Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Prior conversations not archived; see page history /Archive 10 - July - Aug. 2007 /Archive 11 - Sept. 2007

Hello you that are my betters in this and maybe every enterpise. I thank you for Wikipedia. But I am really turned on by the fact that you would allow a doc of huckleberry hound, an integral part of my childhood, to appear. What would be super would be one of Boris and Natasha in Rockie the flying squirrel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.213.200 (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Examples of perfect WP articles please 2 Comments to "source of policy" section 3 Proposed addition to page 4 Wikipedia: Essays? 5 Debating notability? 6 Recent extensive changes 7 Modifications to the prior consensus "Sources" section as it existed from October to December 7.1 Comments 8 Deletion of material from the September 2007 version of "Sources" 9 Some tidying 10 Bold edits 11 Talk archives? 12 The "proposals don't work" meme 13 Wikipedia talk:Notability (media) 14 A question.. 15 Raw numbers 16 Being true to IAR 17 Policy pages need consensus for change 18 The difference between policies and guidelines is that policies are regarded as mandatory, while guidelines are advisory? 18.1 Random break 19 Innocent Until proven guilty Policy 20 Wording from WP:NPOV 20.1 can only be edited to ... 20.2 Different angle 21 Problem sentence 22 Defining consensus 23 The reasons I reverted 24 Problematic sentence 25 Guidelines 26 Do policies and guidelines have to conform to the manual of style? 27 Connecting the dots is not assuming, yes or no? 28 Promotion 29 Experimental 30 Foundation policy 31 Namespaces of policies & guidelines 32 What has been lost 33 Wikiproject Anti-Trivia 34 Location question 35 Anonymity and outing 36 a bit of tidying 37 Rejected changed to Failed 38 Adding guideline enforcement tags 39 Third party paid entries okay? 40 New MOS for TV 41 Summaries?

[edit] Examples of perfect WP articles please

Hello all Grand Wikis, as you are surely aware (since you are aware of everything), your policies are difficult to apply in real life. Please provide us simple mortals a list of articles you consider Orthodox, perfect or otherwise divine. Emmanuelm 12:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to start by looking at our Featured articles, which pass a fairly strict review before they are given that classification. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments to "source of policy" section

Jossi, you've made a reversion, but I don't think you have commented yet on the proposed "source of policy section". Do you have any specific objections or suggestions? COGDEN 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I take the absence of further comment, and the fact that this proposal has been under discussion for quite some time now, to constitute consensus. Once again, if anyone can find any fault in the draft, or has any suggestions, please let me know. There's nothing new or controversial here—I just think it's essential for this page to fully document what policy is and where it comes from, just as basic background that everybody should know. COGDEN 16:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition to page

I'm not sure exactly how it fits into the page, probably somewhere under "How are policies enforced?", but this probably needs to be addressed. I've seen it happening a couple of times now, and I'm surprised we don't seem to talk about it.

“

Wikipedia editors are encouraged to be bold in editing, and this applies to policy pages as well. However, policies and guidelines are often the result of lengthy and complicated discussions, and they can require more prudence and restraint than other pages. It may be unwise to edit such a page in a way that bolsters your position in an ongoing dispute. Even if your revision reflects consensus, it could be seen as disruption to prove a point or gaming the system. In particular, it is very bad form to alter a policy substantially and then immediately quote your altered version in the course of an unrelated discussion. When in doubt, propose changes on the talk page and wait for uninvolved editors to make them.

”

<eleland/talkedits> 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking this would be better at WP:POINT or WP:GAME instead.--Father Goose 07:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this recently, and I think it's a good idea to have some language like the above in this article. There really is a lot of confusion about how you should, or should not, make edits to policy and guideline pages. I don't know if the above language is perfect, but I think we should include something that at least makes the following important points:

1. Policy pages are still Wikipedia pages like any other, and the normal policies and guidelines apply, including Consensus, Be Bold, Edit War, and Verifiability.
2. Like any page that is carefully scrutinized and has been worked over for a long time by many editors, editors should think carefully before editing policy pages, and ensure that other editors understand the rationale for any proposed change;
3. One main difference between policy and guideline pages and other Wikipedia pages is that policy and guideline pages must describe Wikipedia consensus practices, which are inherently difficult to verify. In addition to the normal means of verification set forth in the verifiability policy, consensus practice may also be verified through opinions expressed on talk pages, references to other policy and guideline articles, citations to precedent, and surveys of representative Wikipedia articles, particularly featured articles, which are thought to represent the best Wikipedia practices. Consensus practices may also be verified by showing that an essay and proposal has been influential or widely cited by Wikipedia editors without significant opposition. COGDEN 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the tension between "policy must reflect consensus" and "be bold" ought to be better addressed. The word "consensus" (or lack thereof) can be used to stonewall any changes to policy, including urgently-needed ones that might even have consensus (though not unanimity), and I hate that. But what Eleland brought up is, like I said, more specific to GAME or POINT than to POL generally.

I don't see WP:V being an issue on policy pages that often. If we are to mention WP:CON, WP:BOLD, and WP:EW, I'd rather we mention them in prose than just generically say "follow these policies". Determining actual consensus for policy edits can be wickedly difficult, as I'm sure you know, but the best mechanism is when changes go unreverted: silence equals consent, as WP:CON says. I also personally prefer allowing some edit-warring as a messy measure of consensus -- certainly in preference to page locking or other forms of enforced inaction. But I may be in the minority with that view.--Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Edit wars are not always bad, and the WP:3RR rule has worked fairly well in the mainspace. I don't think the rule should be any different in policy pages. I think that there's really no fundamental difference between policy pages and mainspace pages. I can't think of any rule (other than WP:V to a limited extent) that doesn't apply to policy pages.

Maybe WP:V wouldn't be applicable in all cases right from the start. You're right that some changes to policy pages start out as something which does not immediately reflect pre-existing consensus, but people agree with it, and it becomes consensus to those that hear it, and nobody reverts it. Eventually, it would be verifiable policy, but not right from the beginning. I think that WP:V would have some applicability, however. Documenting pre-existing policy should be verifiable, meaning that you should be able to demonstrate that Wikipedia operates a certain way, and that the proposed language reflects the pre-existing consensus. This doesn't have to be a citation (e.g., a citation to Jimbo), but could be simply obvious, or demonstrable from comments on talk pages, or a survey of articles, etc.COGDEN 17:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Such demonstrations don't work via the same means that WP:V does, though. It's certainly a good idea to present evidence in favor of your views, to make your arguments convincing, but that's still not a process of verification, so I'd say WP:V almost never comes into play on policy pages. Furthermore, you can plausibly demonstrate that things are done a certain way some times when they shouldn't be done that way, so evidence is not always of use.

I'm hard-pressed to know what to say, generally, about how policy should be edited. It's a constant give-and-take of sensibilities and ideas, and one just has to hope that those engaged in it are both practicing and assuming good faith.--Father Goose (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that if things are done in a particular way, but they shouldn't be done that way, we don't yet have a policy. Policies are supposed to grow organically from Wikipedia consensus and practice, not to direct that practice. I agree you're probably right that applying WP:V to policy and guideline pages would be a bit of a stretch. Certainly, when verification is possible, it should be done, but having a general verifiability requirement—even a loose one—is probably too great a restriction. I guess maybe we need to go through all the major policies and guidlines and decide which ones (like WP:CONS, WP:WAR, WP:BOLD, WP:POINT, WP:OWN, WP:GAME, WP:3RR, WP:EP, WP:IGNORE, WP:TALK, WP:POLLS, and WP:PROT) definitely apply to policy pages in all cases. Maybe there can also be a category of policies (such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR) that should be applied whenever possible, but are not always possible or appropriate. Some policies, like WP:FORK, I think apply, but I'm not completely sure, because there have been forks in the past. For WP:V, maybe we could say that it applies in the limited case when the policy or guideline refers to things other than Wikipedia consensus and practice. For example, statements by Jimbo or other Wikimedia Foundation trustees or officers would need to be verifiable (as they always have been thus far), but a statement like "Articles must ....", or "According to Wikipedia practice, ..." etc., would not need to be verifiable. For NPOV, I'd say that material should be presented neutrally and dispassionately, but non-consensus POVs need not be discussed. The applicability of NOR might be controversial and I can't come up with a good rule, so it might be better at this point to just be silent on that particular policy's applicability to policy pages. COGDEN 17:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not those policies are applicable, none of them really give useful advice on how to edit policy (if that's what we're still discussing). We had Help:Modifying and creating policy, but it's gone now, and was incorrect and mired in conflict anyway. Maybe if I rack up another couple of years of policy-editing experience, I might take a crack at the subject, or maybe I'll know better than to try by then.--Father Goose (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia: Essays?

I'm unclear of the actual purpose of essays in the sense that I'm not clear why they are on the wikipedia namespace... I basically was linked to WP:Cruftcruft from the WP:Listcruft article. While the latter is tagged as an essay, it appears to be in the form of a suggested guideline for wikipedia and explains itself clearly; it looks like something that's been discussed and worked on by a group of people and that's what I expect when I goto the WP namespace. However, the former page looked like one user's tyrade about some people they have encountered in some AFD discussions. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that has been communally censored and improved and it doesn't seem written as a policy suggestion or anything like that. The talk page even redirects to a subpage on one user's user: page, and not a WP talk: page. Is this what essays on the WP namespace are supposed to be, or is this an abboration? I'd never seen this kind of ranting essay on WP before but now that I look at the "essays" category, I see titles that look just as ranty. It seems weird that wikipedia policy is mixed in with the rants of users on the same namespace. (I guess this is my essay on essays?) TheHYPO (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though "Cruftcruft" comes across as more of a rant, or perhaps a parody, both essays are opinion pieces having only limited support within the community. So it's just as odd to have WP:Listcruft in the same "space" as actual policy. Maybe even more odd, because it reads like policy but is still just a minority view.

The Wikipedia namespace is for general discussion of any aspect of Wikipedia itself. This ends up including policy, just about all our procedural pages (such as AfD), and anything else anyone wants to say or discuss about Wikipedia (including essays). No consensus has yet emerged for subdividing it into policy/procedure/discussion or what have you, and no consensus has emerged for making any distinction between any of the essays found on Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia has to mature some more before any of those steps prove to be necessary -- or before it becomes clear that they won't be unnecessary.

Nice ambivalent answer, eh?--Father Goose (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't "discussion" of policy take place on some TALK page, and not on actual pages in the namespace where the policy actually is? Wouldn't that be like having articles in the main namespace like We should delete all the articles about Simpsons episodes...? TheHYPO (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, discussion of specific policies does takes place on the talk page of those policies, although policy is also discussed more generally on WP:VPP and other non-talk pages that are nonetheless purposed for discussion. The whole Wikipedia namespace is "behind the curtain", where the main (aka article) namespace is for articles about real-world phenomena only. We could thus have a page "Wikipedia:We should delete all the articles about Simpsons episodes".

It is true that the Wikipedia namespace is quite broad. We have official policy and process thrown in with official-sounding opinion pages, the occasional rant, and a huge variety of other pages as well. We rely on header templates ({{guideline}}, {{essay}}, etc.) to do most of the distinguishing between one page type and another. Beyond that, it's not clear how we should characterize the difference between one essay that doesn't have consensus (Listcruft) and another essay that doesn't have consensus (Cruftcruft). Maybe we shouldn't do anything more than say "okay, this isn't a policy" and leave individual users to agree with it or not according to their personal views. That's what we're presently doing.--Father Goose (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I take issue with this present system is my personal experience - I have seen the listcruft page before, and other similar essays that are written like policy suggestions, and because they are on the WP namespace, My assumption was that, while not official policy, this was some sort of official suggestion from groups of people (admins) who have been deemed as respected, capable editors. (like how a bill in a government senate isn't Law, but it's something written with the suggestion of being law by senators who are presumed to be capable and thoughtful suggestors, as they have been elected to the office. While not all the senators might agree with the bill, the suggestion at least has support of some level of wikipedia "authority", so it's something I considered at least based on "principles" that longstanding wikipedia admins or trusted editors experienced. But this cruftcruft essay just being a rant with no purpose made me rethink that. My concern now isn't so much that CruftCruft shouldn't be in the WP namespace because it might seem out of place in an "official" namespace, but more that if that is equivelant to the Listcruft essay, then other new users might see the listcruft essay and assume, as I did, that it's a pseudo-policy. I think the best way to put it is that, because of the WP namespace, and being alongside (and sometimes linked to by) policy articles, it felt like a suggested guideline from admins - it felt like there was some scrutinization process required before that essay was adopted on the WP namespace, you know? not that it was a suggestion that could come from anybody and could have support of as little as one person. I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, I'm just trying to explain how it looks to someone who might be new to WP TheHYPO (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nor am I trying to argue with you. I actually agree with just about everything you just said. I've seen plenty of users treat essays, proposals, and any other official-sounding things like they were rules, so you're right that the distinction ought to be absolutely crystal clear, and it's not.

For a while, the {{essay}} template had the words "editors are not bound by its advice" instead of "it reflects the opinions of some of its author(s)". Do you feel it would be a step in the right direction to reintroduce that wording?--Father Goose (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, or similar stronger wording. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think that making the essay template some other color (perhaps a muted red) so that users actually are drawn to read it - I know that as a new user, I sometimes ignored those tags as only important to administrators or more advanced editors. Perhaps also use the word "suggestions" rather than advice, since "advice" sounds more official than suggestions, and/or the phrase "required to follow any suggestions enclosed" rather than just "bound by", which still sounds to me like "it would be a good idea, but you're not absolutely bound by it" - but maybe that's just me. Alternatively, perhaps coloring the Policy template muted green or something so that people notice that only pages with those green templates count as policy. Thoughts? TheHYPO (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I didn't notice before that the essay template does appear to be slightly shaded - on my laptop, at some angles, it doesn't show. Perhaps a bit stronger coloring? And different from the template on the policy pages. Also, guidelines could be muted yellow, making a red/yellow/green color coding system to hopefully benefit clarity and perception of the pages. TheHYPO (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to ideas for something stronger than "editors are not bound by its advice". But I'll add those specific words to {{essay}} in a week if nothing else is suggested. I also like the color-coding idea; it's easy to glance at the template and assume it is some kind of sister to policies or guidelines due to its style. I'll experiment with color changes, and hope no one screams bloody murder.--Father Goose (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(indendation reducted for convenience)

Like I said, I prefer something like:

This is an essay, which reflects the opinions of some of its author(s). It is not a policy or guideline and editors are not required to follow any suggestions made here.

