Wikipedia talk:Process is important

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] New essay

User:David Gerard/Process is Dangerous

Not a contradiction of this essay, honestly. In fact, I was very sceptical of this essay but have been convinced of its basic message. But nevertheless, process is a means to an end. Suggestions, additions and disagreements are most welcomed - David Gerard 22:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another perspective

Check out this page from WikiWikiWeb: Wiki:ThreeLevelsOfAudience

I wonder if it's possible to see this essay as being for people at the first level, David Gerard's "Process is Dangerous" essay (see above section) as being for people at the second level, and Ignore all Rules for people at the third level. Sort of like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon, y'know?

That seems rather condescending, actually. One could easily reverse it, as those at the "third level" being the children who think the rules don't apply, the "second level" being those who get in trouble now and then, and the "first level" being those enlightened folk who realize some order is preferable as opposed to chaos. Neither description would be accurate, respectful, or worth bothering with, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please be assured that I didn't intend any condecension. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I think the Wiki page I linked to above is insightful and important, and expresses something that's important in the kind of endeavor that I see Wikipedia as. I hope you'll consider that I'm not trying to look down on anyone, but that there may be some merit to viewing an activity such as Wikipedia in this way. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
And I didn't mean to accuse you of condescension either, and sorry if it came across that way. I'm really more commenting on the merit as well (or, in my view, the lack thereof). Anyway, yes, sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
No worries. :) I still think it's an idea worth developing, but if and when I do, I'll be very careful about the pitfall you've pointed out - I don't want to give people the wrong idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Beginners go to English class, and learn grammar guidelines from a book. As time goes on, they learn when it's more appropriate to break the guidelines.

It's safest for newcommers to adhere to the rules. But rules exist for a reason, and an experienced person will understand the reasons behind these rules more deeply as time goes on. Unless the experienced people actively try to keep the rules updated to encompass all possible situations (which is something our community doesn't seem to think is the best way to go), eventually deep understanding becomes more important than fixed words on a page. --Interiot 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The link at the top of this section... it was talking about technique, for chrissakes. It wasn't intended to be applied to political organizations (== things composed of people). Good lord. Engineers. God save us. Herostratus 05:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's something to be gained by applying it to Wikipedia. Just because that wasn't the original intent, doesn't mean nothing maps across. I'm just saying it might be worth thinking about. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. You are right, it could map across. I don't think it does, but I didn't need to get shirty. It's an interesting link, and I thank you for it, and it is something to think about. Herostratus 08:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well... it certainly maps onto playing music. I play the bass guitar in a band, and the idea matches my experience of playing the bass. I first had to learn how to play the root, just supporting whatever chord the guitarist is playing, and basically stick to the 1 and the 5. Soon, I started learning how you can break out of those patterns and play different and more interesting things, but they somehow work in relation to the "rules" that you're starting to "break". Playing notes that aren't strictly in the key that the song's in - learning to do that is pretty cool, but when you're starting out, you'd better be careful. I'd say I'm at the second level. I haven't gotten to the point where I can just play by feeling, without thinking about some kind of rule, but I've had glimpses of it, and I know such a level exists.
Now, playing music is a partly technical, and partly social experience, especially in a improvisational setting. I'd say that making up music in a group and writing on a Wiki are closer to each other than either is to coding up a piece of software. Playing music involves paying attention to others, and not violating others' expectations too much, and occupying some kind of social "role", and all kinds of "political" aspects. The "three levels" idea certainly applies to it, so why not to a Wiki? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that's one way of looking at it and there's nothing objectionable about it. But often it may be better to think of this difference between the wiki-n00b and the wiki-veteran prosaically as "the n00b has to look up things on the policy pages a lot but the veteran doesn't because she mostly already knows what they say". Of course one of the points emphasized in your theory is that the veteran not only knows the content of the policy pages but also the general social expectations at the wiki. Absolutely. Also remember that once you've got the hang of a particular process you may consciously forget that you are following a process. When I go swimming I don't think thoughts like "okay, this limb should move next, all according to the swimming process" but of course that's what I'm doing. Similarly you can reach the state where you say "huh? I'm not following any processes, I'm just wiki-ing" but that doesn't mean there aren't some underlying processes you've learned and then forgot you learned but still follow. Haukur 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with that. There are underlying processes that the most experienced Wikipedian is following, and those processes are what our pages in the Wikipedia: namespace attempt to describe. The map is not, however, the territory, and the description that we've come up with so far, is not to be taken as the be-all end-all. The more tuned-in you are to the real process of Wiki-ing, the less you have to worry about what the written version says.
It's like, first you follow the written rules, and understand that they're pointing to the true rules (which are nothing more than common sense and civility, plus understanding what it means to write a neutral encyclopedia on a wiki). Once you've internalized the true rules, you stop thinking about the written rules, and at some point you may find yourself violating the written rules, by following the real rules. In such a case, common sense trumps what's written down, and you might consider writing down whichever piece of common sense you've discovered. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] essay tag

