Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Group 1/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments on individual drafts

Comments on draft 0

Draft 0 rationale

This is the "long standing" version of the lede that we had prior to VNT being questioned a year ago. I think it should be included in the RFC as a base line, so editors know what the "no changes at all" version of the policy would be like. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 0

• Now that I've looked closely at it, I'm pretty sure that Blueboar is right, and this is exactly what we should present in the RfC as the status quo version. I think that it is identical to what the page said right after the last RfC was closed. It makes sense to me that we should use this version (and not anything that employs changes that have been made since that time) as the option for users who prefer this over any of the proposed changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• One good thing, we have nothing much to debate about drafts of this one. We just see what the text was.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 0

• This draft needs a diff for traceability.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely right about that! Here it is, as I understand it (noting that it was Blueboar, not me, who provided the draft): [1]. That's where the page was when the last RfC was closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 1

Draft 1 rationale

This is the lede from the last SV edit of 2010, for comparison.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that are good about draft 1

• It's very similar to Draft 0. In all likelihood, either would work equally well for purposes of our RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 1

• If I understand correctly, Draft 0, from late 2011, comes from later that Draft 1, which is from a year earlier, according to the edit summary. I'd be inclined to go with whichever of the two is the more recent. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Please provide a dated diff. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Here it is: WP:V Revision of 2010-12-20T14:58:42  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 2

Draft 2 rationale

This is the current status quo version, with the "discussion tag" removed.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 2

• It's very useful to see this here, and I used to think that something like this was what we should go with. However, having seen Drafts 0 and 1, I tend to think that a problem with the current state of the page is that it was full-protected during a period of rapid editing and, thus, is The Wrong Version^TM. I'd rather go with something that has been more stable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the "The Wrong Version^TM"?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

meta:The Wrong Version. (Sorry, that's a bit of jargon.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 3

Things that are good about draft 3

It may be simpler, and easier to understand than some versions.(olive (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC))

• I especially liked the "Common misconceptions" concept.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Verfiability, but not truth..." instead of "Verifiability, and not truth..." IMO is an improvement over the current policy page.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• This draft has penetrating insights.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that could be improved with draft 3

• It seems to me that the assignment to Group 1 is to present something that is not new. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• The assignment for draft one was to hold onto threshold and VnotT.(My understanding anyway) No draft is needed if there were no changes to what's in place. However if the draft I created is in the wrong place, I'd be happy to move it. Maybe there are suggestions as to where it should go.(olive (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC))
• Here is the objective:

The "status quo" draft. This will include both "threshold" and "verifiability, not truth", and should be as representative as possible of the status quo that has existed on WP:V. There have been different "status quo" versions at different times, so determining the right mixture of these will be the primary task for the drafters here.

The default if there are no changes from the RfC is that the current draft with the "Under discussion" tag stays in place.  An alternative would be to propose Draft 2 during the RfC to get community consensus to remove the "Under discussion" tag and keep what else is current.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• "or is reason to include content in an article" doesn't seem to fit.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on draft 4

Out-of-date comments

Am I missing something, or is it identical to Draft 2? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Noooo! The "under discussion" tag is the whole reason this dispute came to mediation in the first place! We can't just leave it in the version we bring to the RfC. Then it might end up being in the policy forever... — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC) You pointed out that I made two mistakes. Didn't notice that it was already in, and I didn't mean to bring in the "under discussion" tag. I reverted my addition of draft 4. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Ok, I see. :) No harm done. I'll collapse these comments, so that someone can add another draft 4 if they want. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft 4 rationale

One of the problems with presenting a status quo page is that no one has been quite sure what the status quo is.  From an information-technology viewpoint, this means that the page is not maintainable.  Another consideration is that analysis provided on the main mediation talk page indicates that a systemic problem has been that the VnT concept was structurally isolated in the lede, again creating a maintenance problem.

Unlike all other drafts to date, this particular draft has a benefit of showing people just exactly what is being changed if they support it.  Those who worked on the September RfC will recognize the format.

The draft contains specific text to clarify a misunderstanding: to those who say that it doesn't matter if something is untrue because WP:V says it doesn't matter, with this draft they can be pointed to the sentence that says WP:V is not the applicable policy.

