User:JzG/Wikipedia:Wonks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
Two kinds of individual are often identified in debates surrounding deletion of content: process wonks and policy wonks.
Contents |
[edit] Process wonks
Process wonks think process is important. Not an especially contentious point of view. There are some arguably good reasons for being a process wonk - in a large and disparate community it is clearly necessary to have process, otherwise what is to stop a rouge admin running riot and deleting half of the project? You have to work with, and abide by, consensus. Mostly. And, of course, it is at the margins of mostly that friction occurs.
Some process wonks go further: they think that process is very important. In fact, a process wonk will abide by a community decision arrived at by due process even when they know it is wrong. That's not the same as thinking it's wrong or disagreeing with it, that's the certain knowledge that it's wrong.
[edit] Policy wonks
Policy wonks may or may not be fans of process. But whatever process decides in a particular case, a policy wonk will go with policy every time. Potentially defamatory details on a living individual? Remove first, ask questions later. Contentious deletion? Undelete it, then we can all talk about the content. Divisive userbox? Delete it. Fuck process.
You can see how this would cause friction. Especially since at least some of those who want to keep the removed content (or remove the undeleted content) will stand on process as a primary justification.
[edit] Comparing and reconciling the two
Two contrasting views:
- Policy is of course more important than process. Process exists only to support policy, after all. So obviously the policy wonk, who considers that policy trumps process every time, is right.
- Process is important, too, because individual judgments can be wrong. Nobody - not even Jimbo - is right all the time. You can't have people performing actions on a whim based on their personal understanding of policy; obviously the process wonk is right.
Which is right? While the cynical might say that the only way to tell for certain sure which is right in any particular case is to see which one agrees with you, perhaps the truth is that both are right, in their place?
Could it be that both process and policy are really here to serve something more important? Product? The writing of the encyclopedia is, after all, why we all are here (or why we should be here... remember Wikipedia is not a blog, hosting service, or even though it is one, primarily a community). Inasmuch as product is the most important thing, process and policy wonks serve product best when they use their skills to make sure that creating product is as efficient, fair, and fun as possible for everyone.
Because, after all, we are here to create the world's greatest encyclopedia. Our policies and our processes exist to help us maintain the integrity of the project, nothing more.