I removed the essay tag in the name of maintaining parellelity with WP:SNOW, which at the current time has no tag, due I guess to warring over the tag there. Maintaining parallelity with WP:SNOW prevents proponents of either essay from getting a leg on the other, e.g. by placing a Guideline tag at WP:SNOW, as has happened. This is in the interest of preventing, or at least trying to prevent, edit warring at either article. It protects both essay, but as a practical matter it probably protects this essay more, things being as they are. Herostratus 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering both pages are in the essay category but only WP:SNOW is kissed as a guideline, I guess Wikipedia is more complicated (less parallelified) than it would appear at first. Rfrisbietalk 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:SNOW isn't exactly "kissed" as a guideline, as much as some would want it to be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Put another way, changing message boxes without changing related category assignments appears to be an incomplete process. :-) Rfrisbietalk 16:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The point of removing the tag from SNOW was that it's defined as a corollary to IAR, and isn't really an unofficial essay, but neither is it a separate/extra policy. Since this isn't a corollary to anything, I'd think it would need a tag of some sort. Also, if PI is parallel to anything, I'd think it's parallel to IAR. --Interiot 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think SNOW is self-evidently a corollary of IAR - you can easily agree with one and not the other. We could just as well define PI as a corollary of some other policy page :) Haukur 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, WP:SNOW is allegedly a correllary of one policy page - IAR. This is a corrollary to most every policy and process page out there designed to keep things moving smoothly and keep questions from cropping up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a slight misuse of the word "corollary", to say that PI is a corollary of all the process oriented pages. Having a process written down does not imply anything about how much weight the process should be given. The way I see it, WP:SNOW and WP:IAR represent an attitude one might take towards process, and WP:PI is kind of a reaction against that attitude, and has yet to gain wide acceptance among experienced Wikipedians. I don't see why SNOW and PI wouldn't both be called essays. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The first couple words of SNOW have long been The "snowball clause" is a corollary of "ignore all rules", but who knows what's up for grabs these days. At their core, they mean the exact same thing, that process is good, but when process should not be followed when says to do something that's not beneficial for the encyclopedia. --Interiot 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I just think it's a good idea all around to yoke the tags SNOW and PI articles. As I said, this makes slapping a Guideline or Policy tag on WP:SNOW less likely, as it conveys no real advantage, since it means automatically applying the same tag to WP:π. The converse is also true, of course. I do think that the two articles are near-complements. And WP:SNOW should (in my opinion) have an Essay tag, but whatever they're going on about over there has lead, at least for the time being their solution is no tag, so it won't hurt to have the parallel tag (that is, not tag) here until they get it sorted out. Also.. Interiot makes a fair point, that WP:π is the complement of WP:IAR rather than of WP:SNOW, as WP:SNOW is a subset of WP:IAR. Hmmm that makes sense, except that to slap a Policy tag on WP:π on this ground would accomplish the opposite of what I'm trying to do. Anyway, after hearing my explanation, if anyone wants to restore the Essay tag to WP:π, that would be OK. Herostratus 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
If the goal is to stop edit-warring on SNOW, I don't know if that'll happen. There's a cold war (no pun intended) over SNOW, and regardless of what tag is on the page, one side is going to keep citing it for official purposes as they have for almost a year, and one side (one person?) is going to keep objecting whenever they see it being used. --Interiot 18:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
One person, really. Anyway, if that's the case, best to leave the Essay tag off this article also then. Having no tag on WP:SNOW leaves it more open to interpretation, one interpretation being that it's policy, while keeping the Essay tag on this article leaves it as "only some person's opinion". So in the interest of fairness I guess this article should remained untagged too. Herostratus 19:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This essay is not somehow at odds with WP:SNOW. SNOW is a special case of process: when it would be ridiculous effort.