In case someone says that this is not the status quo, I'd like to see your version of the page.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

• I endorse Draft 0 as the version to come out of this group. I don't see much difference between it and Draft 1, but Draft 1, now that I look at WP:V edit history, comes from a period a little later than the last RfC, when the page wasn't as stable, so I think that it is logical to use the version from when the RfC was actually ended. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, Draft 1 predates all three of the RfCs, it is the last SV edit in the year 2010.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, if I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to be corrected. You asked, above, for a diff for Draft 0, and to the best of my understanding it is this: [2]. Now, I'd like to pose the same question to you, about Draft 1: please provide the corresponding diff. When I tried to track it down, I got something from 2011, mid-RfC, not 2010. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a procedure to find the last SV edit of 2010 in twelve keystrokes from any Wikipedia page:

Procedure to find the last SV edit of 2010:

(1) Open WP:V

(2) Click on "View History"

(3) Look for a rectangular box labeled "Browse history"

(4) In the field "From year (and earlier)", enter "2010"

(5) Click on "Go"

(6) The fifth diff from the top is marked "SlimVirgin"

(7) Click on "2010-12-20T14:58:42‎"

WP:V Revision of 2010-12-20T14:58:42‎

Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, thank you, including for the lesson on how to use Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, now we know. Draft 0 dates from Dec. 15, 2011 (just after the last RfC). Draft 1 dates from Dec. 20, 2010; it was the last edit a particular editor made in 2010, and she made quite a few further edits in 2011. Clearly then, it makes better sense to go with Draft 0. That's the best way to offer an option corresponding to where things were, without making any changes since the last RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we use 3 and 4 to create a new version

• Can we do anything with the best aspects of both 3 and 4.
• Should we hold on to the format used in 3? I feel it may be easier to read and understand that the standard paragraph format.
• Rather than status quo versions, the other drafts here are what I would call historical versions. They are part of the history of the lead of this policy. They should be stand as a baseline for comparison to any new versions, seems to me. This doesn't exclude either from being versions the community may want to hold on to.(olive (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Something like that would be fine with me, so long as we also offer the community a way to reject everything that we have proposed. As a matter of logic, we cannot force that option off the table, although of course we are all doing our best to make sure that we offer something new that is also better. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the objective:

The "status quo" draft. This will include both "threshold" and "verifiability, not truth", and should be as representative as possible of the status quo that has existed on WP:V. There have been different "status quo" versions at different times, so determining the right mixture of these will be the primary task for the drafters here.

There is nothing in here about using this draft to empower rejection.  Like all of our other drafts, the objective here is to build consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating, I keep getting the feeling that you keep accusing me of not wanting to build consensus. I hope that you will reflect on that, and realize that it isn't true. I do, however, think about the need for the community to have consensus at the end of the RfC that we will prepare. I invite you, and everyone else here, to picture this: the same people who, arguably, hijacked the last RfC come along and try to hijack this one as well. Don't kid yourself, it could happen! They argue that none of the options offered in the RfC reflects what they consider to be the status quo. They demand that the RfC be shut down. What would make it impossible for them to get traction with that tactic? Offering a status quo version that the large majority of the community will recognize as actually being a credible status quo. If it's a version that never before appeared on the page, that won't be the perception. But of course I see no reason not to also offer a new version that offers a better presentation of the status quo, if that's what it takes to reach consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A straw man here is that I have been "accusing" the previous poster of "not wanting".  The straw man is knocked down by a proof by assertion that the straw man is false.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The previous post continues to argue that we need to empower community rejection.  The post uses an appeal to emotion: "picture this", "hijack"ers, "RfC...shut down".  "Appeal to emotion" is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh?? I guess we just aren't understanding one another, and I'll assume that your comments about consensus were not actually intended to imply that I didn't want consensus.

And I hope that anyone else who cares will understand that I'm not describing what could happen in an RfC in the hopes of setting off anyone's limbic system, but in the hopes of analyzing, thoughtfully, what we need to do in order to have a successful RfC, one that the community as a whole will accept. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1