Wikipedia talk:Don't worry about performance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Page status
Is there any reason why this isn't policy or guideline? — Omegatron 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Don't think so, no. I've changed it to proposed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- It should be a policy.
-
- --Meno25 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Guideline status
There is not much talk here, and the "per developer mandate" from history doesn't hold water: Developer != superuser. I'm "demoting" this back to essay. Shouldn't the guideline against instruction creep also count when it comes to guideline creep?
152.91.9.144 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've re-made this into an essay, and if someone want to discuss it then hey, here's the talk page!
152.91.9.144 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but a small dedicated minority (you) does not prevent something from becoming policy.
And yes, developers can make policy, say, for example, about server load, and not even a majority can override their decision. Our policies on the matter are actually self-referential about this:
How are policies started?
Policy change now comes from three sources:
- The codification of current convention and common practice. These are proposals that document the way Wikipedia works. Of course, a single user cannot dictate what common practice is, but writing down the common results of a well-used process is a good way of making policy.
- A proposed policy being adopted by consensus. (See Wikipedia:How to create policy). These are usually proposals to change the way Wikipedia works.
- Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load.
Now I dunno. Maybe you're right. Maybe that doesn't apply here. This is, after all, just a page with verbatim declarations from the developers about server load... — Omegatron 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're clearly very confused... this wasn't even a policy page to begin with. It was a guideline page, made as such without discussion. To suggest that the developers want to make it policy that we not worry about server load is, well, odd. It's also very dissapointing that you've chosen to paint this as "a minority" a.k.a "me" as some sort of edit warrior when I made the change, used the talk page, you reverted without using the talk page, I used the talk page again and only then did you start to discuss, but after a minority (HEY! THAT'S YOU!!) made it into "policy" without discussion. Stop being an edit warrior and use the talk page to discuss first. I'm rolling this back to the 09:54, 31 August 2006 Steve block version, as every change after that was made without use of the talk page.
152.91.9.144 00:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- As a developer: I don't know whether Brion meant that this should be Foundation-mandated policy. Using terminology like "generally should" is not what I'd expect in that case. If this is to be one of the extremely few guidelines/policies that are mandated explicitly by the Foundation, I definitely think that Brion and not you should be the one to add the tag. You have no right to interpret the intent of Foundation employees where that intent is unclear. If Brion doesn't make this policy himself in his official capacity as CTO, which he can do using his very own account, then it has to go through the usual approval-gathering process. Which, incidentally, it will probably pass, if it hasn't perhaps already.
Compare, by the way, to WP:AUM, which was declared policy for reasons along the lines of "per developer mandate", and which Brion explicitly rejected in the very diff quoted on this essay page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Using terminology like "generally should" is not what I'd expect in that case.
- Policies can include terms like "generally should".
- and which Brion explicitly rejected in the very diff quoted on this essay page.
- Exactly. — Omegatron 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Policies can include terms like "generally should", but so can recommendations or opinions. And I don't think the lead developer's rejection of a developer's words being taken as policy by non-developers is favorable to any non-developer's attempt to take any developer's words as policy, even if those words are the same ones rejecting the other ones. If you see what I mean. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. — Omegatron 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Erratum
I've twice (once above and once in an edit summary) said that developers don't make policy. This was not my intent, and only when reading S's response above did I see my error. What I was objecting to was the implication that developer hearsay was policy, in a sort of second-hand appeal to authority. My response was also overheated in general. So... Nothing to see hear, move along.
152.91.9.144 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)