By the way, I've renamed mine User:David Gerard/Process essay because it's not against process at all. I think it's about using process as a tool in itself. The process of process. Recognising that process is mostly formed by a series of ad-hoc kludges and should be treated as useful only until disposable. Etc. Etc. I'll let you know when I've finished it. It now includes a section on what to do about people who don't yet understand that IAR doesn't really mean "do whatever dumbarse idea occurs to you" - David Gerard 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're doing a great job here, David, in opening useful dialogue between the two 'camps'. And renaming the essay was an excellent idea - typically essays tend to get cited not so much for their content but for their single basic idea or even just their title. Having a title like 'Process is dangerous' will give you kneejerk reactions while a bland title like 'Process essay' forces people to actually read the darned thing ;) Haukur 21:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • While I have no particular opinion on the way to tag this page, I should point out that forcing two pages to always have the same tag (or lack of tag) is a rather weird idea. m:instruction creep and all that. If you feel two pages must have identical tags, merge them into one page. >Radiant< 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll take weird=delightfully different, as I don't think you meant it's outright uncanny. =) David Gerard is spot on... no one else has seen this before: both articles are true, even though (or perhaps because) they are opposites... Herostratus 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should I have followed process?

I don't usually "Ignore all rules", so I don't tend to have examples at hand. I just now did it though, and since I'm already in one discussion here, I thought I'd toss this out as an example. I knew I was about to act out of process, and I did it because of common sense. I'm submitting to this page for review, instead of WP:AN or something, because I suspect I'll find a good, tough crowd here, and maybe the case will be instructive or illustrative in some way.

There's a big backlog at WP:RM right now. User A requested that Sea of Fertility tetralogy be moved to The Sea of Fertility, on the grounds that the correct title has a "The" at the front of it. Trouble is, User A put the {{moveto}} template on the talk page of the incorrectly named article, but didn't list a poll to gauge consensus. After 12 days, nobody had commented, one way or the other, and User B relisted the move request, on the grounds that process wasn't followed and we were thus unable to determine consensus. On the other hand, we're talking about some series of books that has a correct title, which anyone can confirm on Amazon, or whatever. It seemed pretty trivial, so I just de-relisted it, and went ahead and deleted the redirect which had prevented User A from just doing the move in the first place, and I completed the move, and corrected all 10 or so incoming links.

Now, is there any "Process is Important" kind of reason I shouldn't have done what I did? Did that article need another 5 days in requested moves, over an trivial name correction? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think consensus is the key, and probably this should be noted more prominently in the essay. My rule of thumb is "follow process unless you have consensus". —Ashley Y 06:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Now, if only people could similarly agree that IAR was conditioned by "where there's consensus to do so" (at least after the fact, in cases where speediness is crucial), and then we could practically merge the two...  :/ Not holding my breath. Alai 07:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought the reccomendations for IAR do say you have to try to get as close to existing consensus as possible, even when you can't get a perfect fit. Isn't this being made clear enough? In any case your actions need to get consensus post-hoc, else you've clearly made a mistake. Kim Bruning 09:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this being made clear enough? For a long time now the people who hang out at IAR have resisted all attempts to insert "but don't ignore other people!" or "respect consensus!" or something to that effect into the page. So, yes, it's not being made clear enough. In fact it isn't being said at all. Haukur 10:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I think it's safe to say that all complaints about IAR arise from situations in which it's done without consensus. The tendency to blame IAR for the problems that then arise, instead of recognizing that IAR wasn't used properly, is unsettling. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
IAR says nothing at all about consensus. Thus at present, your common-sense opinion that people should only apply IAR with regard to consensus and are otherwise doing so 'improperly', is overridden by others' common-sense opinion that "the mob's" consensus is bunk, and Gordian solutions are required. Ultimately this is only resolvable with regard to the express or implied authority of the person doing the overruling, so the oft-repeated "common sense" rationale is just an appeal to vague populism. I think the consensus qualification is being not "said" so loudly as to be strongly suggestive of the opposite. Suggestions on how to ignore all rules is an excellent... essay. Why would invokers of the policy-negating policy bother with a mere essay as a constraint? If that were folded back in as a qualification to IAR, we'd have something that was firstly, less prone to actual and rhetorical abuse, secondly, less of a logical absurdity than it is at present. (Which would make discussions of what IAR's "corollaries" more meaningful (given that falsity implies everything, "Regularly Climb the Reichstag Dressed as Spiderman" is as valid as WP:SNOW). It's hard to avoid the suspicion that there's more to this reluctance than simple parsimony. Alai 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Alai. The obvious example is an edit war in which both sides honestly think that they are improving Wikipedia, and can invoke WP:IAR in defence of each edit. Sure, edit-warring itself is bad, but without a reference to consensus, each individual edit in the war can be justified as "improving Wikipedia". —Ashley Y 17:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that this was not only acceptable but also perfectly within the WP:RM process - non-controversial move proposals are routinely just done without messing around with templates and polls. Haukur 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know; I'm new to WP:RM, and saw no documentation allowing for extra-procedural closings. If ignoring the process is perfectly within their process, then good job on their part. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The first two sentences of WP:RM (not counting the backlog notice) are: "Requested moves is the place to request article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators. Normally, logged-in users can do uncontroversial moves themselves using the [move] tab found at the top of every page (see Help:Moving a page)." Alai 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
One reason for following process is to not upset or anger people. People in a minority position are likely to feel propiated if, even if they lose, at least their loss was according to a stated and previously agreed on process. If they are met with "your position has no chance of victory IMO so, per WP:SNOW, STFU" they are more likely to feel angry or upset - and if contributing to Wikipedia ends up making you feel angry or upset, you are less likely to want to edit contribute to Wikipedia, no? But in cases where no one would likely feel upset or disregarded, short-circuiting process is likely OK, per WP:NO HARM, NO FOUL. Herostratus 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well put. Now there's a tempting redlink... Alai 18:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] essay tag 2

