

More general questions?

I have been wondering whether it would be good idea to include a few more general questions before asking about how people would like to formulate policy. I would like to know what the mainstream position is within the community about some questions underlying this dispute. What is the correct approach to verifiable inaccurate material? How can such material be identified? Does NOR apply only to inclusion of material? I'm not sure these are the best formulations or the central questions, but my understanding is that there actually are slightly different readings of the classical VNT sentence. It may be useful to clarify which reading is most widely supported before asking whether one should clarify that sentence in a certain way. What do you think, should one directly ask at least one such question? Regards, Vesal (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vesal. We've actually pretty much decided what we're going to include in the upcoming RfC in terms of general questions and drafts, and we've had a lot of debate about it over the last few months. There will always be room to debate these things in the RfC itself, but we can't really go back over things that we have already decided as part of the mediation process, as otherwise the process would take far too long. (And it has taken since February already.) Probably the best thing to do would be to wait for the RfC and leave your comments there. We are just putting the final finishing touches to it, so it won't be long now. Sorry to shut down the conversation like this, but I hope you can understand where I am coming from. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 14:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of how long this has been dragging on, but I'm not asking for any serious rethinking or restructuring of the RFC. I only asked whether among these supposedly general questions above, you may want to also include one or two question about underlying issues. I doubt you will get another chance to conduct a large scale RFC about VNT again, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you spent about 4 months and 4 work-groups on the drafts, and roughly one week and one-two threads on these general questions... Still, it may be okay, some of these questions will undoubtedly trigger discussions about underlying issues. Overall, I think you've done a very good job. Vesal (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're getting at now - thank you for the clarification. I'll leave the decision on this to the other mediation participants, as I don't really mind one way or the other. It may be that the others are receptive to this, or it may be that they would rather focus on resolving the VnT issue without getting too much into general debates. I think it would be very helpful, though, if you could provide some examples of the kind of questions you were thinking about. If you give us some specific wording to comment on it will make our job here easier. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Question 5 is actually very close to what I have in mind, but it asks about whether one would want to see a clarification... I was thinking of separately asking how people interpret VNT:

• "I think VNT means that truth is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. It doesn't mean anything more than that: it has no bearing on whether verifiable, but inaccurate, information should be excluded from articles."
• "I think that VNT means that what editors think is true or false should never influence Misplaced Pages content. It applies just as much to exclusion of material as it does to inclusion."

I'm also not sure this is a good idea, but there is one scenario when asking this is would be very useful: what if the community is evenly split on this question? Vesal (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about this either way. I guess it's a matter of whether these additional points might complicate things without really giving us anything with which to work, because it isn't clear to me how they would provide guidance about how to write the policy page, more like an academic question about people's views. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the issue raised by Vesal is an important one to discuss. Another way you could express a view on this topic in the RFC, would be by commenting on what Option D says: "content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." This is (in a sense) somewhere between the two interpretations of VnT mentioned by Vesal... The wording in fact emerged from a quite a lively discussion about this general topic within the mediation. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There are places in the RFC where one can express one's opinion on what VNT is supposed to mean, but the closers will have a very hard time assessing which interpretation of VNT is more widely held. What bothers me is perhaps that question five is assuming a certain interpretation, so one could want to oppose it either because one finds a clarification unnecessary (but one agrees with the clarification), or because one disagrees with the clarification. I suggest replacing question 5 with the questions:

1. If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then it is essential that the meaning of this phrase is made unambiguously clear. (Pesky wants to ask something like this anyway...)
2. If the phrase is clarified, it should be made explicit that VNT means only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, and truth is not a substitute for meeting this requirement.
3. If the phrase is clarified, it should be made explicit that VNT means not only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, but also that editor's assessment of truth and falsehood should influence neither inclusion nor exclusion of material in Misplaced Pages articles.

This last question is somewhat superfluous, but it does clarify the previous question: what does it mean that VNT means "only" xyz; what else could it mean? Well, the next question suggests a reading of VNT that means something more. This is the alleged "misunderstanding" of VNT, and it would be good to know how many, and if any experienced editors, subscribe to this view. Regards, Vesal (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I don't feel very strongly about this, one way or the other. But I can see objections to the specific wording you suggest. I would think that everyone would always want policy language to be "unambiguously clear". After all, there is very little constituency that would admit to favoring ambiguously unclear language! On the other hand, it might be good to change those three questions to these two:

1. "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', it should be made explicit that VNT means only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, and truth is not a substitute for meeting this requirement."
2. "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', it should be made explicit that VNT means not only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, but also that editor's assessment of truth and falsehood should influence neither inclusion nor exclusion of material in Misplaced Pages articles."

I'd have no objection to doing something like that. There may also be another way of posing a question about support for wording that is accessible to all users, but I haven't been able to think of a way of formulating it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re the proposed question 2 above... The only word that bothers me is the word "influence"... No matter how the policy is going to be worded, surely it can never stop an editor being influenced by his or her own judgement, for instance when deciding on what questions to seek out additional verifiable sources? Isn't the real issue here whether the deciding factor in a content decision should be verifiable info or something else? How would Vesal or other people feel about using the word "determine" instead of "influence"? So it would read as follows

2. "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', it should be made explicit that VNT means not only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, but also that an editor's assessment of truth and falsehood should neither determine inclusion nor exclusion of material in Misplaced Pages articles." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, determine is a much better word. Vesal (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The questions involving "but also that editor's assessment of.....falsehood should influence neither inclusion nor exclusion of material in Misplaced Pages articles. " are about created a really huge bad new policy which exists nowhere except in (mis-)interpretation of VNT. And introduced in a somewhat stealthy and biased way (blended into things that wp:ver does say.) If we're going to jump the tracks and start proposing controversial huge new policies, we need to handle this not like the above, but in a thorough neutral way. Better yet, don't start doing that here. I feel strongly about this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