I think making the "this is an opinion piece" part first is a clearer statement that "this is just a user's opinion - it's not policy" rather than "this is not a wikipedia policy, it's just a [some might read here "wikiedia"] suggestion". I also prefer the term suggestion to the term advice, as "advice" might imply that users writing the essays are experienced/qualified/authorized to advise other users when that is not necessarily the case. - My doctor advises me to put ice on my sprained wrist. My buddy suggests I take aspirin.TheHYPO (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has begun in earnest at Template talk:Essay#Opinion!.--Father Goose (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debating notability?

Wikipedia lacks a section on the fact that once in awhile, by which I mean more than once in awhile, someone will tag a page for its lack of notability or lack of conformity to guidelines for utterly ridiculous reasons. Can we add one of these? Because I think it is a complaint of valid notability. Lequis (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that "non-notability" is often invoked spuriously, but I imagine the best place to raise the issue is over at Wikipedia talk:Notability.--Father Goose (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent extensive changes

I agree with many of SlimVirgin's recent changes, but disagree with the change, without comment to the Sources of Wikipedia policy section. This is a big change, and there has been no demonstration why the original section was inadequate or does not reflect Wikipedia consensus, which I think it does. Therefore, pending discussion and a presentation of some rationale, I am reverting. COGDEN 20:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also thought that the mass rewrite was a little odd, but I was too chicken to revert it myself. This kind of thing definitely needs discussion. <eleland/talkedits> 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the changes by COGDEN on October 1st were huge changes and contrary to how policy is written. Cogden's edits were disputed and reverted, [1][2][3][4]. Considering the short amount of time and the very limited number of editors involved, I don't believe there was consensus for Cogden's changes. I dispute them and back SlimVirgin's changes. I'm reverting to SV's version to show my support. Dreadstar † 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't just say you dispute them without offering a reason why. Such a "dispute" is no dispute at all, and is contrary to many policies such as this one, and especially WP:CONS. Please explain your reasoning. Incidently, the version you added here is not the same version that existed for a long time prior to October. I will delay reverting your edit until you offer an explanation (offering you a courtesy you have not extended to me on other pages), but in the meantime, I'm inserting the actual old version. COGDEN 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cogden, as this page is policy, you would need to seek consensus for the changes you made, which were quite substantial, and some of which was false. The ArbCom, for example, does not make policy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If a small part of the section is incorrect, then change it. Please do not violate WP:EP and WP:CONS. Also, I already proposed my edits months ago, got many comments and positive feedback, and you did not comment. If you have a problem with it, I think you have a burden of demonstrating what the problem is, and why. COGDEN 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

These are the changes you made that are disputed. [5] Jossi reverted them, but you reinserted them. Example of the problem: ArbCom decisions are not binding regarding policy pages. The ArbCom does not make policy and is quite explicit about that. There are other problems too. First, can you say what it is about the long-standing version that you find inadequate? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So why, then, are you deleting the entire section? This is a simple fix. As to the prior version, when we were originally discussing this, I never said I had any particular problems with it. I just think we needed a more accurate description of the source of policy. The new version doesn't contradict anything in the old, but contains more detail. The prior version was a bit unclear, and the newer version was better and more explicit, as evidenced by it having been largely copied into WP:CONS by another editor. As to Jossi's edit, he had some comments, and I addressed them, and finally when he had no further comment, he did not revert. COGDEN 20:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You did above exactly what you've been doing at NOR for months. You proposed some changes, got some objections, inserted your version anyway, Jossi reverted you, you asked why, no answer, so you waited a few weeks, then wrote: "I take the absence of further comment, and the fact that this proposal has been under discussion for quite some time now, to constitute consensus."

This is not what consensus is when it comes to policy. Silence doesn't mean people agree. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CONS? This is exactly how consensus is achieved. I made a proposal, responded to comments and objections, and when objections stopped, I inserted the heavily-revised proposal. COGDEN 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, the section does not say that Arbcom makes policy. It says that it may disregard policy or construe it in a binding way. That's true. COGDEN 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent, edit conflicts) I see, we're talking about this edit. Yeah, that was weird, shouldn't have been introduced without consensus. Objection withdrawn, SlimV was right to revert him. And WP:CONSENSUS does not say that if you make an edit, and nobody notices to revert it for a while, that it's the "new consensus". I've seen vandalism and fraudulent edits that stuck around for months and I didn't wait for any "consensus" to remove them! <eleland/talkedits> 20:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that, then we could use your help over at WP:NOR. I would also appreciate your comments on the now-deleted language, which echos your sentiments. I disagree, though, that this was "vandalism" or a "fraudulent edit". I made a proposal, and received numerous comments, responding to each of them. Finally, after waiting for a while, I made a further inquiry about whether there were any additional comments, and nobody opposed. Then, nobody reverted for quite some time, and in fact the section has been cited and copied to WP:CONS. Silence often indicates that people have no problem with it, and is a good indicator of consensus. COGDEN 20:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I intended no implication that your edit was vandalistic or fraudulent. I will check WP:NOR per your suggestion. <eleland/talkedits> 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of pointing fingers at each other, wouldn't it be more constructive to actually discuss the wording of the two versions and come to consensus on what it should say? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This reversion comes just before a RFC against me] impugning my behavior in proposing and implementing these edits during the month of October, and does not seem to be directed toward the actual content of the section. Let's leave the bizzare "behavior" allegations to the RFC, and focus here on the content. I invite Dhaluza and SlimVirgin to make any proposed changes to the section, or any suggestions. The "Sources" section has been well-vetted in the past, and could benefit from your input. COGDEN 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modifications to the prior consensus "Sources" section as it existed from October to December

So that we can see what we're looking at, here is the prior consensus regarding the "Sources" section. Please feel free to make any insertions or deletions within the text itself:

[edit] Comments

• The one objection brought up thus far by SlimVirgin is that "ArbCom decisions are not binding regarding policy pages." Actually, if you read the section carefully, you will see that it does not make that claim. It only states that the ArbCom is free to disregard policy or construe it in a binding way. I think this accurately describes what the ArbCom can do. Does anybody disagree? COGDEN 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• The actual statement under Sources of Wikipedia Policy was "Adjudications by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, which are considered binding.", a statement which seems to match what SlimVirgin objected to and removed. Dreadstar † 20:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One small thing, the statement that there was "consensus for the sources section from October to December" is disputed. The reversions by Jossi and again by FeloniousMonk clearly show there was dispute that was not addressed by finding consensus for the changes. I agree with eleland above that these signicant changes should have not been introduced without solid, clear consensus. Dreadstar † 21:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I made changes in response to Jossi's reversion, and asked Jossi for additional comments, then after a week of no comment, I noted the fact that Jossi was silent and made the edit. Usually, silence means acquiescence. If Jossi had a problem with it, I assume he would have spoken up, if not during the week I asked him, then during the following 1 1/2 months. COGDEN 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As to your suggestion, I'm making an edit above, making the following change: "Adjudications by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, which are considered binding with respect to the parties involved" COGDEN 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We can also possibly add a following footnote quoting Jimbo as follows:

"The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values." – January 2004

COGDEN 21:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom rules mainly on behavior and only very rarely content. The Jimbo quotes you present, (e.g. "respect to the parties", look more like behaviorial rulings being binding rather than binding rulings on policy content. Dreadstar † 08:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of material from the September 2007 version of "Sources"

I wanted to bring to everyone's attention a subtle change introduced by SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin recently reverted the "Sources of Policy" section to a version dating back to about September 2007, which existed for several months prior. However, the version from September stated:

“

A policy being adopted after having first been proposed on a wiki page, without first being applied in practice. (See Wikipedia:How to create policy). However, such proposals had a ~90% likelihood of failure, and this method is now mostly of historical interest.

”

However, SlimVirgin did not include the underlined paragraph in the reversion. When I tried to replace it, SlimVirgin reverted with the comment "please seek clear consensus for the changes". Should we hold SlimVirgin to that advice, and require that we discuss the removal of the longstanding "However, such proposals had a ~90% likelihood of failure, and this method is now mostly of historical interest"? I think that if we are going to go rewind pending further discussion on the October-December version, we should keep the September language, and not introduce new, undiscussed changes. COGDEN 20:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like simply an error/misunderstanding; parsing multi-change diffs often leads to such mistakes. Clearly the material in question should be restored, since there was no discussion in favor of removing it, and there is self-evidently a discussion about restoring it (this discussion), which necessarily indicates no consensus for the removal. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some tidying

Over time, pages like this can drift a bit. I've done some tidying, please check my changes. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, given my current sullied reputation, I think these minor changes are excellent. COGDEN 05:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bold edits

SlimVirgin boldly made some edits in support of her NOR position. I have no problem with bold edits, as I've done it myself, but I've been accused of impropriety for editing this policy to support my position at WP:NOR, and that accusal has been signed by SlimVirgin. The double standard aside, I have no problem with her making these edits. But I do disagree with their substance. The edits are as follows. She has changed

“

Policy change comes from three sources…Some attempts have been made to adopt policy after proposing it on a wiki page, without first applying it in practice. This method is not successful, and over 90% of such proposals have failed.

”

with

“

Policy change comes from three sources…A policy adopted after having been proposed on a wiki page, without first being applied in practice.

”

She has also replaced

“

A policy advises on courses of action that are widely accepted by the wikipedia community.

”

with

“

Policies are widely regarded as mandatory.

”

My problem with both of these edits is that they treat policy pages as if they were codes, rather than just reflections of Wikipedia consensus. These edits portray policy articles as not just describing what the consensus is, but decreeing what the consensus should be. This philosophy is antithetical to Wikipedia. See Ignore All Rules, the very first Wikipedia policy, and Consensus, the most fundamental policy. COGDEN 05:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Cogden, I've returned to what was there, and I can't keep responding to this. I've offered to help you several times, and I've received either no response, or replies that with the best will in the world, I don't understand. And no attack headers, please. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. I'm talking about your recent changes to this article. Do you oppose a change back to the previous version? Also, I apologize if you were offended by the heading. I'm not attacking you personally. COGDEN 05:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that it will be wise for you to listen to the comments made by many editors in your RfC, rather than continue with that line of questioning or accusations? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi and Slim on all points. Dreadstar † 07:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm listening to the comments carefully. I wonder if you are, otherwise you'd see the hypocrisy at play here. I have done nothing more improper during this whole mess than you, Jossi, and SlimVirgin. If I were one of you, I'd have reverted SlimVirgin's additions without comment by now and accused her of improper conduct. The difference is that I don't do that. I rarely revert someone's good faith addition prior to discussing it on the talk page. SlimVirgin's conduct here (minus the hypocrisy) is totally proper, and normal editing policy calls for an honest discussion of new proposed content. COGDEN 08:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I reverted two edits by Slimvirgin without looking here first, as I didn't think much discussion was needed. But since a discussion seems to have developed, I'll post my reasoning (for some definition of reasoning :-P ) here.

The first edit basically contradicts the {{policy}} template, so it was a no-brainer to revert that back to something that was not internally contradictory.

The second change introduces a circular redirect back to this page. I don't think that that was the intended effect, but either way, it was useless as it stood, so I reverted that too.

Slimvirgin, did you accidentally cut-and-paste from a broken revision or so?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar: Wait: That was ALSO a circular link? Heh, that makes two. Even so, "policy is mandatory" contradicts {{policy}} as already stated on this talk page just now. So either way, the line is not valid. Heh. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Whup! I'm confused! Now that I look back, it looks like there was only one circular, and I put back the one that wasn't circular thinking it was circular..soo...I circulated the circulated circle.

So, policy isn't mandatory, eh? Doesn't consensus rule the day, which means that things decided by consensus are...well..."mandatory"? Sure, I understand there are overrides, like the occasional use of IAR and perhaps some rulings by Jimbo, but generally, I understood policy to be something that needed to be followed on most occasions. I think wording like "mandatory" makes policy a bit stronger than by just saying policy "advises on courses of action". Policy, in it's nutshell, is a "standard that all users should follow"....which sounds like something mandatory, or obligatory, rather than just guidance. I guess I would like to have something firm and strong to stand on, especially when trying to resolve or advise on a heated dispute. Perhaps there's a better word, compulsory;requisite;necessary;required...something nice and firm? Dreadstar † 09:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Something that "advises on courses of action" strikes me as something found in a guideline, if not just an essay. As a matter of fact, with that change, policy reads almost exactly like guidelines does. And that section says "Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory", which is now weird. With this wording change, there are now many contradictions in this policy itself! Dreadstar † 09:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my understanding as well. Dreadstar † 09:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, policy is not firm. Just to make this clear, we have a page called Ignore All Rules, and just to drive the point home with a 20-ton sledgehammer, the page is marked policy.

If that is still not clear enough for you:

* Policy is not mandatory, you may ignore any rule at any time, without sanction, provided your actions Improve the encyclopedia

* Or to look at it from a totally different angle: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Once again, we stress and stress again that rules are not mandatory

* The policy tag itself states: "wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.". We point out yet again that policy is just the baseline standard. You may deviate from that standard, should circumstances require it.

* On wikipedia, we state that consensus has primacy, not an arbitrary policy page. If consensus and policy conflict, policy is modified to reflect consensus, not the other way around. Again, this is also clearly stated in the policy tag, "you must ensure that your change reflects consensus"

* The 5th pillar of wikipedia is that "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Large numbers of starting wikipedians are directed to that page.

* Things that subvert consensus - do not have consensus (this is to prevent subversion of the consensus system).

The proposed change by Slimvirgin conflicts with all of the above. I'm not entirely sure how or why an experienced wikipedia editor would make such a change.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No sledgehammers necessary, Kim. I'm aware of all that you mention, and I did mention IAR in my post above. Thanks, though. There's a tad bit more to the 5th Pillar that you partially quoted, but even so, I don't believe that it contradicts my desire for something firm to edit by, nor the view that following policy should be closer to being "mandatory" than it does just being seen as "guidance", guidance such as one finds in a Guideline. Policy should more than just advice or guidance, so I still agree with SlimVirgin's edit adding mandatory. At the top of the policy page, it states "considered a standard that all users should follow", that statement sounds more like this is "something mandatory" than being merely something that "advises on courses of action".

Just to be clear, when I say "firm", I mean somthing firmer than a guideline or essay...which isn't the case when one uses wording like "advises on courses of action"; that latter wording, to me, denotes a Guideline, not a firmer-than-guideline Policy. That's all I'm asking for, so if a better word than 'mandatory' can be found, that would be awesome! Dreadstar † 08:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And even "firm" may not be the word I'm looking for, depending on which part of the definition and use we mean. I'm not using it as meaning "securely or solidly fixed in place" or "not subject to change or revision", but in the sense that it is well-founded and not weak or uncertain". Policy should be something binding that imposes an obligation to follow, as closely as possible, with the various exceptions that you have outlined...not as something seen as fixed or immutable, but something that can be changed, yet needs to be followed. I hope that helps clear up what I'm trying to say.