I removed the essay tag. Please discuss before restoring it. I removed the tag for these reasons:

  1. The parallelity argument above. I don't know if this has been decisively refuted or not. As long as it holds it can contain hostile edits like this with a minimum of effort, but if not we can go to the trenches, whatever.
  2. User:Alphax's edit summary was "this is an essay, nothing more." That sounds like a hostile edit, that is, an edit by someone who doesn't hold with the basic idea of the article itself. Hey, we don't go over to your essays and remove your tags. Granted that partisans of WP:π are more likely to be even-tempered, patient, and polite than some other editors, this should not be mistaken for weakness. If you want to start a guerilla war, well, it only takes one side, so I can't prevent that.
  3. On the merits, I would not say this is "only" an essay anymore. If WP:SNOW was also "only" an essay, them maybe. But partisans of WP:SNOW seem to have basically decided that it is oh so much more. But WP:π is invoked far, far more often than WP:SNOW. Because WP:π is invoked by inference every time process is followed. One doesn't post "Per WP:π, I am now closing this AfD in the normal manner" or "Per WP:π, I am allowing this DRv to run its normal course instead of closing it early in a fit of pique or impatience or just to get my way", and so forth. That would be unnecessary verbiage. (But, you know, one could do that. If necessary, I could start droping a WP:π reference into my edit summaries and encourage other editors to do the same, as well as dropping in on random discussions to note "Per WP:π, I won't be cutting this discussion short, bye!" or whatever. Hopefully that won't be necessary. Herostratus 17:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think both this and WP:SNOW are simply essays. However, I have restored the old messagebox as a compromise. —Ashley Y 18:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, that's the old message box from IAR, is it not? It doesn't really apply here. For one, this page doesn't have a long history (IAR was the first on our original rules page in 2001, this page is barely half a year old). For another, the first box this page got when written ([1]) was that of an essay in development. And for a third, '"process is important" is important' sounds kind of weird. Anyway, I'd be happy with {{essay}} or simply no tag or whatever, but this one is just not right. >Radiant< 19:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I added {{essay}} to the top then reverted myself when I realised the matter was under discussion here. The point of {{essay}} is to tell readers that this is the opinion of some Wikipedians, rather than widely agreed-to policy or guideline. The fact that this page is currently contentious makes it more important that this be flagged. I am strongly in favour of its inclusion. Snottygobble 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The tag needs to be restored. There are a surprising number of literal-minded people on Wikipedia who are uncomfortable with grey areas. (I have my suspicions that those who are not proto-trolls are simply overwhelmed with the size & diversity of Wikipedia & desperately need something to be certain about.) Without this tag they use this essay as ammo, go after the latest Wikipedia veteran to have invoked WP:IAR, shoot first on full auto & ask questions later (if at all). -- llywrch 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not too sure about the idea that this essay is "invoked by inference every time process is followed." We shouldn't mistake inertia for enthusiasm. Most of the time I follow process, it's because it's what's there. It's like, if you took an empty field, and criss-crossed it with some paved paths, then most people trying to cross that field would follow one of the paths, as long as it's going in basically the right direction. This doesn't mean that all those people are stating by inference that paths are important, or that it's better to walk on a path than across the grassy spaces. It's just that people tend to be fairly docile and go along with whatever seems to be happening. Most people, when presented with a formal way to do something, will just do it rather than question it, unless it's particularly absurd. That doesn't mean they've thought about the case, and decided that the process is better than the shortcut; it's just human nature to default to a pre-existing structure, whether or not it's actually a good one. