Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Status	Closed
Request date	14:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Requesting party	Mr. Stradivarius
Parties involved	Becritical; Blueboar; Bob K31416; BruceGrubb; Kalidasa 777; LeadSongDog; Littleolive oil; Mangoe; North8000; S Marshall; ThatPeskyCommoner; Tryptofish;
Mediator(s)	Mr. Stradivarius
Comment	Closed - see the closing comments

Verifiability mediation (general talk)
Work groups: one (talk) • two (talk) • three (talk) • four (talk)
RfC draft

Archives

/Archive 1
- Step one - opening statements
- Step two - individual policy drafts
- Step three - RfC views summary
- Step four - group policy drafts
/Archive 2
- Step five - feedback on step 4 drafts
- Step six - finalising drafts

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Who is involved?

Active

Dispute overview

This dispute is over a tag placed on Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's main content policies. The tag is at the end of the sentence in the introduction that includes the text "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and says that this sentence is "under discussion", with a link pointing to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. The wording "verifiability, not truth" was the subject of a large RfC In October-December 2011; in this RfC, the Wikipedia community debated one specific proposal to clarify the wording. After a long and complex discussion, the RfC was closed as "no consensus to implement this proposal". However, the "under discussion" tag, originally inserted in the page in August 2011, has remained on the page. Supporters of the tag have expressed the opinion that it alerts readers to the fact that a significant portion of the community supported a change to this wording in the RfC; detractors have expressed the opinion that it does not link to a specific discussion and serves no useful purpose.

This dispute has been discussed at the RfC in October-December 2011, a great deal of discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence, a recent post at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and a recent ANI thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator notes

Welcome to the Wikipedia:Verifiability mediation! It's really quite an honour to be able to mediate a discussion between this many experienced users. I had a quick glance over the list of names just now, ~~and I think the combined edit count might actually exceed one million.~~ (edit: with all those editors removed we don't get one million, but I was geeky enough to check, and it comes to about 285,000. This is still pretty impressive though.) This must be a first for the Mediation Cabal, and I'm excited to think of what we will be able to achieve in the coming month or two. About the user list, though - it may still not be accurate or comprehensive, so I would like your help with that if at all possible. There may still be some users still missing, and I might have included some people who shouldn't be there. If I have listed you by mistake, then please accept my apologies. It's fine to just remove yourself from the list if you don't want to take part. Also, if you know of any editors who I have missed, feel free to just add them yourself. Please also add yourself if you want to join and I haven't included you.

So, let me outline my main ideas for this mediation. I am of the opinion that any attempt to address the tagging issue without addressing the wider issue of the "verifiability, not truth" wording will be unproductive. Therefore, this mediation will address the more general issue of how to word the introduction of the verifiability policy. This mediation will differ significantly from normal content mediations, in that its final product will be the text of an RfC, which will in turn be debated by the wider Wikipedia community. Think of this as an organized drafting process, rather than dispute resolution per se.

There should be plenty of room in the drafting process for editors with different opinions about what the policy should look like. My plan is to prepare a small number of different versions to include in the RfC, and let the community decide which one they would like. It will be the RfC that decides the general outline of what the policy will look like, not this mediation. There will also be room for minor adjustments after the RfC is finished - I see the RfC as deciding the broad outline of the policy wording, and the normal process of discussion on WT:V as a way of refining the small details. Having said that, in this mediation we will endeavour to create the very best drafts that we can, so that the community will have no compunctions about choosing any of the versions that we present to them.

My solution for the dispute over the "under discussion" tag will be to deal with it as a by-product of solving the bigger issue. As such, one of the conditions for this mediation is that the participants agree not to edit the tag while the mediation is still open. Also, before agreeing to the ground rules, participants should be aware that I plan on being strict about structuring discussion here. Be prepared for the fact that your comments may be refactored or archived in order to keep discussion focused.