North8000, but this precisely the point of asking it. You feel very strongly that this is a misinterpretation, but there are those who say this it the correct interpretation, and even those who deny this misinterpretation even exists ("VNT ain't broke"). Wouldn't it be useful to know how wide-spread this (mis-)interpretation is? Vesal (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We're already asking it in question #5. And in the proposed new questions, it is posed in a very problematic way. If we did wish to deal with it directly, then I think it should deal with it directly, clearly separated from the wp:ver requirement-for-inclusion, and in a way that makes this very clear. Would take 2-3 well written sentences. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. When I first read question five (#6 in the current draft), I did not understand what it was getting at. What does it mean that this phrase "means only", as opposed to meaning what? Of course, once people start to support/oppose this question, it might become clear, or it might be a mess. The problem with only asking this question is that it can also be opposed because "VNT ain't broke", and you will not know if this person agrees or disagrees with the clarification, only that they think such clarification is not needed... You don't worry about this? If you don't worry, I will also let it rests. Regards, Vesal (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Answering your first question, the "as opposed to meaning what?" is that verifiability is also a force or mandate for inclusion. Basically, the opposite of the full logical meaning of the following statement "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a force or mandate for inclusion." Once that requirement is met, wp:ver steps aside and leaves the ball game to otehr policies (such as wp:npov) and mechanisms. And IMHO it is one of the most important questions that underlies this whole effort. It is also very complex & difficult to explain in a way that really does so for people who are not logicians. Regarding versions that retain VNT, (hopefully there will be 3, the current status quo, the old status quo, and version 2) the one that is not a "status quo" one also covers this. And this is to rule out an interpretation which is at best a small minority interpretation (I've been calling them the "5%" and which many folks say doesn't exist. Bottom line, I think that we should either rely on the items which I described in this paragraph to the question, or else do the difficult work to present this question separately and clearly. Either is fine with me, if folks prefer the latter, I'd be happy to work on it. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this area may need a little more attention. You've said you feel strongly about this, North. Probably others do as well. I must say that I don't fully share your understanding of VnT. Perhaps that puts me in that 5% of misinterpreters, I don't know. But I don't think it is quite right to speak of wp:ver "stepping aside" and wp:npov "kicking in". After all, wp:npov is about acknowledging and balancing a range of views expressed in verifiable sources. If wp:ver steps aside, then wp:npov falls over! For reasons like this, I think the view in Question 6 (formerly Question 5) is likely to get more opposition in the RFC than you may expect. Please don't complain about "hijacking" if that happens... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Answering your last thought first, such would bear no relation to what I called hijacking, so this raises zero concern there. And I probably was confusing about what I said I felt strongly about. The only thing above that I said I'm strongly opposed to is posing it in an unclear or (accidentally) stealthy manner. It's fine with me to pose the question in a clear manner. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I agree that Vesal's wording was unclear, in that the suggested question was too long and convoluted. Another thing is that Vesal has agreed (further up in this thread) that "determine" would be a better word than "influence" in this context. So how about wording the question like this?

"If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then I would like it to explain that this means WP's content is determined by previously published information, rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As no-one has objected to my above version of the suggested question, I've just added it into the draft.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Last question, WP:ATT

I'm thinking that the last question might be too confusing, unclear, compounded and non-germane. Even if the thought is good. What is it really asking? And half of it could be taken as weighing in on wp:att, but what would that exactly mean? The particular linked version? Or the common meaning of wp:att for those who remember (which is combining wp:ver and wp:nor). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's there because WP:ATT actually gained consensus and was briefly implemented. (It was only overturned by a unilateral revert by Jimbo). Editors may prefer the WP:ATT approach to having several separate policies. It's meant as a place where those who opposed change in the last RFC because the change didn't go far enough can register their view, or for those who feel that WP:V as currently written is so bad that the best way is to nuke it from orbit (it's the only way to be sure).—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As you just described it I think that it is a good question. (I.E.a general: "do you want major changes?") But do you think that using wp:att in it might tend to exclude (e.g. "I don't even know what wp:att is, so I guess I'm not qualified to answer that question") or confuse people? The most recent bigger wp:att discussion was I think 2-3 years ago and was just about low-key combining wp:ver & wp:nor. North8000 (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm very open to suggestions about how to improve the question!—S Marshall T/C 09:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

How 'bout:

• I support a large-scale restructuring/rationalization/simplification of Misplaced Pages's policies or
• I support a large-scale restructuring,rationalization,simplification and combining of wp:verifiability and wp:nor

North8000 (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a correction to S Marshall's history of what happened with WP:ATT... There was a clear consensus for it among the policy wonks (ie those of us who regularly work on policy pages), but no clear consensus among the community as a whole. When it was implemented, Jimbo did challenge it (strongly), but he did not "unilaterally overturn" it. It was only overturned after a huge community wide RFC/Poll (with hundreds of comments) was held to determine whether there really was a consensus or not (the results were fairly evenly split between "support" and "opposed" ... sound familiar?) Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

An added statement?

Apologies for my (almost) absence over the past couple of weeks; this was due to my mother's death and funeral taking priority over WikiWork.

I have another statement (for the strong oppose, oppose, neutral, support, strong support options) which I think is very important to add. This is from the WP:AUTIE POV, but applies to other editors as well. Here it is:

• I think that it is important that our policies should be immediately and unambiguously clear to all our editors, including those for whom English is a second language, and those who are on the Autism spectrum. Any statement which may cause confusion, or a "jolt" to the thinking processes, should be clarified with a full explanation in order to avoid misinterpretation and / or mistakes in applying policy which cause avoidable stress and argument, and unnecessarily waste editors' time and resources.