Perhaps it should be worded as "policy is widely considered mandatory, with exceptions such as those listed in IAR, etc..." Dreadstar † 09:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Or heck, just replace "mandatory" and basically repeat what is said in the opening tag at the top,

"Policies have wide acceptance among editors and they are considered a standard that all editors need to follow."

That way we can drop the wordplay and just give a strong statement that has a different level of "requirement to be followed" for a policy, as opposed to a guideline. I dunno, I understand what you're saying and I think that the wording either way doesn't diminish the ultimate standing of Policy, but I think something needs to be added to the Official policy articles section that clearly shows a step up from what is contained in Official guideline articles. Dreadstar † 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Agreed on the wording (if not entirely on the reasoning). Go ahead and make the change! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 3 notes btw: 1. IAR is not an exception, it is the default rule. 2. Policy is not binding, nothing is binding on wikipedia. It does not need to be followed. There is even at least one way you can be banned for adhering to policy. 3. The difference between policy and guideline is entirely arbitrary. It was originally formulated as a policy being a guideline that is more important than a regular guideline.

Thanks, Kim. I was looking for something less strict than "mandatory", but stronger than the original version, because I do agree that we're not that strict in a majority of cases, but the importance of policy should be clearly delineated. And, sometimes policy is mandatory, just like WP:BLP is - do we take that into consideration anywhere in this? That policy even has elements that refer to Florida State Law the law in Florida, United States, something that absolutely cannot be disregarded - that's a clear case of mandatory policy.

I may have been struggling a bit with the reasoning since I had been up all night last night...and the old brain was a bit fuzzy...<sigh>...bit of a struggle with words in trying to convey what I was thinking. Slim, what are your thoughts? I'll make the change, but if you feel strongly about 'mandatory', I certainly wouldn't revert you and would really love to better understand the reasoning and counter-arguments to all of the above reasons given for not using 'mandatory'. I think it may be that most of what we speak of in our policies and guidelines..and essays are Wikipedia-centric, which I think is the view you may have been expressing in your edit summary, "policy is regarded as mandatory (insofar as anything is)". From that perspective, policy is mandatory, within the limitations and boundaries in the world of Wikipedia.

Sorry if I appeared obtuse, Kim! Thanks for your patience! Dreadstar † 20:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. :-) Do let me dispell one very very dangerous misunderstanding.

IANAL, but what I understand is that the Wikimedia foundation extensively uses the safe harbor provisions in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and you are responsible for your own edits (as an aside, the copyright remains your own as well).

I cannot stress the following enough. You can get yourself in serious legal trouble.

With "policies" such as Biographies of living persons, that intersect with actual law in some country:

NOTHING ON WIKIPEDIA CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE. WHEN IN DOUBT, DO NOT FOLLOW THE ADVICE STATED ON THE "POLICY" PAGE. FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF A COMPETENT ATTORNEY.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kim. I'm not sure who has the misunderstanding, but I know exactly what you mean and was referring to the laws in Florida as the mandatory thing that really needs to be followed, but I'm also well-versed in 512(c). I've had just a tiny tiny bit of law experience....it's not my main career choice..just a hobby...;) Dreadstar † 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Kim Bruning on the issue, not necessarily on the substance of the edits in question: The changes SlimVirgin proposes are actually way more substantial than they appear, and deserve serious consideration and debate. Right now, I lean toward Kim's interpretation, but am open-minded on the matter. The "mandatory" wording in particular is giving me concerns, because WP:IAR is also a matter of policy (and I stress policy, not guideline). The extant wording does not really cause WP policies to conflict with eachother, but SV's new wording would. Perhaps there is a different way to phrase the changes SV wants to introduce, without such fallout? And again, I remain neutral for now on whether such changes are warranted; this is a WP:PROCESS issue to me for now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk archives?

I archived material that had not been live for a couple of months or more, since this page was 200K+ long. However, I note that this page has existed for a lot longer than "July 2007"; what happened to the older talk archives? --Lquilter (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty lame, isn't it? If you have a mind to do it, please use the page history to re-generate archives back to the start. What's really strange to me is that there clearly were archives, since the current ones are numbered beginning with "10". What the...? I don't think I've ever seen any other case of archives being deleted like this. Weeeeiiiirrrrd. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "proposals don't work" meme

I have a great deal of respect for Kim Bruning, who I have found to be a very even-handed (and -tempered) and effective mediator in disputes, but cannot agree with his insistence that the guideline proposal process (per Category:Wikipedia proposals and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)) is obsolete or even as hazardous as suggested. There is certainly no consensus to remove it or mark it effectively deprecated in this policy page. I have seen Bruning make this claim more than once (I think 3 times, over the last year, in widely divergent WP forums), so I guess that a would-be-guideline of some kind that he worked on was {{Rejected}} via that process (and, not knowing the details, I can even assume that perhaps it should not have been).

This does not mean that the process is broken (at all) or irreparably broken (if it is). I had no trouble whatsoever, over a good 6+ months of work and debate and consensus building, in moving WP:MOSFLAG from nonsense to a reasonable essay, to a well-supported proposal and finally to a guideline that after 2 months or so with a {{Guideline}} designation appears to be remarkably stable and well-accepted. The process seems to work fine. While it is true that most of what is proposed at WP:VPR is rejected, if you actually read what is proposed at VPR you'll see why that dreck gets rejected.

Having watched some proposals catch fire and burn to cinders, my conclusion thus far is that the proposal process is only a danger to a good idea if the process is rushed, if WP:OWN seems to be going on, or (as is most often the case) there is no actual consensus that what the proposed guideline advises is acceptable. It has been my direct experience that quite a lot of give-and-take is required, and that coming to a sensible guideline that actually accounts for and addresses the exceptions (there are always exceptions) is a months-long process, because even a very dedicated Wikipedian with broad interests simply cannot possibly think of every exigency, and even an editor who spends of lot of time on MoS and other policies and guidelines, with which the new proposal may come into conflict in some minor way, cannot memorize or more importantly internalize every single point in every such document. It takes other editors, over time, to hammer out a guideline that actually makes sense.

In short, I think the extant proposal system works just fine. That it rejects good ideas that are badly formed, and bad ideas that seem persuasive, is not just a Good Thing, but is its principal purpose. I direct the attention of anyone interested in the issue to Wikipedia:Notability/Historical. It is clear from the analysis there that the primary notability criterion and the overall basis of today's (i.e. since early 1996) WP:N actually pre-dates that guideline considerably, but did not have sufficient consensus buy-in and was not sufficiently well-written and -reasoned, to actually become accepted as a guideline until quite a bit of time had passed and different versions were proposed. If anyone thinks there is actually something wrong with that, then they have a lot of convincing to do.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›

PS: I'm actually surprised that WP:PROPOSAL redirects to where it does, instead of to a guideline on how to properly build guideline proposals. If anyone is interested in creating one, please drop me a line. I think that would be an interesting little metaproject. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There was help page last year, which was first decimated and then deleted and redirected. It was a constant battle to keep it going. Kim was among the opponents suggesting that the only way to form a guideline was to document a practice, but then who gets to interpret and record practices with a keen and unbiased eye? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The community, as per Wikipedia:Consensus. We have already had this debate. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: Heh no. I'd never use {{proposed}} for anything, as I find it horrendously inefficient [*] . This is an old debate, which I thought had already been settled at Help talk:Modifying and creating policy (it helps to also review the edits to that page, while looking at the discussion). Not only is the proposal process very slow and inefficient, but it also apparently only works very rarely. By contrast, the much quieter wiki-process (m:Foundation issues #3) is rather more efficient, by over 10 times. Re-introducing such a page after the previous one died might not be a productive use of your time. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC) [*] Compare your 6 months for a MOS proposal to say the ~month of time needed to create WP:5P, whilst racing the Wikipedia:Wikirules_proposal , with quite serviceable inbetween variants at WP:SR and WP:TRI during the process)

There was no resolution at Help talk:Modifying and creating policy, you among others just wore down the opposition to the point where the benefits of the page just weren't worth the effort to perserve them. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And I thought we were the opposition. :-) We had valid arguments, and you could not find valid counter-arguments to maintain the page. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Murray you state: " GIve it up! Your rehetorical editorials are not pertinent to a policy page. Proposals are accepted frequently." That's not fair, we gave people plenty of time to find all proposals that had been accepted, and they could find only a handful. Have things changed since the last time? Can you list all accepted proposals please? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kim there is not enough time in life for debating with you in perpetuity on this issue. However, I will concede that "frequently" is subjective, but from my perspective they are too frequently accepted. I agree that a low percentage of proposals become process, as it should be; in my mind too many are accepted with too little participation. Without the proposal process anyone could just decide to stamp a page as a policy or guideline and then the onus becomes disproving their assessment of de facto consensus. People familiar with the notability infrastructure are aware of many examples of the proposal process including accepted processes, or those which were accepted and then overturned. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, then that means you should have no trouble whatsoever to provide a comprehensive list of examples. To make life easier on you, a representative sample of only 20 such instances (provided they are valid) would be sufficient to convince me. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of people misunderstand the proposal process. When we are "making a proposal", we are not following the same model as when you propose legislation, and then if enough people accept, it becomes "enacted". What a proposal is, is a suggested formulation of Wikipedia consensus. What is being proposed is that "X language reflects Wikipedia consensus", not "X language is the new rule". Sometimes, very rarely, people make proposals describing a "best practices" way of doing things that nobody in Wikipedia has ever really considered before, and almost anybody who reads it immediately begins adopting those best practices because it seems right. In that case, the proposal (1) influences people to change Wikipedia practice, and then (2) with this new consensus agreement as to the best Wikipedia practice, the proposal very quickly becomes an accurate description of Wikipedia policy. This doesn't mean that the proposal "graduates" to a policy after some kind of "enactment". It just means that the proposal was highly influential in changing Wikipedia's actual practices, and later came to reflect Wikipedia consensus. COGDEN 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a desired approach, but in reality people are fairly prescriptive in their proposals. I think that most proposals in the notability infrastructure evolve from a perceived deficiency in the AfD process, but then proponents try to enact what they think it should be rather than what it is. AfD typically boils down to opinions loosely tied to a policy or guideline and the attempts at remedial processes do the same. Like it or not, consensus is demonstrated by numbers of those participating, willingness to edit-war or sheer persistence. Rarely is there any true consensus evaluated, because Wikipedians are generally apathetic unless they are pushing an agenda. My agenda is fewer but reasonable and consistent constraints on our writers. I see the proposal process as a safety measure to contain the instruction creep being generated by people who like to write rules rather than articles. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since most people interpret the proposal process in the way you say, Kevin, I think it is fairly safe to say that -while it may be useful for something- it is not very suitable for formulating policy. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to all of this, because it seems like an old inter-personal matter; I just want to clarify some points. That it took 6 months for WP:MOSFLAG to become a guideline is not a problem or a flaw in the system, but a good thing. The very "inefficiency" of the proposal system is what ensures that the end result (if not rejected) actually has consensus and isn't a one-editor or small-group micro-consensus on a particular bone to pick. I do not trust policy-formation processes here that churn material out rapidly, for the reason Kevin Murray raises, in short that most nascent policypages are created by someone pushing a one-sided agenda. If they end up with {{Guideline}} slapped on them after 3 weeks, the odds of them actually being moderated to represent what Wikipedia collectively thinks, on the whole, instead of what one to five editors with an axe to grind think, is quite low. Anyway, the point was, I see no consensus whatsoever that the {{Proposal}} tag and process have been deprecated by the Wikipedia community, so they should not be deprecated in this policypage, even if alternatives should be mentioned and described. PS: Thanks for the pointers to the prior debate. It does look gnashy enough that I don't think I'll try to resurrect it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a start, at least. Note that the "alternative" method (wikiediting) is actually the main system, which is quietly responsible for over 90% of all policy, guidelines and essays. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC) ps. good luck slapping a guideline tag on something if it doesn't actually have community consensus. People *do* patrol :-P

Kim, regarding you closing parenthetical immediately above: I see it happen all the time, especially in the MoS subsector of "WP:" space. There's been some discussion at WT:MOS about stripping quite a number of pages of their alleged MoS subpage designations, because no one that regularly edits WP:MOS has even seen them before. There are dozens of these things, most of them either created by a 1-5 authors with a bone to pick, or the product of narrow WikiProjects on things like US highway signage or whatever (i.e., 1-5 editors with a bone to pick, again, really). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)

Wikipedia:Notability (media) is an excellent example of creep that is being pushed by a few people for rapid acceptance. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Creep is like the old WP:PORNBIO guidelines or a notabilty guideline that affects a very limited number of articles. This guideline affects thousands of articles, this, along with one on sports, schools, and geographical figures are the last notabilty guidelines we should need. Secret ^account 21:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What happened when you marked it as {{rejected}}? Who responded? Did you talk with the person who responded, and did you express concerns with the issues at hand? (as opposed to process for process' sake?). What did they say? Did you manage to convince them to drop the page? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It was never tagged yet, he went to the talk page first, the proposal was getting mostly support in the talk page. Secret ^account 21:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. Kevin: Can you link me to the procedure you are following? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am no aware of a specific procedure other than evaluating consensus. I do not believe that the burden of demonstrating consensus has been met by the proponents. We have about 12 participants with 2 in opposition to any guideline (seraphimblade and me) and 5 ready to accept the current draft and no specific indication of acceptance by the other participants. Add to that the recent demonstration of consensus to reduce and consolidate subject specific guidelines. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Try the actual Wikipedia:Consensus, which currently has a clear process chart, or use WP:BRD, if you think the former has been derailed, (be careful that you use BRD to fix things, not break them!). You needn't immediately mark the page as rejected, you could also try to show that each separate item is flawed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that these processes are essentially in action. Both camps are being bold at the talk pages, but I think that tagging the project as rejected or accepted is premature. The quality of work is good if you believe that we need instructions beyond WP:N. Some people think that the problem at AfD is a flawed rule-set, others think that the problem is a flawed AfD process (e.g., voting rather than consensus, following ILIKEIT rather than WP:N, and admins measuring votes rather than logic. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm confused. Isn't it your opinion that this particular page should *not* become a guideline? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Kim I oppose the adoption of the guideline, but I think that everyone is acting honorably and the problem is lack of participation. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have logical arguments, you should even be able to win the day on your own. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Bringing in more people who haven't (yet) had a chance to do their homework might serve to muddy the issue, and might not actually help you. Be careful of who you invite.

