Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Option4Demo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This poll is now closed.

Background[edit]

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

More recently, on the WikiEN-L mailing list, Jimbo Wales suggested:[1]

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

References:

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

How to participate in this poll[edit]

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

Notes
  • This is a hybrid Requests for comment and straw poll, not a vote. As such, any numeric results may not be definitive. This is a means of gathering opinions on one page in an organized way.
  • We are not polling on the name of Wikipedia:Attribution; when this poll is done and the page unfrozen, such requests will be welcome at Wikipedia:Requested Moves. We want to see what people think of the merger.

Q1. Which of the following do you support?[edit]

[You can vote any of the options, or vote 1st option, 2nd option and so forth]

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


A. The original pages become inactive. Wikipedia:Attribution serves as a unified policy on their subjects.[edit]

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

C. 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.[edit]

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



Q2. If the pages are merged should they include:[edit]

[Vote in the appropriate section, "yes" or "no".

Wikipedia:Verifiability[edit]

Yes.[edit]

No.[edit]

Wikipedia:No original research[edit]

Yes.[edit]

No.[edit]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources[edit]

Yes.[edit]

No.[edit]

Comments[edit]

NOTE: Please limit your statement here to 500 words. All replies to points will be refactored/placed onto the poll's talk page. You may change or edit your statement. If you want to endorse someone else's, you may endorse it, but only one total entry per person, please.