Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-06/WMF jargon accepted when it meets CFI

WMF jargon accepted when it meets CFI

 * Voting on: Currently, at least when it comes to WMF jargon, the answer to "Do citations from Wikimedia Foundation projects help a term meet the attestation criterion for inclusion?" is "No. Citations in the context of WMF projects do not count.", where "in the context of WMF projects" is meant to include not only citations from WMF projects themselves, but also "citations from non-WMF material which derive from or are about WMF." &#x5B;link&#x5D; It is proposed that this answer be changed to "Not unless they are durably archived."
 * Vote starts: 22:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Mglovesfun (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Requests for verification (Talk:userbox when closed and archived)
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Requests for verification
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-06/WMF jargon accepted when it meets CFI

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Mglovesfun (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support. (Specifically, I support removing the ban on counting "citations from non-WMF material which derive from or are about WMF". I do like the ban on counting citations that are actually from WMF projects. I'm a bit worried that someone will find a way to argue that such projects' pages are "durably archived", but whatever, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.) —Ruakh TALK 02:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support although I would like to point out two points of precedent. First, GFDL is not an argument for a source being durably archived. Anyway the previous vote specifically considered and rejected such Wikimedia sources, and this vote does not intend to overturn that. Second, citations must be independent, so in the case that several do get into print it would be difficult to count more than one. DAVilla 07:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Weakly support, strongly seconding Ruakh's bar on citation from WMF projects themselves and DAVilla's comment about independence. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support  -- Prince Kassad 08:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support  -- Prince Kassad 08:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] I support the proposition the way I understand it, with the provisos above (under my earlier vote). But supporting with provisos, as Atelaes (below, 01:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)) notes, is dangerous and, as Ruakh (below, 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)) notes, what this vote will effect is not completely clear, so I have to vote in opposition, albeit reluctantly. A proposition that explicitly forbade citations directly from wikis would more likely get my support. (Note, though, that my switching my vote does not mean, if other supporters do not follow suit, that they are supporting any future claim that this proposition is in favor of accepting citations directly from wikis or accepting different WMF-derived citations as independent.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)  Until someone can explain to me what the hell we're voting on.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Explaining votes is always hazardous — as soon as person A tries, it's certain that persons B through K will pipe up to express ten other views of how they understood the vote — but I'll give it a shot. Basically, the upshot of the result of Votes/pl-2008-04/WMF jargon is that "citations in the context of WMF projects", including "citations from non-WMF material which derive from or are about WMF", "do not count", that is, they don't "help a term meet the attestation criterion for inclusion". We're voting on overturning that restriction. It's not completely clear, to me at least, how far this overturning will go — some editors have argued that WMF-related citations are inherently non-independent of each other, in which case, this vote would still only allow one WMF-related citation to count (as opposed to the status quo of not counting any at all) — but that's the general idea. —Ruakh TALK 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks Ruakh for the expository; it was helpful. However, I think I'll maintain my abstain vote.  It seems that such a nuanced issue requires a more thorough consideration of the issues involved, and this does not seem to have happened here.  It seems that almost everyone who voted felt the need to clarify what they mean by their support vote, or note some exception or proviso.  Even Ruakh's (appreciated and helpful) explanation admitted an uncertainty about the result of the vote.  In light of that, I think that the general confusion about what exactly is going on indicates to me that this particular vote is not approaching the issue at hand in quite the right way.  All that aside, I tend to think that, what with us being a WM project ourselves, allowing citations specifically in the context of WM is kind of incestuous and prone to abuse.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment I support annulling the results of the vote Votes/pl-2008-04/WMF jargon, one that has failed as far as I can determine. The vote Votes/pl-2008-04/WMF jargon cannot be closed as passed but rather has to be closed as as failed, as in there the supporters of the option no have achieved 46% minority = 12.5 / ( 12.5 + 8.0 + 2.5 + 4 ). While it says in the vote that "Tallying the votes will be done by counting each first choice as a point and each second choice as half a point; the option with the most points will be considered the community's choice", the author of the sentence has no authority to setup the vote in a way that works around the consensus principle. --Dan Polansky 09:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seemed to pass under the rules of the day back in 2008, alebit as you say with less than 5% over the overall vote. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mglovesfun on this. We really can't start second-guessing our old decisions.  As has been previously noted, we have no set in stone rules about requirements for votes nor absolute standards for defining pass and fail.  The previous vote was marked as "pass", and regardless of what irregular or unjust circumstances might have existed, we need to treat it as a pass.  A new vote could certainly be created, to overturn those results.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC). I would like to support allowing durably archived citations that are independent of the WMF (and each other), but which derive from and/or are about the WMF, to support the inclusion of any term, including WMF jargon. I am not certain I understand this vote enough to know whether voting support or against matches this opinion or not. When people feel the need to write extensive clarifications on what they are supporting when they say they are supporting, it suggests to me that starting again with clearer wording (or having several votes each on a specific option) would produce a more satisfactory result. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion matches "support". —Ruakh TALK 13:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passes 4-1-3. --Yair rand (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)