Kim, thanks for the sage advice. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Add me to the list of editors who feels this proposed guideline is creepy, ssenstially a restatement of the WP:V policy, and so should not become a guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You edited the page, so you are on the list. :-) You only made minor edits so far though. Is the current version to your liking? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question..

This may involve a few guildlines, mabye a policy, so I decided to put it here instead of the 'original reasearch' page. Say I write a book. After a while, it becomes notable, and I decide to write an article on it here. Am I allowed to write information on the book without another website source, since I, the writer, am clearly a knowledgeable source on my own book? (Save for ratings, of course I'd need it then.) Silverfireshadow (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

To do so would be against WP policy. Specifically, your personal knowledge of the book is the not verifiable, and therefore contrary to that policy. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raw numbers

To prevent further claims of "editorializing" and "opinion" I've simply reported the raw numbers for wiki-process and proposal-process, with no opinion or conclusions this time. The numbers vary a bit through time, hence I didn't use exact percentages.

You can verify the (current) numbers yourself, by simply counting the pages. If you do make a new current count, please report your results here.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And why, exactly, are these numbers at all relevant to the page? I think they should be removed. And I can't believe that "simply" counting the pages is actually that simple - what counts did you get when you counted the pages? UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[6], last time we counted we arguably found only 7 accepted proposals (of which 6 were sponsored by Jimbo Wales). All other active policy, guideline and essay pages were written using the wiki-method, including all original policy up to April 2003.

The numbers contain information not stated elsewhere, and state unequivocally which method is more used, (and imho also which method is the most successful). Currently, a small number of other proposals appear to have been accepted. Quantifiable statements are almost always more relevant and/or valuable than unquantifiable statements. However, if you feel the numbers are not relevant to this page, where should they be published instead? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire page you reference was rejected as mumbo jumbo, and the page is now a redirect. I think we can make the point by saying something like "a majority" and "a minority" without having to make up percentages. ("5-10%," combined with the 7 you cite, implies 70 to 140 policies; This page lists 41 policies.) If you think the made-up (and out of date) percentages are valuable you can "publish" them on your user page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was. The whole proposal process is mumbo jumbo, which I believe we adequately demonstrated (see discussion for that page).

Note that the proposal process also counts for guidelines (and to some extent also essays), which (as of todays count) were Category:Wikipedia_guidelines 25 and Category:Wikipedia essays 400-600 respectively.

Hmm, that's interesting, are there less guidelines than there used to be. No matter, that's still 66 Policies and guidelines put together, and still only a couple more proposals accepted since last time we checked.

Fair enough. Assuming we now have 10 successful proposals the numbers would now be 85% and 15%.

Is that assumption correct? Almost certainly not. During the last debate on this issue, 6 of the 7 proposals people brought forward as "successful" actually involved the direct intervention by Jimmy Wales (and thus it can be argued that they actually fell under the "direct intervention by jwales, arbcom, or board" category instead).

That brings us back down to ~2% successful proposals at last count. Provided you can dig up 3 new successful proposals since that last count, you can just about get the number up to 6%.

So as you see, the current estimate is actually somewhat charitable. If you would like to show that proposed policies and guidelines are more successful than that, go right ahead and provide a list of succesful proposals.

We probably shouldn't even go into essays, which are clearly thriving compared to the other 2 categories <innocent look>.

Even so, this is somewhat tiring, I thought this entire debate was dead and buried by now. *sigh* --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Kim, what are these percentages for, and where these come from? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First remove, then ask? That's not even exactly proper from a BRD perspective, as the change was already being discussed here. The motivation and sourcing is explained in this very thread. But very well then.

Very briefly, for your personal gratification:

I think that the {{proposed}} method is somewhat inefficient. Previously several editors including myself explained and explained and wore the proposals method description down to its final, verifiable core (which wasn't much), after which you yourself turned it into a redirect.

During the previous discussion we asked the {{proposed}} proponents to list all successful proposals (so no one can claim we stacked the deck), after which we then challenged some of those claims, and then did the numbers. To our surprise, the result at the time was that there is no statistically significant evidence that the proposal process works at all. This as opposed to the wiki-process , which is a very successful known-to-work system, as demonstrated in all namespaces, including the project namespace. (see also m:Foundation issues #3, which is more typically -possibly erroneously- interpreted to cover only the encyclopedia namespace)

If you are not satisfied with the previous discussion, we can start it all over again, if you wish. Since the outcome of the last discussion ended up with proposed losing out, I suggest that the burden of proof starts on the proposed-process side. If you would like to start by listing as many successful policy and guideline proposals as you can muster, we can then do the statistics all over again, and if necessary again, whenever you like and as long as you like, until you are personally perfectly satisfied that we have covered every shred of evidence in favor of the proposal process.

Will that do? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being true to IAR

An edit was recently made here changing longstanding policy that policies are not mandatory. We cannot, however, contradict the longstanding policy of Ignore All Rules. This is one of the most fundamental ones, and we shouldn't modify or abolish that rule here, particularly without widespread Community-wide discussion, or even discussion on this talk page. COGDEN 03:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My reversion was re-instated by Crum375 without comment except that changes should not be made without "discussing on the talk page". I invite Crum375 to justify this "policies are mandatory" change. Why is this reversal of WP:IAR justified? If it isn't, let's change the language back to how it's been for years. COGDEN 04:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's clear from the Bold edits section above there was never consensus for the 'mandatory' phrasing in the first place; it was made without prior discussion and several people poitned out how it is clearly inaccurate. I switched it back to a longstanding version from an earlier version of this page. The second sentence carries much of the same meaning in any case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to make this all perfectly clear, should we add a comment to this section that policies are not mandatory, and that one of the most fundamental Wikipedia policies is Ignore All Rules? COGDEN 04:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that goes too far in the other direction. Policies should usually be followed, in spirit if not in letter, some more than others. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been mulling over this whole "mandatory" thing. It's not a reversal of IAR. IAR does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is "neither a trump card nor a carte blanche." The rules (Policies) are mandatory, including IAR. They are complimentary, and as a whole, they are mandatory. Mandatory constitutes or contains a command, and command exercises a dominating influence or directs authoritatively. Exactly what our polices do as a whole. We can't cherry-pick from these policies and claim IAR overrides everything..it doesn't, the contents of IAR itself prove that. If you don't like mandatory, then please suggest other wording. Dreadstar † 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't mean I'm objecting to the current wording - since I sorta suggested it myself..;) - but I'm not objecting to "mandatory" either. Dreadstar † 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't true that our policies literally must be followed, which is what "mandatory" says to many people. The main issue is that policy is not prescriptive, it is only descriptive. It describes "best practices" that should always be taken into account, but are not controlling in particular situations. As for wording, I think that "considered a standard that all users should follow" is accurate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that, I was thinking the same thing...the general interpretation of "mandatory" is as an absolute. And referring to the "whole" (including IAR) as 'mandatory', may be confusing and misunderstood. Dreadstar † 05:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the terms "mandatory" and "not mandatory" oversimplify the situation, and hence should be avoided. While trying to create a more direct phrasing, they only create confusion and contradictions. —Kurykh 05:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. What is the need for these? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, we have only one non-negotiable policy and that is WP:NPOV. The other policies reflect current consensus and practices, and the principles upon which these have been written are non-negotiable as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

True enough. Dreadstar † 05:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, NPOV can be one of the most difficult policies to apply....seems everyone has a different view of what 'neutrality' is... Dreadstar † 05:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

<<< Added text about policies as per the lead of NPOV. I think it summarizes well the core policies and the non-negotiable principles these embody. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is a foundation issue, and all foundation issues are certainly negotiable ("Note: TODO: Over time, the opinion of the community does evolve slowly. Some changes have occurred which still need to be integrated in this document." -- good grief, that notice has been up forever, can someone help fix that?). Though it is VERY hard to get people to accept changes or exceptions, we have seen the foundation issues change slowly over time.

In fact, I do believe some changes even to NPOV are still needed as there are some issues with NPOV on I'm guessing a couple of thousand pages by now; but that's a story for another day.

I had a discussion IIRC with Slimvirgin when the "non-negotiable" phrase was introduced, where I recall an argument along the lines of "yes, of course we know that they are actually de facto negotiable, but we don't have to explain that to everyone"... and I'm still totally confused as to why people would do that. Perhaps I misremember or misunderstood the argument.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh. NPOV principle has been declared non-negotiable? Well, there goes all hope for entire subject areas.Also this causes trouble for other practices, such as Consensus. NPOV does work, but the basic principle requires tweaking for some pages (such as Global warming, which -even while WP:OWNed by an actual distinguished climate scientist!- still managed to end up with no mention of the greenhouse effect at one point.

The irony is that I think practices like NPOV are the life-blood of wikipedia, and now I'm going to have to fight tooth and nail *against* them to make sure that: A: they don't stomp all over all other policies. B: They can actually still be updated and improved at all, nota bene! Very very argh. :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment it only says the principles are non-negotiable, which is better. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is still a major power-grab in the wrong direction. Not so much "better" as "less bad". :-P I should have worked against this much sooner, but it's tricky to go against people on foundation issues, obviously ;-). --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Policies are not mandatory. You can't ignore them without a good reason, but they are still not inviolable. That makes them not mandatory, and we should not claim that they are.--Father Goose (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Father Goose and support CBM's edit from today removing the word mandatory. I think that the remaining language was sufficient. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

IAR does not say that policies are not mandatory, it is itself a policy and as whole - Wikipedia policies are indeed mandatory. The only issue is potential confusion by the commonly understood meaning of 'mandatory'. On the other point being discussed, policy is different than the principles they are based on, and I do believe the principles are non-negotiable. Fine lines of distinction, but since such strict lines seem to be drawn here, then it only makes sense to define them as clearly as we can. Dreadstar † 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the proposed change: Policies are considered mandatory. They have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow. Editors should be careful that any change they make to a policy page reflects consensus. I don't see how we can make it stronger without repealing IAR. However, I don't oppose repealing IAR, but while it exists, I think that "mandatory" is too strong a word for this policy page. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My proposal:

The word "mandatory," in any form or tense, or with any affirming or negating adverb appended or prepended, shall not be used on policy pages.

My rationale detailed in my post further up this thread. —Kurykh 23:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I find mandatory non-use of the word mandatory humorously ironic. Dhaluza (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Humor and irony are mandatory! --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC) O:-)

[edit] Policy pages need consensus for change

As with all pages, policy pages need consensus for changes. It seems that a few editiors have been nibbling at the structure of this policy for the last couple of days, without gaining a consensus for what is collectively a major change in tone. Absense of objection during a holiday period does not indicate consensus. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a rather hefty discussion on whether what you are saying is true or not. I am stating very strongly and unequivocally that your statement is incorrect, and am backing that up with data. If you are threatening to edit war, stay away. If you would like to join the editing and discussion, please be welcome. :-)

Note especially the wording of the template "ensure that your changes *have* consensus" not "gain consensus on the talk page". --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it, you actually reverted to a version which still contains a circular redirect (and possibly other very clearly broken items). I will revert your changes for now, and would like to invite you to participate in the wikipedia:consensus process, as documented. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You were bold and have been reverted. To follow the consensus process, you should gain broader exposure. I have posted my concern at the pump. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You did not revert just me, but many other people as well. That is not correct application of procedure. You should typically revert at most one person at a time. The consensus process does not make statements about "broader exposure" and on the current wikipedia, if you apply "broader exposure" incorrectly, you can well end up killing the discussion -either way, reverting is not a tool for gaining broader exposure, so does not apply here-. I'd like to give you the opportunity to undo your reverts. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting a haggling process back to a stable version is not without precedent. It is virtually impossible to unravel the web of the last several days, but it looks like most other editors' work was defacto reverted by you prolific subsequent changes. You seem to be trying to dominate this page and your contributions here seem to dominate your interest at WP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm just making some minor alterations to this page. Someone does have to maintain policy pages, and I have been doing so for several years now. As time progresses, even fairly small changes take more time and explaining to do. But I don't know that I should really respond to ad-hominem arguments at all. The fact of the matter is that you are repeatedly reverting edits made by multiple editors. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the monolog? If you have problems with the non-negotiable aspects of policies, bring your concernts at NPOV, NOR, and V, where that wording is being used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a better place might be m:Foundation issues, where I suggest you bring up the change with the wiki-communities at large (and make no mistake, that would be a major change). :-) That and discuss things with Kevin Murray, I didn't revert your changes wholesale, I just disagreed with some of them on talk and made some small edits. I won't change them again, especially if we do take this to the wider community. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Oh silly me, I thought that these two editors above where one, sorry.) What changes? I only see edits related to synchronizing this page with wording used on core policies? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean Kim and Kevin, perhaps? :-) Note that the "core policies" appear to be slightly out of sync with m:Foundation issues. Specifically, I have some trouble with the "non-negotiable" wording, which does not appear on meta. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, silly me... The meta page talks about "essentially beyond debate", that is another way of saying non-negotiable, which is the term used by Jimbo, if I recall correctly. OTOH, I would not mind replacing "non-negotiable" to "essentially beyond debate", which as I said have the same meaning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that some of the wording added from the other policies to here is out of place. Specifically the part about how WP:V etc. can only be edited in certain ways. Regardless of whether that's accurate (it isn't), this policy isn't the place to say it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:50, 29

December 2007 (UTC)

I see, perhaps some slightly different wording should be used on the foundation issues page, since there has definitely been debate over some of those issues, and they have been altered. Any suggestions? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy pages need consensus for change if the change is opposed. Bold changes that are not opposed are just as much policy as anything else. But re-adding the same change after it has been opposed before seeking consensus is not appropriate.