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true, it's difficult to distinguish between applications of "process is important" from "process just happens to be there", or indeed "I'm following process because I thought it was policy to follow process, and didn't realize policy was now/always had been self-negating in regards to process and everything else". But it's clearly the case that there's "underreporting" -- not to say, no reporting -- of "applications" of WP:PI for the reason H*r*str*t*s mentions. In my view, this and WP:SNOW should have equal standing, because it's fairly clear that people are equally partisan in favour of both, and equally, some people regard them as complementary. It's besides the point to argue that IAR grants SNOW automatically greater standing, since it's qualified by the state of belief of the person applying it as to what's good for the quality of the encyclopaedia (or the state of belief of the community, admins, arbcom, or applauding or sanctioning them for applying it "correctly" or "incorrectly"). (If it weren't so qualified, it would be immediately paradoxical, instead of merely so without reference to whose judgement "wins".) Alai 06:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I liked the original formulation: "If the rules make you nervous, depressed, or not desirous of participating in the Wiki, ignore them." When you apply that to itself, it just tucks itself nicely out of the way. "Fine," some may reply, "but the problem arises when someone else ignores other rules and causes trouble for those of us who were trying to ignore IAR and act civilized." I would reply to this that those problems aren't appropriately pinned on IAR, but are actually more difficult dispute resolution issues. It's true that, in a system with something like IAR in effect, clear, respectful communication and skillful dispute resolution become much more important than they are in a system where we can always run to process when we can't figure out how to get along with each other on our own. One might question if it's worth it to take on a whole raft of dispute resolution issues for the freedom of movement granted by a relaxed, IAR attitude. Me, I tend to think it is.
Regarding whether this and/or SNOW are tagged as essays or what... I think of SNOW as a de facto guideline, since it describes how people often apply IAR, and usually correctly. Good applications of SNOW are underreported, just like applications of PI. I've been clearing out backlog at WP:RM, and I cut plenty of corners. I just try to make sure nobody's standing on them first.
This page, on the other hand, reads more like an essay to me. It seems to be a persuasive piece, rather than a description of usual practice. I mean, the concluding paragraph (before the appendix), begins with "For all these reasons, editors and particularly administrators ought to..." A guideline should be couched as an "is", not an "ought". Someone could write a descriptive piece: Wikipedia:Working with process, or something. It could describe the status quo - there are a lot of more or less ad hoc processes, which were largely cobbled together through repeated applications of IAR and SENSE and someone finally writing something down. Most people use them, pretty much as directed. There could be lists of useful processes at Wikipedia, and tips on how we interact smoothly with process, including how and when we usually cut corners, and we amend process through skillful applications of IAR. A page like that, presenting a unified approach to the whole process question, sounds to me like it would be quickly recognized as the articulation of a true guideline, and tagged as such. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There has to be balance.

I see WP:IAR, WP:SNOW and Wikipedia:Process is important as both mutually complementary and contradictory.

Wikipedia:Process is important is there to remind us that without process, orderly discussion and community falls apart.

WP:SNOW and WP:IAR are there to remind us that without common sense in applying policy and knowing when to follow process, nothing gets done.

Process is there to make things work smoothly. We have to recognize that sometimes the process does the opposite.

These two contradictory views are probably also our most misused essays and policies, but without them, things couldn't get done here.