You should also be aware that this mediation is only going to go ahead if all the main editors involved are willing to participate. I don't want to start this mediation if it is going to factionalise the discussion about WP:V, so don't go preparing any magnum opuses just yet. Before you agree to the ground rules, you should also take a look at the mediation agenda below for an idea of the steps that we will go through, and the amount of time you can expect them to take. I have started step one already, so please take a look at it and add your statement when you are ready. Thanks for bearing with me through this introduction, and I'm looking forward to working with you all. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Observing with keen interest... Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little thing, if the intention is to draft wordings together, then you may find the layout of this page will work well. It's worked well for me in the past in situations like this. Hope it helps. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ground rules

Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
The aim of this mediation is to keep discussion focused on the goal of drafting a community-wide RfC. Discussion that goes off topic may be refactored or archived at my discretion.
Try to keep in mind that we are working together to create a proposal to present to the Wikipedia community. If you disagree about the specifics of a particular draft, do your best to find a compromise, and remember that we doing this for the good of the encyclopedia.
Finally, I ask that all the participants agree to leave the "under discussion" tag alone for the duration of this mediation. This means not adding it, removing it, altering it, or even discussing it. ~~I intend to remove the tag until the RfC is live, keep it in for the duration of the RfC, and remove it again when the RfC is closed.~~

Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

Agreed.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Pesky (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. :I'm in. I still have hopes for a faster resolution on another track, but I'm in. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- I strongly support some kind of conclusion, and encourage especially all recently involved to "get it over with." But I doubt I have anything to add, as I've not been substantively involved for a long time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have only been on the edge of this particular aspect of the discussion (the tag), but if I have time and if I have something to say...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. iantresman (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed though I haven't participated much in discussion there for a few months so am not up to speed with latest developments. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Removing the "under discussion" tag as a by-product of proceeding with this mediation may seem like a minor point, but given that Slim Virgin did not object to it, removal is symbolically opposed to WP:Consensus. One of the problems we have had is the belief that since non-consensus stalls change, obstruction of consensus-building is a valid tactic, but this is not supported by WP:Consensus...I favor simplification by removing "truth" from WP:V, believing that "truth" belongs elsewhere, possibly in a guideline. ~~Focusing this discussion on changes only to WP:V, seems to preordain that an outcome of this process is that truth remains in WP:V...~~I note that the six days that we had the polling page active last August were productive in building consensus. Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Unscintillating (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but don't expect to give it much attention. The tag doesn't matter much to me. My focus has been on making the text comprehensible, something that doesn't seem high on anyone else's priority list here.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the suggested timeline in the section below is way too tight. I would already have missed the first deadline had I decided to stick to my routine for this week and not stray off to check Wikipedia today. Count Iblis (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, --Nuujinn (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed B^e——C_ritical 01:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.(olive (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Agree. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Crazynas^t 01:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation agenda

[0%] Step one: participants agree to the ground rules and provide opening statements. Scheduled length: 7 days.

Done

[10%] Step two: each participant submits their preferred draft of the policy page introduction. Scheduled length: 3 days.

Done

[20%] Step three: the participants work together to draft a summary of the feedback obtained from the October-December 2011 RfC. Scheduled length: 4 days.

Done

[30%] Step four: based on the results of step two, the participants are split into a small number of work groups. Each group makes one draft, which will reflect one core feedback point found in step two, and which will take inspiration from the drafts submitted in step one. Each group will work to make their draft as acceptable to the wider community as possible while still reflecting the collective point of view of the users in the original RfC. Scheduled length: 5 days.

Done

[40%] Step five: participants give feedback on the other groups' drafts. Scheduled length: 2 days.

Done

[50%] Step six: each group incorporates the feedback into their draft. Participants continue discussions in work groups, incorporating feedback from step 5, and finalise the drafts that will appear in the RfC. Scheduled length: 3 days No scheduled length.

Done

[60%] Step seven: We prepare an RfC to present to the community. Each group's draft will be one of the choices in the RfC. Scheduled length: 4 days No scheduled length.

Done

[70%] Step eight: We put the RfC up live, and advertise it widely, including a watchlist notice. Scheduled length: 31 days.

Done

[90%] Step nine: We break down the results of the RfC and discuss any next steps. Scheduled length: 3 days.