Of course just because something stayed over the long weekend does not mean it has is unchallengeable. Consensus can change. 1 != 2 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo on non-negotiable aspects of NPOV:

• statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 ;

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The foundation issues, insofar as they are mandated by the foundation, are not negotiable. WP:V and WP:NOR are not foundation principles, however. There is plenty of support for the principles they include, but the policy pages themselves are not written in stone, and are subject to consensus just like all other pages. I don't see why this policy page should be making statements about how certain other policy pages shouldn't be edited, or should only be edited in certain ways. This isn't to say that it should encourage random editing, either. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the principles of V and NOR and not that well established that may be changed in the future? I do not think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The principles are unlikely to change, but the policy documents are likely to change as our practices change. From time to time, incremental changes need to be condensed into a rewritten document; the wording you propose would discourage that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ho boy, are verifiability and no original research up for an update. yes-sir-ree. It will take some research before doing so though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused why Crum375 added back the 'mandatory' sentence with no comment on this page. Would someone else care to remove it? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to Jossi's last version because it most closely reflects our current policies and guidelines, and their application. Crum375 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide any citation or evidence for your claim? The "policies are mandatory" claim was unique to one line on this page, which seems to contradict all other policy (including, but not limited to Consensus and Ignore all rules). But didn't we have this discussion before, and didn't we resolve it? Can we just use the version that we solved at that point in time?--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is your own version, Kim. Crum375 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is additional discussion about this in the section Being true to IAR above. The proposed change (repeated at the end there) keeps the second sentence on the "policy" section, which correctly says that editors should follow policies. It only removes the word "mandatory", which many people will read in a way that contradicts what's actually going on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference between "mandatory" and "advisory" is the difference between "policy" and "guideline" on Wikipedia. Any attempt to change that essential and longstanding understanding, would require a broad site-wide consensus. Crum375 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "mandatory" was added in the middle of December with no such sitewide consensus. It is not a longstanding part of this document. See the section bold edits above. In any case, could you explain in what way you feel policies are "mandatory"? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Mandatory means compulsory, while advisory means the you are strongly urged to follow. No one may violate NPOV, or BLP, or copyright, for example, under any circumstances. OTOH, you may be able to find exceptions to WP:FRINGE, in theory, if you can come up with a good rationale. Crum375 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Our policies are advisory - they are not intended to be prescriptive. It's true that it takes a better excuse to not follow BLP or NPOV than some other policies, I agree with you there. But, for example, blocking, protection, and deletion policies are not binding, and are not always even accurate about current practice. It's the claim that all policies are mandatory that I am concerned about; that NPOV and BLP have fewer exceptions is a different matter that can be handled separately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me your official description, in 10 words or less, of the difference between a Wikipedia policy and a guideline? Crum375 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My description isn't official, and I'm not bright enough to do it justice in ten words, but I can try to be brief. Policies and guidelines are almost the same, but policies have broader consensus and exceptions to policies are less frequent. More briefly: a policy is a guideline you should take more seriously. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wishy-washy... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This debate is becoming ridiculous. Policies are there for a reason, and are prescriptive or mandatory in 99.9% of cases. For the remainder 0.1%, you got IAR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is wishy washy, because the WP system is wishy washy. We don't have hard rules or mandatory policies, and expect people to work together without them. It's a crazy idea overall, but it's what we've got. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bzzt. IAR is there for 99.9% of the cases. Policy/guideline/essay pages are there for the 0.1% cases when you are in doubt and wonder what to do (and/or to figure out the definition of "sane" when first starting out, like folks like Crum375 do :-) ). I linked to a cool page on wardwiki earlier too, that helps explain things a bit --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Ok -so actually- consensus has a big role there too, but that's a story for another day, and it sort of breaks the symmetry to mention it here :-P

Exactly, I think that would be very confusing, and it's also circular. It doesn't really tell you what a guideline is, and implies you don't need to take a guideline seriously. Imagine how confusing that would be to a new editor arriving at this site, trying to learn how to edit. OTOH, here is what I consider the consensual difference: "A policy is mandatory, while a guideline is advisory." You could then argue about the meanings of the words mandatory and advisory, but you at least have a good starting point. Crum375 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A guideline describes how we usually do something, although there are going to be numerous exceptions in practice. Guidelines we feel are particularly important are called policies, and generally have fewer exceptions. There is no legalistic distinction between them because WP isn't a legalistic system or an experiment in mock government. The difference is in how the document is perceived. Historically, certain types of pages, such as style manuals, are called guidelines, while guidelines about admin actions are typically called policies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum375: re my own version, shouldn't that be this one? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The difference between policies and guidelines is that policies are regarded as mandatory, while guidelines are advisory?

I am moving this new addition to this talk page for further discussion:

The difference between policies and guidelines is that policies are regarded as mandatory, while guidelines are advisory.

I believe this goes beyond the consensus on policies at WP. Policies certainly carry more weight than guidelines, but the WP:IAR policy recognizes that all policy statements are always imperfect and should not be followed off the cliff, as the "mandatory" statement could lead us to do. The main difference between policies and guidelines are that policies have fewer exceptions and have less room for interpretation than guidelines. Yes, there are some non-negotiable policies like WP:BLP, where a libel lawsuit could be an existential threat to WP, but these are exceptions to the exceptions, not the basis for all policies. Dhaluza (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like that simple definition of the difference, that both explains and differentiates between policies and guidelines, please suggest your own, so we can compare. Crum375 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the previous formulation was fine. There is no need for a hard distinction. Dhaluza (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Imagine I have just arrived at this site, ready to edit. I see you have policies and guidelines here. I am asking you to please explain to me, in 10 words or less, the essence of the difference between policies and guidelines. Can you do that for me please? Crum375 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Dhaluza (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Seven words; not bad. In four: "Don't worry about it." Or, in one word: "Mu." -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the question poses a false premise, so 'Mu' is the best answer. Dhaluza (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Even BLP, as a "Wikipedia rule", is not mandatory, as in "inviolable". This ties into what Dreadstar is saying above (although he voices other positions I do not agree with) -- we have a few principles which are pretty much inviolable (most of which are Foundation rules), but none of Wikipedia's actual rules are "mandatory" as written (or interpreted). You can't say "BLP is mandatory" and brook no exceptions if you're misapplying the principle that underlies it, even if WP:BLP as worded suggests some absolute action. There's always the possibility that you're misinterpreting the rule or that it's miswritten. We have laws but are not a community of laws, so calling policies "mandatory" is just wrong.

I'm really quite surprised by this conflict, because those who seem to be pushing for this change are quite experienced policy editors. They surely know that Wikipedia policies aren't mandatory, unless for some reason they're not using the usual sense of the word.

Offering a concise explanation of what policies and guidelines are is great, as long as we don't do it wrong. "Mandatory" is wrong. Not just wrong in spirit; it's the wrong word. It has a different meaning from what is actually the case on Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my question to one and all: I am a newcomer to this site, I notice you have "policies" and "guidelines" here, please explain the difference in 10 words or less. Can someone here help me? Crum375 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you would like this page to say about the difference between guidelines and policies? I think the conversation is somewhat lopsided. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My own understanding is: "The difference between policies and guidelines is that policies are regarded as mandatory, while guidelines are advisory." If someone here disagrees, I'd like to hear their version, which should be as short and simple, so a new editor can immediately grasp it. Crum375 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the objection is to the characterization of policies as mandatory. That is an unfortunate choice of word, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. That is, we don't have rules for the sake of rules, we have rules to make a better encyclopedia, and this is the spirit embodied in the Ignore all rules policy (which, by the way, links back to this page). Dhaluza (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeat question: I am a new editor, just arrived here ready to edit. I notice you have "policies" and "guidelines". Can you explain to me the difference please, in 10 words or less, so I can grasp it? Crum375 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeat answer: See: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Dhaluza (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And you seriously think that telling that to a new editor asking for a short and simple explanation of the difference between "policy" and "guideline", is a way to attract new editors to this site? Crum375 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite. A new editor should not be concerned with policy, they should be concerned with content. That is what the page says in its first sentence, and then goes on to explain what it means. The point is a new editor does not need to know the difference between a policy and a guideline--they need to learn the difference between a poor encyclopedia article and a good one. And the only way to learn that is through editing, not reading policies and guidelines. That should come later. Dhaluza (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So if I am a new editor, just arrived here, and I ask you for the difference between "policy" and "guideline", so that I can grasp what they mean, you would tell me that "I should not be concerned with it"? That would be a way to attract some people here, I suppose. Crum375 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And just to give you some personal background, I studied all policies and guidelines here long and hard, for quite a while, before I ever started editing. Of course I may not be typical. Crum375 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has their own way of exploring the world (or not) so there is no right or wrong way. But since you are asking how to advise a new user, if "don't worry about it" was not a satisfactory answer to them, I would tell them that rather than study policies and guidelines and try to understand the difference, they should study WP:GA and articles on their way to deletion at WP:AFD and try to understand the difference. I think that would be less confusing and get them editing productively much sooner. (Of course AfD is a very confusing process, but that's another matter). Dhaluza (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That would basically cover the two main groups. My friend User:Mindspillage also read all policy first, logged in, and then made her first edit. By contrast, I created my first articles anonymously, got corrected by the regulars within minutes, became amazed, and got hooked. I'm not sure I really started reading guidelines 'till much later. I think Crum357 is correct that in that we need clear wording for the "read all guidance first" group of people. At the same time the fact that all project namespace pages are guidance is one of our five core pillars. So we shouldn't contradict that fact anywhere. Unless you believe in the concept of lies-to-children, perhaps? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC) LTC is a defensible concept. Interesting concept to discuss...

I had basically the same experience as you. I read articles first to get an idea of what WP was all about. Then when I could not find an article I was looking for, I took the plunge and created it by imitating what I had seen. Another editor quickly cleaned-up my mistakes, and I was amazed. And I didn't even know the policies existed until later. How does a new editor find the policies anyway? They are not linked from article space, except for the few self-refs on similar sounding articles. There is a link to the WP:Village Pump on the main page, and I think that curiosity about what the hell a 'village pump' was lead me to the main space policy pages. I think policies and guidelines should be written to be inviting to new users, but not so simplistic as lies to children. We need to be careful not to arm crusaders with policy statements that will lead them to do more harm than good. Dhaluza (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Dhaluza, the way I've always understood the distinction, and the way it was explained to me when I first started editing, is that if you repeatedly violate policies, it can be a case for the ArbCom, whereas the repeated violation of guidelines would tend not to be. This is a crude distinction but it points to the mandatory/advisory one. Original research really isn't allowed, and is removed wherever it's spotted. Ditto with NPOV violations and violations of V and BLP. Whereas violations of the MoS are rarely noticed, and in fact just about everyone engages in them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly would not explain it to a new user in those terms! Dhaluza (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Wikipedia:Naming_conventions would never get you in front of the arbcom by itself ever (though edit wars spawned by this {{policy}} have a times lead to arbcom cases). An actual, valid violation of don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point requires a large amount of policy acumen to pull off. Even though WP:POINT is "merely a {{guideline}}", you are very likely to be sanctioned by the arbitration committee, unless you can do a lot of really fast talking ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC) O:-)

(←) That's what it means to say that policies have fewer exceptions. But they still aren't "mandatory" in the ordinary sense of the word. Wikipedia isn't set up that way. I'm sure you know what I mean; I'm not sure where the actual disagreement is here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And you really think that "fewer exceptions" is a good definition? What if I wanted to upgrade guideline X tomorrow to policy status, I would have to say that I want to promote it to "fewer exceptions"? And you really think these are good working definitions? Crum375 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a perfect definition, but it has the benefits of being (1) the longstanding definition on this page and (2) not incorrect. On the other hand, while "mandatory" has the benefit of being clear, it isn't accurate. So I do prefer the more vague term over the incorrect one. In practice, promoting a guideline to policy reflects on the gravity with which we view the guideline, but not much more. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Carl, I see what you're saying, but I still think there's something worth salvaging. We want to explain the difference succinctly for newcomers. Is there anything wrong with saying (in effect): "If you want to edit Wikipedia, you must not add your own opinions, must adopt a neutral perspective, must not add insults about living people, must not sockpuppet etc etc?" The "must" signals that these issues are mandatory.

I'm trying to think of a word softer than mandatory, but stronger than advisory. No luck so far. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is something wrong with that; we shouldn't use the term "must" in policy documents. This is because our policies are not intended to be prescriptive. Even the policy banner says "should" instead of "must". — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - many of our policies and guidelines would be improved by being written in more descriptive language. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, I think of it this way: "Policies define our project; guidelines are rules of thumb for working on it." That's thirteen words, but it's still succinct, and IMO accurate.

I still think the best answer is "Don't worry about it". Why would anybody ever read WP:CIVIL for example? Does any of us need a page to tell us what "be civil" means? The only reason to study the words of that page is if you're planning to lawyer them. Furthermore, who cares whether it's a policy or a guideline? Just edit in good faith, communicate with those around you, and everything will be fine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That may help some people, not someone like myself, who would like to really understand the clear concepts before editing. I think if you come up with a simple, clear and concise way to explain the difference between policy and guideline, you'd have the solution. I don't see the word 'mandatory' as so problematic, especially if we explain the exceptions to the rules, if any, with examples. No law is without exceptions. Crum375 (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a wording (on this page or via edits to the policy) that would offer newcomers a simple and correct explanation, but avoid characterizing policies as "mandatory", as that is considered incorrect by a large number of respondents here. Good sense comes first, rules come second, and that is why none of Wikipedia's rules are mandatory. They are agreements, not mandates.--Father Goose (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what's unclear about "policies define our project; guidelines are rules of thumb for working on it." What's a situation in which more clarity than that is required? Isn't the difference between a definition and a rule of thumb clear? At the same time, my strongest recommendation is, "really, really don't worry about it. Find a way to stop thinking in terms of rules." That's difficult for some people, but very worth it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum375: Hmm, a small, concise answer would be (depending on who is asking) "Policy, guidelines and essays are all practically the same thing, the terms are a ranking, in order of level of support and/or importance". If you just want 7 words or less "Don't worry about it, just write!" (which ~= WP:IAR, as applied to beginning authors. (Darn: I wrote an essay about beginners, admins, and seasoned users someplace, where did it go now? ^^;;)). --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC) (see also: zen version, Haiku version)

Hmm: Wiki:ThreeLevelsOfAudience, but that doesn't cover complete newcomers on wikipedia. Perhaps I could extend or ReFactor that page as well <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random break

With all the understanding about IAR, have you been editing Wikipedia lately? Without some kind of strong wording about the need to comply with content policies, the disruption resulting from it will be massive. It is hard enough to inform new editors of the need for compliance with NPOV, NOR, V and BLP; without such strong wording/caution, it will be even more difficult. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a sneaking suspicion here. :-) Hmm, in which manner have people been informing new editors? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If the choice is between "advisory" and "mandatory" when describing policy, I'm still falling very strongly on the side of "mandatory". Our guidelines are advisory, our policies are clearly not. The problem I'm having, is the same one SlimVirgin notes above...I have not been able to find something softer than 'mandatory', (maybe editors are obliged to follow policy"?). This entire dispute began because a handful of editors wanted to use IAR to ignore policy, and write policy to fit their estimation of what "all Wikipedia editors are doing.." and not really taking into consideration at what they should be doing. And as Jossi rightly points out above, without strong wording for compliance with our policies, we're in for massive disruption. There are disputes everywhere over this, and they're getting worse...with editors making uncivil remarks and personal attacks, edit warring...it's getting worse in my estimation. Dreadstar † 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We could use neither of "advisory" and "mandatory" - it's a false dichotomy. We got along perfectly well until the middle of December without the word "mandatory", so I think the risk of sudden massive disruption is exaggerated. The source of this discussion is that the term mandatory was added to the policy page a couple weeks ago, but there isn't much support for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a false dichotomy at all; those are the two ends of the spectrum being discussed here...IAR and Mandatory... And it's not "sudden" massive disruption, it's been building for months now, and really caused huge issues on other policy pages and in article disputes. We're working on trying to find consensus on this issue, there seems to be no consensus in either direction right now. Dreadstar † 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Our policies are "strong" because we enforce them, not because they are worded rigidly. The disruption you're complaining about is called wikilawyering, and we enforce the policy against that, too. We gain nothing by trying to make our policies uncontestable except more wikilawyering.