But these views complement each other... yes, process is important, it serves to stop conflicts, it serves to keep the wheels and gears turning however slowly, but it can also bog us down in red tape so high that we would never have time to edit. Thats why we need things like WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. They boil down to use common sense. When applied correctly, whether to editing or to administrative actions, they allow us to be more productive, and allow the processes to work as they should in the cases where they really are needed.

Defending process simply because its process doesn't help. For process to be successful, there has to be a point to it, otherwise you are just burning up energy that could be used elsewhere. Similarly, circumventing process blindly doesn't make things any better either.

It boils down to this. Defend process only when the process is a means to an end, not just an end in and of itself. Assume good faith when dealing with matters of process, and especially with matters of WP:IAR. meatball:DefendAgainstPassion when dealing with questionable cases... It doesn't help the encyclopedia to have a heated debate on whether or not process was followed in closing an AFD on day 4 with a 50 to 1 margin. Sure, not everything's that clearcut, but when you feel that it isn't, deal with it diplomatically rather than by increasing the temperature even further.

My two cents... - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. Just to note: it's the job of this article to generally promote respect for process; this article doesn't need to overly worry about times when process should be bypassed, there are the other articles for that. Herostratus 06:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    Huh... maybe presenting the issue in a polarized manner isn't the best way to persuade people to achieve some kind of balance. I mean, why pass up the opportunity to offer more perspective in one place? I like the idea of an essay having self-awareness of its own limits of applicability. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Whether you are blindly disregarding process in a controversial area or blindly citing this whenever someone doesn't follow process, you are still causing problems. Both are very much wrong attitudes, and both hurt our community and our encyclopedia. To those exercising WP:SNOW, be considerate that you the process you are circumventing really doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. To those that are picking apart every action here, lighten up. To those that see something take place that really shouldn't have, deal with it civilly, assume good faith, and it doesn't have to be a big deal. Everybody should remember that process and policy are there for good reasons, and not lose sight of those reasons - when we reach the point where we are following policy and process just because they are there, then we have a real problem. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 02:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I think a good rule of thumb is, before you cut a corner, please be certain that nobody's standing on it. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline

The folks over at WP:SNOW have put a Guideline tag on that article, so per the discussions above I've added it to this article also. Herostratus 01:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that appropriate? This isn't really a guideline, is it? WP:POINT etc. —Ashley Y 01:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Per above discussions. Anyway, it's been removed from here and from WP:SNOW, which is also fine with me. Herostratus 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
As has been pointed out before, the assertion that two pages must always have the same kind of tag is m:instruction creep at best, and downright silly at worst. I think the tag warring on both pages should stop, but it's perfectly conceivable that the community decides some day to mark one as a guideline and the other as rejected. >Radiant< 13:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the main reason this page isn't a guideline is because it's written as a persuasive essay. Guidelines are simply descriptions of usual practice, or at least that's what they're supposed to be. WP:SNOW, for example, doesn't make detailed arguments for why we should follow it, it just describes a common practice, of speedy closing discussions where there's no question of controversy. It happens all the time, and WP:SNOW explains that custom, for the benefit of those who expect a more formalistic approach, and are surprised.

This essay, on the other hand, doesn't describe; it lobbies. The final paragraph before the appendix states: "For all these reasons, editors and particularly administrators ought to adhere to and use existing processes, and resist the temptation to act outside of process, other than in truly emergency situations." That doesn't describe common practice, it tries to change it.

It appears to me that this page simply is an essay. There's nothing pejorative about that. WP:SNOW simply is a guideline. There's nothing wrong with that either. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Well said. >Radiant< 08:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Um. Would it help to see this as a guidline (whether so tagged or not) if this article had a nutshell tag... something like one of these maybe, although someone could probably come up with a better one:

Mmm, nuts! This article in a nutshell:
Don't sow chaos by ignoring procedures.
Mmm, nuts! This article in a nutshell:
Don't ignore process if this is likely to insult your colleagues.
Mmm, nuts! This article in a nutshell:
Absent a compelling reason, follow agreed-upon process.
Mmm, nuts! This article in a nutshell:
Process should be followed except when there is likely no objection

Herostratus 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't believe that the presence or absence of a nutshell tag can or should have influence on whether a page is guideline or not. That said, I rather like the fourth nutshell you suggest. >Radiant< 17:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I like it too. Let's install it! Haukur 17:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, what would "help to see this page as a guideline" is if it were rewritten like one. Right now, it's a long persuasive argument as to why "editors and particularly administrators ought to adhere to and use existing processes, and resist the temptation to act outside of process." That makes it an essay; it's a persuasive essay. Rewrite is as a description of what's commonly done at Wikipedia, then we might have something to talk about. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Practical process

The essay has been set loose: Wikipedia:Practical process. Note how it presumes to list this page as a sub-page. Hints and tips for it are most welcomed, as is disagreement minor or profound - David Gerard 21:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops!

