User:Coppertwig/Significant dissent
This page will list significant dissent among the developers of WP:ATT. Rules for editing this page are on the talk page. This is a subpage of User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy.
It doesn't look to me as if there was a consensus.
[edit]CMummert said on Feb. 23, "ATT has been tagged as policy for 8 days, and as far as I can tell there are no outstanding objections. Perhaps it is time to implement the redirects? ... CMummert · talk 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)". But in the 8 days previous to this, six different users made the following six comments (extracts of the comments are shown, and in most cases diff links), and with the exception of possibly DCB4W, I see nothing to indicate that they had retracted their objections:
- And perhaps if WP:V redirects to it, mention the word "verifiability" at least once in the policy? GracenotesT § 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (At Village Pump. See [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 12#Case in point: WP:ATT]].)
- Are you really suggesting that an editor who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is helping write the encyclopedia? ... DCB4W 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [1]
- (Incidentally, I'm still waiting to hear an answer to this from those who support the new wording. Coppertwig)
- I think it might be best to just keep the name it "Verifiability". —Centrx→talk • 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC) [2]
- "Strong objection" A435(m) 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [3]
- [4] "It seems to me that an overly strict reading "The threshold for inclusion [is] not whether it is true" will open the door for unscrupulous editors to convey attributable information that they know to be factually inaccurate as simple statements of fact. I cannot help but think that this would compromise the reputation of our project. CJCurrie 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"
- "Having "attributablity-not-truth" embedded into policy gives the upper hand to pushers of fringe theories. Wouldn't it be better to water down the opposition between attributability and truth here with a "not merely" or "not necessarily"? that is, to identify "truth" as a necessary but not sufficient condition? semper fictilis 15:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)" [5]
- This user who added content about [6] Original Research being allowed on talk pages, 2 days before CMummert declared "consensus" was told "Please don't alter policy pages." [7]
Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Archive 13#It doesn't look to me as if there was a consensus. Listing some areas where I disagreed with this policy all the way until the end. The date of my summary is after the "consensus", but I'd made all the objections individually before it and don't feel they've been properly answered. Ken Arromdee 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)