Here's my advice to you: ignore the rules. All of them. Really. Just enforce good sense and disregard wikilawyering. Increasing the rigidity of the wording to an inappropriate/inaccurate degree will just diminish our ability to enforce good sense, which is all that the rules should be.--Father Goose (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl, just to address your point about descriptive//prescriptive, the policies and guidelines are both, not just descriptive. We describe best practice and we prescribe that to others. With guidelines, we recommend it gently, and with policies, editors are required to stick to them if they want to continue editing (or if they don't want to see their edits reverted). IRA is seldom invoked, and all the policies are anyway meant to be applied with common sense -- that's built into them. But where you wrote that's why we say "should," not "must," there really isn't much difference between the words in this context. Both are prescriptive words.

The basic difference is with policy, we are saying "If you don't do these things, there may be a consequence for you and your edits." With guidelines, there is never going to be a consequence -- they are just advising that "some people think this is a good idea -- you can do the same or not, as you see fit." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, but more strongly: If you truly believe that violating guidelines never has consequences, I invite you to deliberately and openly violate WP:POINT, to errr, prove your point. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Point is a bit of a strange one, and I think it did used to be policy, didn't it? I remember looking at this before and finding something weird about it. But yes, you're right -- the line is not hard and fast. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Father Goose: Yes, I understand that. It isn't wikilawyering when policy is being changed to match the view that one doesn't have to follow policy, essentially just saying "do as you see fit." I can handle the usual wikilawyering and the invocation of IAR, that's not the issue. And no one, afaict, is saying make our policies uncontestable. Dreadstar † 20:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying to higher comments: my opinion here is that the situation is more nuanced than 'polices are mandatory' or 'there is no obligation at all to follow policies'. I think that the longstanding wording does an adequate job of explaining the situation: policies are like guidelines, but considered more important and having fewer exceptions. I would be willing to find new wording, but I don't think we should aim to precisely define here the distinction between guidelines and policies, since the distinction is not sharply defined in practice. One defining aspect of Wikipedia is that we are not a legalistic system with precise definitions and regulations.

Regarding guidelines. Editors are expected to follow guidelines unless there is a good reason not to do so. Guidelines aren't optional any more than policies are mandatory. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good. I think "Guidelines aren't optional any more than policies are mandatory" is a much better explanation. Dhaluza (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The longstanding wording explained it correctly. Wikipedia is community-driven, not rule-driven, which means the rules must obey us, not the other way around.--Father Goose (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Another excellent point, but a concept that probably causes cognitive dissonance to someone with an authoritarian personality. Dhaluza (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A lifetime ago (2 or 3 years), I explained the difference as: Policies are things you should always try to follow (NPOV, V, etc.), and guidelines are things you should follow unless you have a good reason not to (style guides, etc.). There is a lot of talk about IAR above, but IAR as written circa 2004 really expressed a different sentiment than it does today. At the time, IAR might have been paraphrased as: Even though you should follow these rules, don't worry about them if they make you uncomfortable (because eventually someone will fix the problems if anything is wrong).

Today it seems that we've fallen into this weird space that policies don't need to be correct because IAR encourages you to ignore them if they are "wrong". Personally, I think we were better off when policies were "mandatory" (in the sense that they described the standard that everything should shoot for), and policies didn't have "exceptions" except where the spirit of such exceptions was explained in the policy documents themselves.

But that's just my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with making policies mandatory is that while the principles may be immutable, the expression of them is always imperfect. Since WP strives to be comprehensive, there is no way to anticipate and cover all possibilities. So we judge contributions on their specific merits, and use policies as a guide toward that end. So policies are guidelines too, they just carry greater weight. Dhaluza (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I realize many people see it that way, but I believe that leads to bad governance. You agree that (at least some) principles are immutable. Good. But if there is a problem with their expression then we ought to be fixing that expression rather than making lots of exceptions that are often hard to understand after the fact. Dragons flight (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Or in the alternative, we should be explicit about which bits are judged on a case by case basis. That NPOV is mandatory is not inconsistent with the fact that following the policy often requires discussion and careful balancing. Dragons flight (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No doubt we need to work on keeping policy consistent with consensus--WP:IAR is not an alternative to that as you point out. We just need to keep in mind that no matter how long we work at policies, the work will always be unfinished, just like the encyclopedia. Dhaluza (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Policies are things you should always try to follow, and guidelines are things you should follow unless you have a good reason not to may be a good way to put it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the best view of policies is not to think of them as "rules with exceptions" or as "rules without exceptions", but not to think of them as rules at all. They don't regulate, they define. Thus, it's not about "following" them, but about our actions being informed by them. Does that make sense? For example, the policy NPOV means that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and not some other kind. It's not a rule, it's part of a definition. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it doesn't make sense. Either you are drawing a meaningless semantic distinction (i.e. one that makes no practical difference in how we act), or you are implying some practical difference between "rules" and "definitions", and it is not at all clear what you are suggesting. Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh. It makes sense to me. I certainly am suggesting that there's a difference between a definition and a rule. A rule is something that people "follow" or "break" or that "has exceptions" - in other words, it carries with it a lot of legalistic baggage. If you think of a definition, none of that baggage is there. You can't "break" a definition. You can consider what sort of actions might be consistent with it in a given situation, and that is a much better paradigm for thinking about one's behavior here.

Practically, you'll do a lot of the same things, but without looking through a legalistic lens, you won't get bogged down by distracting questions about whether a rule is broken or not. Instead, you can talk about how to achieve Neutrality, Verifiability, Civility, etc. It's a more open way of thinking about what we're doing here.

Thinking of "rules" invites lawyering. Thinking of definitions keeps us more on task. People get hung up on thinking about "rules", and it's good to avoid those hang-ups. It works for me, anyway. Your mileage may vary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I like Jossi's suggestion. Or "Guidelines are optional; policies are not." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there not two possible layers for policies - those that should be followed, but failures to follow will likely be tolerated as they are generally in good faith (eg, adding unsourced content with {{cn}} due to lack of sourcing as to not yet meet WP:V and WP:NOR), and then policies where failure to follow will result in certain immediate actions (WP:BLP, WP:NPA for a start). Some of these latter type are almost rules that are necessary to prevent legal trouble for WP, and are mandatory, but not all policies fall into this. --MASEM 03:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true. I still think "mandatory" sums it up. It's not as draconian a word as some people are thinking, and it doesn't necessarily mean failure to do them leads to a block. It just means "this is the thing to do." The idea that the basic policies are questioned is just false -- some details within them might be, but the spirit of NPOV, NOR, V, and BLP is absolutely solid. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mandatory" is not draconian, it's just inaccurate. Wikipedia's rules, even the "core ones" are not commandments, they're agreements on how we want Wikipedia to be (or want it to be edited). They have power because we are willing to enforce them to achieve that end.

None of the rules are mandatory because you can't enforce a rule on Wikipedia in the absence of the principle that underlies it. "Mandatory" could only be accurate if it were permissible to enforce them by the letter without regard to the underlying spirit.

Thus even the policies are a form of guidance, not writ. And biggest distinction between policies and guidelines is pretty much that guidelines are (usually) less based on principles and more on practicalities or conventions. But even then there are plenty of guidelines that cannot be flaunted without getting banned. This is because all of the rules are the way we want Wikipedia to be (or be edited), and that is what we enforce. We enforce our shared view of how we want Wikipedia to be. The rules are representations of those views, not commandments or mandates. They're negotiations. We enforce only the ideas behind the rules, using the rules as written only as guidance to gauge what the community does and doesn't want.

This is unusual, as rules go, but Wikipedia is unusual as well. The rules that we write down are an approximation of the rules that we enforce. They can be changed or ignored spontaneously, when good sense prevails, and that is how it should be. This is why it is not accurate to speak of them as "mandatory", and why the existing language -- "they have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow" is correct.--Father Goose (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GTBacchus that having solid policies invite wikilawyering, but what is the alternative? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the alternative is to write the policies more descriptively than prescriptively, and to work on educating Wikipedians that there is an alternative to thinking in terms of rules. Most of that educating takes the form of leading by example. It's rather a radical break from the way we often think (people expect things to run according to rules, ever since Hammurabi), which does make it difficult, but it's not impossible. Providing the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet is a radical idea too, but we're working on making it real. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you see any possiblity of achieving policies written more descriptively than prescriptively? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... I hope so. The last time I tried to make a significant edit to a policy page, I got rather burned, and I haven't even read a policy page since then. I think reading those pages is a bad idea, in general. It's not as if we need to read them to know what they mean. I'd be willing to help with some rewrites, though. I wonder, which one might be good to start with? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A system based on policy may lead to detailed disputation, but a system based on IAR leads to anarchy and inconsistency. People have a right to know what to expect when they come here. Readers have a right to know what sort of material will be found, and what its status is, and we have a responsibility to tell the, Contributors have a right to know how they should contribute & what will make an acceptable article and we who have been doing this have a responsibility to tell them. Editors have a right to know what is acceptable behavior. Telling someone: write, and see what happens, will lead on one side to unacceptable articles, and on the other to brutal rejections.

Policy in the generalities, and the guidelines are the details. The essays are helpful interpretations. In term of US lawmaking, the policies are the statutes, the guidelines are the precedents in court cases, and the essays the advice from textbook writers. DGG (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's little anarchy that has resulted from IAR. IMO, Far more harm has befallen Wikipedia from its bad rules, or bad enforcements, than from its absent or ignored ones. When a rule isn't in place, we still act in the right manner to preserve the encyclopedia. It's when we apply rules thoughtlessly that we run into trouble.--Father Goose (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah... the lovely gamut of opinions... I feel almost as to saying, yes Father Goose, you are right, and yes DGG, you are right too. And to the one that asks "how can they be both right? That is a contradiction", I would respond : "and you are right as well". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like another submission for Wikipedia:The Zen of Wikipedia.

In other news, note that we're not discussing the status of IAR here. Here, it is a mandatory, non-negotiable policy. Deal with it --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Ut oh, I wonder if that made someone's brain go "pop" O:-)

IAR is not separate from the other policies. The more I think about this, the more "mandatory" makes sense. As a group, all the policies together are mandatory, You can't ignore IAR, it's mandatory, yet IAR does not provide a 'trump' over its fellow policies - it merely describes situations where policy is extended to cover areas where the letter of the rule seems to trump the spirit of the rule - not truly ignored...I think ignore may be a misnomer, or at least misunderstood. IAR is an extension of the other polices, and is meant to cover unusual situations. Dreadstar † 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

IAR is a meta-policy--a rule of interpretation. there is unfortunately no consensus on how to use it in an argument: I have argued a good deal about different things, but I have never once found it necessary to use it since the different policies have so many incompatibilities that it is always possible to find one to justify any reasonable position on. I regard its use as almost always a sign of lack of skill or of desperation. We need it as a safety valve, but some use it to justify whatever they want to justify, reasonable or not. DGG (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you disagree that WP:WIARM gives detailed information on how to apply IAR in an argument? The last time I applied it was at: [7].

I believe that there is a requirement to be able to report on your personal reasoning for any action at all, not just for those that happen to occur outside guidance that we have already written. This can sometimes be trivial things: Why did you sign your last post, why did you use that exact wording for your last edit summary, why did you support or oppose that candidate? Up to things that have quite extensive consequences, like blocking whole ranges of ip addresses. (eg one such request for info).

The reason I believe this is because I think the combination of WP:IAR and Consensus applies to all actions. (where you ignore all rules upfront, by being BOLD, and your actions get santiy-checked post-hoc with the consensus process). Our written guidance then is where we maintain up-to-date documentation on the current best-known-outcome of this process, on a day-to-day basis. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC) well, that's the theory, anyway :-)

In essence, what you're saying is that all policies apply to all actions. IAR and Consensus aren't working by themselves; e.g, NPOV is "mandatory and non-negotiable" and so are elements of BLP. If an action is reverted or modified, this is "all policies" in action. You can be bold and ignore all rules up front, but the rules still apply to your actions. It's very difficult to separate them out. Consensus may have put a lot of policy in place, but the underlying principles of every policy are non-negotiable and mandatory. Dreadstar † 05:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The underlying principles are negotiable; they were arrived at by consensus, and can change just like any other consensus -- expanded, tweaked, or even abandoned. Circumstances may change, the makeup of Wikipedia might change, or the existing editorship might change its mind.

The word "mandatory" only has meaning in the context of enforcement, and any given enforcement of any policy, if contested by enough editors, is generally overturned. So again, the rules are just guideposts signifying what is hopefully the consensus position on any given issue -- but it's that consensus that has teeth, not the guideposts. When the words fall short of the actual consensus position on an issue -- and they do, not infrequently -- they don't get enforced (or enforcements get overturned).

So, again, policies aren't mandatory, per se. The most apt thing we can say is that they are likely to be enforced when it is sensible to do so. Perhaps we could add language to that effect to WP:POL, if you feel it would be better than the current explanations.--Father Goose (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar: So what is the underlying principle of all Wikipedia guidance. Is it some mysterious ancient vaguely-oriental-sounding force that moves us all? ;-)

Um, well, no. The underlying principle of all wikipedia guidance is the same thing in each case, and that thing has a very familiar, boring, down to earth name:"Consensus". :-) so previously, you assigned consensus the wrong place in the puzzle, and perhaps it didn't seem to fit?

Note that a key property of consensus is that it is based on negotiation. Now in a negotiation based system, nothing may be mandatory, or the system will fail.