Oops, somebody stuck the essay tag on this article, please don't tag this article without adding the matching tag to WP:SNOW, thanks! Herostratus 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Pages must stand on their own, the argument that this page's tag depends on another page's tag is kind of silly. >Radiant< 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. It's about time to give up that notion. Rfrisbietalk 18:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Noooooo.... but whatever, then, it stands on its own as a not-an-essay, same as WP:SNOW stands on its own as not-an-essay. For the time being. Anyway please don't tag pages of which you are hostile to the central premise, thanks! Herostratus 20:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Don't be so presumptive of another's intentions. Either merge the pages or stop trying to yoke them. Rfrisbietalk 22:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Herostratus, an essay tag isn't a punishment or diss of some kind. It's simply descriptive of the fact that this is a hortatory essay. Guidelines aren't that. Write it as a guideline, and then tag it as such. Right now, it's written as an essay. The idea of yoking this page to another of an entirely different nature is really arbitrary and unhelpful. You haven't responded to repeated explanations of why this is an essay, and until you do, you haven't got a foot to stand on. If you don't provide (or show me a link to) a substative reply to this point, I'm going to replace the essay tag for the reasons I've stated on this page. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Please don't, the page looks good as it is without any tag. The essay template is essentially a disclaimer that the page it is on can be bonkers. Haukur 21:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I disagree about what the essay tag is. I don't read it as a disclaimer, but as a descriptive tag, telling us what kind of page we're reading. I think it's a good idea to classify pages in the Wikipedia namespace according to what kind of pages they are. This is especially helpful for newbies, who won't otherwise know what to make of them, and it's especially helpful in the case of a page that contains somewhat controversial exhortations. I wish Herostratus would bite the bullet and rewrite this page to sound like a guideline, then those of us who are trying to tag descriptively, and not as a cudgel, would be pretty amenable to calling it a guideline. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
              • The article in a nutshell: Process should be followed except when there is likely no objection. That sounds like a guideline to me. The whole point is this: the article is constantly attacked by a small group of editors who want to emphasize that this is only an essay == some guy's ramblings, in contrast to WP:SNOW which is no mere la-di-da essay but a rough-hewn yet manly understanding among manly men about how things get done around here. The two articles are complements. They are both true, and one is not more true than the other. Exalting one above the other leads to an imbalance in the Force. Herostratus 03:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Do you know the difference between "descriptive" and "hortatory"? Guidelines are supposed to be descriptive. This essay is hortatory. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If we're takling Force powers, I don't think your mind-reading skill is anywhere up to Yoda level yet. I am unaware of this small group of manly attacking editors you mention (although Extreme Unction's Law comes to mind), nor am I involved in adding tags to WP:SNOW, nor is {{essay}} derogatory to the page it's on. I simply wish to point out that the only meaningful way to ensure two pages have the same tag, is to merge them. At the moment the pages aren't even complements; the same nutshell would apply both. >Radiant< 15:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The two are not in a pair, this is clearly an essay and the other one is a practical maxim on one aspect of process. Huh? - David Gerard 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appendix: whuh?

The appendix makes this essay seem to exist only for defense of the deletion process. It's worth more than that and will still be if/when the salt has leached out of the ground where xFD/DRV/etc formerly stood - David Gerard 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I removed it. But the point about the deletion processes was actually an afterthought - I was mostly thinking about Kim Bruning's perpetually repeated point that most pages are edited peacefully by few people and there is usually no need for formalized process to keep track of that. Haukur 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That is an important point, though - we don't need process for everything. Hmm. One to try reworking perhaps, minus the xFD bits - David Gerard 13:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Wikipedia_talk%7EProcess_is_important_7bb2.html"