[100%]: Finished! (Total scheduled length: 61 days)

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Step seven

So, here we are, finally at step seven! Thank you all for bearing with me this far. We have had our disagreements, to be sure, but I'm confident that we can come together in this step and create an RfC that we will be proud to present to the community. To start with, I would like to brainstorm ideas. Here's how it will work:

Think of things that we can include in the RfC. They can be questions to put to the community, new sections to go in the policy, ideas for voting, or other things we should pay attention to. As long as the idea is about what should go in the RfC, you can suggest it.
Include each idea after a new bullet point.
Don't include a signature or a timestamp.
Add new ideas to the bottom of the list.
If you have an idea that is identical to one that has already been listed, you don't need to include it. If it is just slightly different from one that has already been listed, though, please put it in.
Include as many ideas as you can! The quality of the ideas doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the ideas are really bad, or if they would never work, or even if they are just stupid. You never know - when someone else sees a bad or stupid idea, it might cause them to think of a really good idea!
Don't comment on any other suggestions, even if they are really bad or stupid. We will throw away the bad suggestions and keep the good ones after the brainstorm is finished.
Have fun! This mediation has been far too serious so far, and I won't mind a few joke suggestions.

Don't worry, we will get round to discussing the pros and cons of each idea afterwards, and we will also discuss the other things that have cropped up during previous steps, such as including a "scope" section, including a question on accuracy, etc. The point of this brainstorm is to give everyone a chance to express their ideas for the RfC without worrying about whether other people think the ideas are good or not. To this end, please don't comment on any of the ideas listed here during the course of the brainstorm, on any of the mediation pages. If you have a question about the brainstorm process, or a comment/question about any other aspect of the mediation, then you are free to ask on the talk page as usual.

I'll keep the brainstorm open for a few days, until we start running out of ideas. There is no fixed end time at the moment, although I may decide one later. I will think of a few ideas to get you started, but don't be shy about adding more. I want as many ideas as possible.

I will say it again, because it is the most important part - include as many ideas as you can!

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Step seven brainstorm

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.

Use instant runoff voting to help decide which draft to use.
Give people an "oppose" section if they don't like something. People love to oppose things!
Include a question about the scope of the verifiability policy.
Protect the main RfC page and have the discussion transcluded from a subpage, like the pending changes RfC.
Give everyone that comments on the RfC a kitten using the WikiLove extension.
Have two RfCs, one for general principles, and one for drafts.
With the general principles RFC, don't allow votes. Insist on actual comments.
Run the drafts RFC separately and subsequently to the general principles one. Before running the drafts RFC, modify the drafts according to the general principles.
Don't use weird voting systems, trust the closer.
Ask: "Choose the 'two drafts that come closest to your opinion." rather than asking "Do you support/oppose draft 1, 2, 3 (etc)?"... this will focus people on thinking about what is acceptable rather having them obsess on achieving perfection.
Whatever system of RfC we use for the drafts, be sure to allow (even encourage) respondents to express support for more than one draft (perhaps with some form of second choice or weak support, etc.), so that we don't encourage people digging in with line-in-sand opposition, and so we can better assess consensus.
Don't have anyone from this mediation process close the RfC.
Have three uninvolved admins close the RfC.
For each draft in the RfC, have numbered response sections under "Strong Support", "Weak Support", and "Oppose".
Encourage comments, not just "votes".
No colors for the drafts in the RfC!!!!!
What we call "drafts" here, should be called "options" in the RfC ("Option 1", "Option 2", etc.).
Do not put any descriptive names on any of the drafts; just let them speak for themselves.
But identify the draft from Group 1 with a diff/link to WP:V at its date.
Whatever we include with respect to questions/general principles, first decide here what the planned action would be for whatever the community says. Don't just ask out of academic curiosity.
Just have an RfC for drafts about the lead; don't poll anything else.
Do not delay the RfC for drafts about the lead while waiting for an RfC about anything else.
Each draft has a rationale that explains what changes if it is accepted. This includes why its acceptance would be a reason to remove the "under discussion" tag.
Somewhere in the various rationales, link to the autie-editors essay so that Teh Community can see a good reason for getting absolute clarity for what may be "obvious" to them.
Clearly establish tone of the RfC disallowing negative or personal comments about editors or their choices.
We should have some "anti-highjacking rules" (of course, we shouldn't call them that!) stated from the beginning, that prevent premature closure or unilateral reopening, etc.

The discussion above 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.