Do you see how the pieces fit together a bit better now? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC) When you see that some part does not fit into the puzzle, you know that you've built the puzzle wrong, and might need to work on it some more. So what we often do is show people how some part doesn't fit (for instance, by declaring a policy that says you may ignore all rules) . Unfortunately, not everyone knows about puzzles, and they get very frustrated and confused instead :-(

The concept of NPOV is non-negotiable only to the extent that trying to negotiate a new policy is likely to be a very long road (who knows though, there could be something even better), but the implementation of NPOV is anything but non-negotiable. Finding an acceptable NPOV is done through negotiation. The only reason elements of BLP are non-negotiable is that libel and slander lawsuits are an existential threat to WP, and so it is a necessary response to an outside force the same as copyrights. So the only mandatory rules are simply internal enforcement of external rules. Our internal rules are based on consensus, which means it's only mandatory if people agree it should be, not simply because a policy page was edited to say so. Dhaluza (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy pages are created to reflect the consensus and current practices in applying the core principles of the project, principles which all users need to abide by —and if they do not, someone will revert them, let them know of their violation, or report it at a noticeboard: just give it a try...:) — Policy pages do not exist in a vacuum, and those that do get edited and changed as needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that we enforce the letter rather than the spirit of the policy, then I think you are wrong. We should be judging the results of an action (like an edit), and only taking further action (like a revert) if we can make a cogent argument to support it (not just a snarky edit summary). Generally, our policies and guidelines should provide the collective wisdom of the community to support your cogent argument, and thereby weaken any counter argument. But our policy documents have not suddenly evolved to perfection--unfortunately, they have occasionally devolved. As the encyclopedia expands, we are likely to find further refinement necessary. So it is always important to use common sense in applying policies and guidelines. The construct of characterizing policy as "mandatory" would give those lacking common sense a sense of entitlement to override those not deficient in this area. Dhaluza (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

These are the five general principles of Wikipedia, which are firm rules: The Five Pillars. This is very clearly stated in the fifth (red) pillar; "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. <added emphasis is mine> While editing decisions are by Consensus, consensus is always "'within the framework of established policy and practice'", it does not trump policy. Even consensus editing decisions on a page can be superceded by "Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status.." So, no, consensus is not the all-encompassing, ruling factor.

So, yes, indeed there are Wikipedia Principles and these principles are firm, IAR Policy does not provide a 'trump' over its fellow policies - it merely describes situations where policy is extended to cover areas where the letter of the rule seems to trump the spirit of the rule. Policy describes what Principle is, thus together they are mandatory. We can't go beyond the spirit of the policies, and since we cannot go past that boundary - what is in that boundary is mandatory.

The Force is strong in my family. Dreadstar † 01:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It bears highlighting: "Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status.." (Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions).  :This alone seems to put policy into the realm of "mandatory". Dreadstar † 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you have this completely backwards. Policy comes from consensus, not the other way around. The things you cite are existential threats to WP, where compliance is mandatory due to outside forces like laws of man or nature. These are the specific exceptions to the rule of consensus. Everything else is governed by consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Look at who was involved in writing the 5 pillars. :-P And thanks for pointing out pillar 5. Fixed. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, sorry but I had to undo your "fix". See Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars#Firm_rules. The wording in WP:FIVE: Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. has been there since the start of that page, circa May 2005 and represents current practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Dhaluza, I do not have it backwards. Most of what you’ve just described is actually just a side issue to the main point I was making, and is basically irrelevant to the core issue; which is “why policies/principles are mandatory”. I think anyone who reads the references I’ve provided, and carefully follows what I have outlined above will see that I am right.

As for mandatory compliance, it seems to me that you’re taking a very superficial look at the way Policies work. My view and description goes much deeper than that, to the very fundamental forces and concepts that created those policies, brought forth by the creators, foundation members, and the owners of Wikipedia. They set a foundation in place, we are merely players on that foundation.

Policy actually springs forth from the basic underlying principles of Wikipedia, the concept and policy of WP:CON flows from that very same source. WP:CON does not create or bring about that source. One does not even use WP:CON in isolation from the other policies…none of the policies are to be used in isolation. That’s one of the main problems of this entire discussion, isolating various policies, such as IAR, and using it to try and tear down an argument. Policies and the principles they come from need to be considered together, as a whole…and as a whole, they are mandatory.

What you’ve described and have been involved with so far, doesn’t even come close to truly changing the core principles or the base policies that spring from them. None of what we’ve done on NOR or the other policies have truly changed the core underlying principles or even the basic policies – all that has been done or suggested, has been little more than just superficial tweaks helping to explain those core concepts.

But, what the hey, I may be totally wrong...;) Dreadstar † 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond Dreadstar, because I am having trouble following your logic. Are you now saying that the exceptions you highlighted, and I responded to, were actually an irrelevant side issue?

Let me try to refocus the point. You used a statement from the Consensus policy saying that the consensus process for developing policy has exceptions. I agree with that--there are existential threats to WP that are not going to be neutralized by discussion, and we just have to deal with them. But then I think you engage in a logical fallacy by using this example of mandatory rules to say all rules mandatory by example. That's a leap I am not willing to take with you.

The distinction I think you are glossing over is that this is a consensus community, and you can't enforce the rules without consensus, whether they are characterized as "mandatory" or not. For example, try nominating an otherwise good article at AfD based on some technical violation of some policy. Or try to get a user banned for writing otherwise good articles that do not fit your interpretation of some policy. You're not likely to get the support needed to achieve the end goal in either case. The community is generally going to judge the results for themselves, and will be very non-receptive to attempts to wikilawyer some technical point. If on the other hand, the articles are really bad, you don't need technical arguments to make that point.

The real challenge comes in the huge grey area in between these two extremes. The only way we have to deal with these issues is through discussion. So in light of this, does characterizing policy as "mandatory" facilitate dispute resolution through discussion, or does it invite self-righteous editors to cut off discussion and unilaterally implement their interpretation? I submit that it is the latter, and this is ultimately more damaging to the project. As was pointed out above by Father Goose, "IMO, Far more harm has befallen Wikipedia from its bad rules, or bad enforcements, than from its absent or ignored ones." We do not need to characterize policy as mandatory, but this does not necessarily make it optional. Dhaluza (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry I can't make it clearer for you. To me, it seems to be a simple concept - you cannot go beyond Wikipedia principles and policy, so since the policies and principles all work together, they are indeed mandatory. I can't see how you go beyond IAR, BLP, content guidelines, making a better encyclopedia, etc....there are definite boundaries. Neither WP:CON nor WP:IAR trumps the other polices, all the policies must work together. We can change and tweak within those boundaries and we are given wide latitude within those boundaries - but if you go beyond them..like it says below..boot-city.. I think the problem is that you are still considering policies in isolation from one another - which I think is apparent by the use to which you just put WP:CON. And nobody is talking about technical violations - we've clearly been talking about the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law... The "grey areas" are exactly why we need firm rules..the extremes take care of themselves. Dreadstar † 01:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In practice, yes. Try violating any of these principles consistently, and let me know how long you can do that before you get booted ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly...sounds pretty mandatory to me...unless you want to get the boot...;) Dreadstar † 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi: A:Deliberately violate, or B:Merely ignore? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merely ignore: you may get away with it, unless challenged by a fellow editor about lack of compliance. Deliberately violate: you never get away with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You get booted for producing bad results for the encyclopedia, not simply for technical violations. It's important to maintain that distinction--it's the fundamental difference between our system of consensus, and a wikilawyering bureacracy. Dhaluza (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has said or implied that, Dhaluza. Dreadstar † 01:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You get booted for producing bad results for the encyclopedia Really Dhaluza? Show me one place in Wikipedia in which you are booted for that reason. See WP:BAN, and WP:BLOCK, in case you have missed it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The question that begs an answer is "what is a bad result" for the encyclopedia. And that question can be answered quite easily as follows: "The principles upon which the encyclopedia stands are reflected in current practices as described in Wikipedia official policies. Follow the spirit of these policies, and as a result, your contributions will produce the expected results. Ignore these and your contributions may not be accepted. Ignore these to the point of disruption, and you may temporarily, or permanently lose the editing privileges extended to you." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We had a chance to compare our views recently, in a situation which I used to demonstrate what I believe to be the optimal approach.

In the initial situation everyone was attempting to use policy to get an edge over the other, and at least 2 people (including at least one subject matter expert) were set to leave wikipedia, ultimately leaving very little to work with. The situation was clearly damaging to our mission on the small scale.

This situation was corrected by negating each policy in turn, including the "non-negotiable" NOR policy. Once policy was out of the way, people were forced to negotiate with each other to achieve consensus, or they would not be able to get anywhere at all.

At this point, relations between participants started to normalize somewhat.

No miracle was involved, just several hours of hard work. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC) * The situation was slightly more complex than this, but this is a fairly good summary. it took quite some time to research the situation before taking action; * Did you notice the application of the more detailed description of our ignore all rules policy in dealing with a spurious deletion request?; * Also note the complete lack of use of admin tools, even though at least one episode of deliberate vandalism did occur during this situation; * Situation has not been 100% resolved, but only been taken one step closer to resolution. I think other people have picked up the tempo and can solve the situation on their own now.

Sorry for the late reply--I've been busy and missed this first time around. Anyway, what I am talking about is the common sense "no harm, no foul" principle embodied in WP:BURO. The basic principle of "no harm, no foul" is that if a rule infraction does not affect the outcome of the game, then there is no point in enforcing it. WP:IAR takes this one step further by saying that if the rule adversely affects the outcome of the game, we should ignore it as well. Both of these are more than sufficient to show that characterizing policy as "mandatory" is inaccurate. That does not mean policies are optional, because to the extent that they embody the collective wisdom of the community, you will generally get better results by following the rules rather than breaking them. So we are basically saying the same thing, but I disagree agree with the taking it to the absolute extreme. Dhaluza (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Innocent Until proven guilty Policy

I hope that Wikipedia can adopt this policy in their guidelines, because there many articles on Wikipedia which are subject to speculation and assertion rather than academic accuracy. I would like to refer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Assumtions_are_unethical_and_a_disgrace_to_acedemics_which_use_wikipedia

Here I argue that we cannot post in the 9/11 article that Al Qaeda is guilty of 9/11 when no judge has ruled this in a court of law. Ignoring for a second the political implications of making such a change to the article at hand, I believe it should be general policy for us not to allow half-truths to be passed off as fact. In this article the guilt of Al Qeada is taken as a fact as if it has been subject to ridicule in court, when it fact it has not. If it was any other article where someone is the main suspect in a crime we state it clearly that they are merely suspects and not guilty of the crime. I think this type of article can degrade the intergrity of many wikipedia articles into the future unless we have a policy to protect us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talk • contribs) 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No academic publication would ever adopt such a policy, as it would render useless any statement not backed up by legal findings. Since academia does not subordinate its ability to discern truth from falsehood beneath the judiciary, neither should Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In authored academic publications, it is implied that statements are “true in the opinion of the author(s)”, unless explicitly stated otherwise with the use of grand words such as “incontrovertible” or “unequivocal”. In other reputable publications (NPOV publications!), care must be taken to not assume as true anything that not demonstrated or proven. Care must be taken to ensure that such statements are attributable to their source (like WP:ATT), and that accuracy is not to be simply assumed or implied. Wikipedia should always take this position, if it hopes to be considered reputable. I see no reason for Wikipedia to adopt a new policy in its guidelines on this subject, when it is already at the heart of its core policies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should not itself make such accusations, but attribute them to others. The court of law is then no longer applicable. This procedure is already in the guidelines, it's just not being adhered to regarding 9/11, which I find a shame.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wording from WP:NPOV

This is from the lead of WP:NPOV. My highlight:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the wording exists on the NPOV page, we're not adding that text here, as that would be kind of silly. We could go the other way around and remove the text on all pages at once and demand people get consensus here first to put it back, but that would be equally silly, ne? :-)

As for my reasoning for removing: logic demands that a statement that denies consensus can never have consensus, so I'll I'm removing those lines for now. Can you provide arguments why they should be kept? --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that "consensus" here refers to local consensus. While there may be consensus on one page to present a particular POV, it does not override the overall consensus in favour of NPOV. Perhaps this could be made clearer - "local consensus" for example.

I'd prefer to keep it as it is, as I think that if anything, on at least some pages, editors still view NPOV too weakly, preferring to embrace the sections of WP:NPOVFAQ that ameliorate NPOV and sideline WP:NPOV itself. I'd rather not weaken it further. TSP (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is precisely the "non negotiable" text which weakens wikipedia guidance so much. It's a bit of a long story why. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh. Any chance you could suggest where someone might start reading to find this long story is? Because to me the wording with that clause is stronger than without it, and I'm not sure what could leading to the long story other than the wording itself. TSP (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not state that policies are non-negotiable. In simple terms, the statement will be false. There are many ways to negotiate, and there is a history of negotiation. With sufficient explanation and caveats, it will be too complicated. It also implies a belief in a superior wisdom of founders, superior in that it out-weighs any future objection. This quasi-religious behaviour is patronising, non-empowering, unwelcoming and short-sighted. The intent seems to be to highlight the importance of certain policies. A more constructive approach is to be evidence oriented. Why are these policies important? If it is true now, was true previously, it will probably be true in the future, and evidence based decision making will repeatedly find it to be true. Let important policies stand on their own merits. There is no need to enshrine truths in language that is supposed to be immutable (non negotiable), and in the wiki way, it cannot be done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe here. there are some principles more basic than others, but all of them are subject to change. There is also the question of emphasis: Of those mentioned, NPOV is much more important than V and NOR. In particular, one can have a reputable encyclopedia with some degree of OR permitted, and the meaning of the term is subject to continuous debate here. Dont enshrine the actively disputed by saying it is not subject to change. DGG (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with that wording, please discuss at WP:NPOV where it comes from.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand why people would feel the need to word WP:NPOV in a way that presents it as non-negotiable, but one of Wikipedia's principles is that our principles are arrived at (or reconsidered) through discussion -- and are therefore very much negotiable. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.--Father Goose (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly stated in the relevant policies, is a core principle and a Foundation issue, and should be reflected here, where the all the policies are described. If this concept is not correct, then each one of the relevant policies must be changed - and the matter should probably be addressed at the foundation level - but it certainly should not revert-warred out of this policy. Dreadstar † 07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue, as I see it, is one of tone, of subtle implications of power and authority. The words “are non-negotiable” are not the same as “are essentially considered to be beyond debate”. While the two have the same immediate practical effects, the differences are significant. The first is absolute, confrontational, dismissive of a newcomers objection. The second, with a non-zero degree of softness, implies that there was some past consideration (not a divine fiat), and that debate is possible, even if change is improbable. I think that the wording “are non-negotiable” should be abandoned in favour of the actual wording “are essentially considered to be beyond debate”, referenced by link to the source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely confortable with the “are essentially considered to be beyond debate” phraseology, but this is much more accurate than the “are non-negotiable” door slammer. Everything is negotiable, even proposals to dissolve the entire project. Such a proposal would receive essentially zero support at this stage in the grand experiment of Wikipedia, but in the future, who knows? I agree completely with SJ that tone is important, because it reflects on the community as a whole. Would a community that appears to be "absolute, confrontational, [and] dismissive of a newcomers objection" attract the type of people we need to sustain the project? I don't think so. While this sort of lies to children oversimplification may appear to be an expedient means of prevailing in the present set of minor skirmishes, it ultimately sets the stage for loss of the larger campaign. Dhaluza (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me to sy that, because the language is in the NPOV page, it has to be here as well. It would make more sense to rephrase it from NPOV, since it isn't really correct. I have reworded the sentence on this page to point out that NPOV is a foundation issue, which I believe is the motivation for the sentence anyway. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's important to note that the Foundation issues page is edited by everyday users, and, being on Meta, is probably less scrutinized than the policy pages here on Wikipedia. It was originally authored by User:UninvitedCompany with no apparent mandate save his own (fairly sound) sense of how Wikipedia functions. So you're building a house of cards by leaning on that particular page as the ultimate authority on Wikipedia's rules.

I do accept what is written on that page as mostly true -- though "essentially considered to be beyond debate" overstates the case. Others have taken fault with that statement as well on the talk page. It is also partly contradicted by the opening note:

TODO: Over time, the opinion of the community does evolve slowly. Some changes have occurred which still need to be integrated in this document.

The contradiction is no particular problem, though. We do have several rules and/or principles that are quite firmly embraced, by both the community and the Foundation; it is just a misstatement to say that they are "beyond debate". Our position on these issues may evolve over time (semi-protection puts the lie to point #2, for instance), and we are always free to discuss and reevaluate them.

So, I am afraid in your quest for bright lines, you have wandered down another dead end. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not by authority. Please come to terms with this. You are of course free to dispute that: debate is an integral part of the consensus process.--Father Goose (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] can only be edited to ...

I don't understand the motivation behind 'The policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and presentation of those principles.' Subject to consensus, all pages can be edited in any way whatsoever. Moreover, practically any edit could be justified as attempting to improve the application or presentation of the principles. So I am not sure what edits are being restricted, if any, nor what the basis for that restriction is. Could someone explain it to me? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It means that they can't be edited to change the spirit of the policies, only the letter. You wouldn't be able to edit the NPOV policy to say that NPOV sometimes doesn't apply; and even if you did, it would only make the page void. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No edit can change the spirit of a policy. I am interested in hearing a more convincing justification for this sentence, since as I pointed out it seems either vacuously true (that you can oly edit a policy to improve the policy) or vacuously false (in the sense that all pages can be edited in any way subject only to consensus). — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits can definitely attempt to change the spirit. We had a group of editors try a few months ago to add to V that only peer-reviewed material could be used in articles about certain subjects - science, medicine, and history, as I recall. Given that a lot of criticism is found in non-peer-reviewed (but still high quality) sources, that edit would have contradicted the NPOV policy. Therefore, even if it had been allowed to stand, it wouldn't have counted. It would simply have made the page null and void, or that part of it anyway. That's what that sentence refers to -- that the written page must be in keeping with the spirit of the policy, and edits to the page should aid the expression of that spirit. In other words, the policy pages are not open for editing that would undermine the principles behind the policies. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If consensus changed to require peer reviewed sources, that edit would be fine. It is perfetcly possible that consensus might change significantly in the future, in that way or other ways. So the problem with the edit you describe to WP:V is not the spirit of the policy, it's the lack of consensus for the edit. The problem with the language you re-inserted here is that nothing written here could prevent the addition you describe if there was actually consensus to make the change. The spirit of our policies changes as consensus changes (that is, if there is a difference between them), and the language of the policies lags somewhat behind. The entire system is predicated on the ability to rewrite policy over time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "If consensus changed to require peer reviewed sources, that edit would be fine." No, it wouldn't, because it would violate NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's at least conceivable that consensus could find a way to fit NPOV with peer-reviewed sources, as the understanding of NPOV and sourcing changes. You're assuming that the current interpretations are permanent, it seems. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so -- the interpretations can change. This would be bad if it undermined the primacy of NPOV, but okay if it merely modified the specifics of the idea (either the principles or the rule itself). WP:ATT is a good example of both a rule and the underlying principles being modified (or at least tweaked -- but of course not discarded). That initiative didn't succeed, but under different circumstances it might have; the ideas behind it were not necessarily wrong, even though the whole thing represented major changes to core content policies.

If for some reason the consensus for having an encyclopedia-wide neutral point of view ever disappeared, Wikipedia would be doomed, and it wouldn't matter what rules we retained, on paper or otherwise. We'd have to close the site and become Citizendium. But I'm not too worried that'll happen. Consensus is the driving force for all our rules and their enforcement, and we should emphasize that as much as we can.--Father Goose (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The underlying principles weren't modified at all in ATT, FG, and it wasn't any kind of major change to the core content policies. Which principle do you think was tweaked? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I changed the sentence to "Edits to these pages should be made carefully, to ensure they agree with the spirit of the policies as interpreted by the community." I think this matches the motivation given by SlimVirgin above. The previous language seemed to suggest that it would be impermissible to rewrite WP:V into WP:ATT; it said that WP:V could only be edited in certain limited ways. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The changes made by Slimvirgin had already been tried before by Jossi, and they had been discussed and ultimately consensus was to reject that change, afacit: see #Wording from WP:NPOV, so I have undone that wording.

Just to re-iterate, I believe the wording in question violates the foundation issues (preamble/notes, #1, #3.) , secondly there are inherent problems with defining a policy as being non-negotiable, (such as for instance making it impossible to refactor items into things like a more general Attribution policy) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus you speak of. The place to reject that wording is in NPOV and the other policies wherein the statement is made. And just where did that wording originate from? Dreadstar † 18:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your points are completely answered by the first two comments in the "see" anchor link provided in the comment above. References are an integral part of a wiki-based discussion, and it is often important to check them, else you may miss very large portions of the discussion. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have been unclear; my second 'point' was a rhetorical question, the first was to identify where the consensus was that, 1) strikes the NPOV wording from this article, and 2} strkes the wording from all policies, which would be a defacto consensus that covers #1. Dreadstar † 03:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The opposite question is when there was consensus to add the NPOV language (which I, and others I believe, hold is simply incorrect) to this article. I have not advocated removing the language from NPOV yet. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is an overview of Policy and Guidelines, so I wouldn't think including or summarizing some of the more interesting language that is common to other policies would be a problem. Dreadstar † 03:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll grant you that that language is interesting, but not that's it's correct. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? The wording in NPOV about the negotiability of the Principles of Wikipedia?

"The principles upon which they are based are strongly supported; with the NPOV policy regarded as non-negotiable and cannot be disregarded by a consensus of editors on a particular article or policy talk page. Edits to these pages should be made carefully, to ensure they agree with the spirit of the policies as interpreted by the community."?

or the actual core content policy statement in WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR?:

"The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles."

Dreadstar † 04:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If so, then this isn’t the place to dispute those statements, this article should reflect the important aspects of the other policy articles. And those statements are surely important parts.

I’m not so sure that any size group of editors on Wikipedia has the power to change the Wikipedia core principles any more than they have the ability via consensus to change the name of the project from Wikipedia to something else. Dreadstar † 04:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I generally try to use diplomatic language, but I think somewhat plainer langauge might help;-):

Some fine-as-in-RTFM nomic-playing mentally-deficient-person decided that it might be a fun idea to declare certain policies non-negotiable, thereby making it impossible to ever fix them again in future, if read by naive people who actually would believe such bovine-waste-product to be true.

This fine-as-in-RTFM person never considered that maybe such tactics might propagate throughout the project namespace and mess up other aspects of wikipedia. After all, they were playing nomic, and all they cared about was winning their point.

Now it seems silly to force this page to start pushing this lack-of-sense just because some nomic player won a round elsewhere. Also, we are not advocating removing this language all at once. And we are not demanding that everyone editing other pages should come here to establish a consensus to put it back either. See? We're even being nice to the fine folks who got us into this fine mess.;-)

Those core principles are totally negotiable, especially when they contain language that contradicts the foundation issues. (now good luck negotiating those... though otoh, you can certainly try, at least!). But we need to fix that one step at a time.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(←) Re Dreadstar. I do think this talk page is the place to object to language being added to this policy page. It isn't the place to complain about language that is already in other policy pages, but I am not removing the language from other policy pages (yet) (or rephrasing it, which is all that I think would be necessary). As Kim says, it isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. I do believe that we (Wikipedia) have the power to change our core principles, and to change the name of our project, given broad enough consensus.

SlimVirgin's explanation of the importance of this language does imply why it might have been added (I don't know who added it, and haven't looked). If a policy already says that it can't be edited, that makes it much easier to brush off "well-meaning" editors who try to change things from the status quo. The problem is that we are supposed to change our policies over time as our understanding changes, and take the time to discuss issues with those well-meaning editors rather than brushing them off. The "no editing" clause is bad because it limits the ability to develop policy through discussion and consensus building, which is a foundation principle. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, this talk page is certainly the place to object to language being added to this policy page. But what is the very purpose of this policy? To give an overview, a bit of history and provide understanding of all the policies and guidelines. To leave out something that is a key element of the core content policies from this page seems to be an odd way to dispute that language. I think it's interesting that the explanation for the wording being in WP:V, NOR and NPOV to be that some rogue editor 'got his way' against what should be the 'real language and meaning' presented there. And now, we've gone from Policy based on Principle to Principle based on Foundation Issues. It's a strange and wonderful path we examine here, even though so many bovine appear to have littered it while lowing their way along it...;) Is there a listing of the Foundation Issues?

I don't think Jossi, Slim, or I have suggested a "no editing" clause, the issue is whether the principles behind the three core content policies are negotiable by editors. I don't think they are, at least on the level of Wikipedia editor consensus. If we want to change NPOV to say, "only critical comments about subjects will be allowed in the 'pedia henceforth"...does anyone really think a consensus of editors would override that core, key principle? Nor could we rewrite policy to that effect. While certain things can be changed by consensus, that consensus must follow the principles. Heck, I don't want to appear to be bucking the system, I'm just trying to gain a better understanding and present what I'm seeing. I'm not sure if I'm going around and around the same circle..so I'll leave it off and see what the others have to say! Dreadstar † 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The specific sentence at issue is "Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles." This has been reinserted on this page several times, despite concerns of quite a few editors higher on this talk page.

I don't believe the overall purpose of this page is to give an overview of other policies. We have other pages (WP:5P, for example) to do that. The purpose of this page is to explain how policies and guidelines are regarded by wikipedia editors, and describe the (informal) process by which pages become policies and guidelines. I do think that the specific section on policies could give a more thorough overview of our policies, so I'll expand it. That will also decrease the strange weight that the section currently gives to NPOV. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the disputed language is correct. I may have been referring to Foundation issues as principles, but since they are considered "beyond debate", for me, this seems to have the same meaning as does "non-negotiable", and as things that are not subject to consensus. Unless it means "beyond debate until consensus changes them"...but, consensus sorta has a debate component..so.. Dreadstar † 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and our policies have authority only to the extend they reflect consensus. So no policy or principle is beyond debate or permanently enthroned. It is more accurate to say that things reflect current consensus to varying degrees. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't exist in a vacuum, ruling all it surveys. I highly doubt consensus will override the principles behind NPOV, BLP or V...just to mention a few. If it does, the 'pedia won't be the same project - an extension of what SlimVirgin pointed out above. She's absolutely right about this. Dreadstar † 22:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can, has, does, did. The guidance on biographies of living persons and guidance on verifiability are not essential to wikipedia, as we have done without for the longest time. BLP is only important because of our google rank. People used to use more discussion, instead of strict verifiability, and this allowed for a slightly different balance of information, that was not much worse than it was today. NPOV has several flaws, that will need to be fixed, sooner or later. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Different angle

Let me try to explain what I mean from a slightly different angle. The principle behind NPOV is that Wikipedia presents all significant views fairly and without bias. Can consensus change this principle so that articles can be totally biased, giving only one point of view? Can WP:V be changed by consensus to say that the only direction on verifying a source for content is to give a general disclaimer on the main page saying something along the lines of "go to your local library or buy a newspaper"...essentially, find your own sources for what we're saying here. Can the principle behind WP:BLP be changed by consensus of editors to allow unsourced libelous material? To my view, those principles and the basis for those policies are truly non-negotiable...and mandatory. Dreadstar † 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This applies to the principle only. BLP at present goes far beyond unsourced libelous material to unsourced contentious material. A change to restrict it to material libelous in the US would not be disruptive and would be negotiable--nor would a proposal to extend it beyond those who are recent dead, as is the case in some countries. a change to NPOV to require the inclusion of even fringe viewpoints similarly would be negotiable. A change to V saying we could use unpublished but available sources would be negotiable. (I do not necessarily mean to advocate any of these--I am just providing examples). None of these affect the core of the principles. DGG (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In essence, that's what I'm saying. While we can change some of the more superficial apects of policy, the core of it must remain true. Perhaps I was unclear in my "library" example, but right now we do have to identify the source - whether it be online or offline, library, web site, newspaper, etc. The situation I'm trying to convey that goes against WP:V is one where we don't provide any sources at all..and just say "go find it yourself, Mr. Reader, we don't have to prove or show anything in order to add this content per policy". Same for the BLP example, tweaking the surface isn't the same as saying "add whatever content you like, regardless of laws or morality". Dreadstar † 01:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem sentence

In the lead, we have "There is disagreement between those who believe rules should be stated explicitly, and those who believe that written rules are inadequate to cover every variation of problematic editing or behavior."

It doesn't really make sense because everyone on WP believes some rules should be stated explicitly (even if it's only IAR), and no one believes that written rules are adequate to cover every variation of problematic editing or behavior.

I went to copy edit it, then realized I didn't understand what it was trying to say. Any ideas? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people believe that written policy is be prescriptive, some think it is descriptive. For example, the extent to which deletions must follow the deletion process is up in the air. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that what it's saying? Ok, thank you. It's a strange dichotomy, because of course they are both descriptive and prescriptive. If they were either one or the other, they'd be useless. If prescriptive, but not descriptive, it would mean everyone was ignoring them. If descriptive, but not prescriptive, there'd be no reason for anyone to pay attention.

Anyway, the language -- e.g. "advisory," and "a standard that all users should follow" -- is clearly prescriptive. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The ordinary meaning people attribute to "prescriptive" is not "advisory" but "mandatory". — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never known anyone to understand the word that way. A prescriptive statement is something like "oranges are good, eat oranges." A descriptive statement is "oranges are round." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that mandatory statements are, of course, prescriptive, but prescriptive statements need not be mandatory. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

All wikipedia guidance is either descriptive or it is meaningless. This fact is stressed by Ignore all rules, which (as I constantly need to remind people) is policy. "It's not just a good idea, it's the law!".

Even if that were not the case: If something is descriptive you should ignore it *less* than if it is prescriptive. Which of these are you more likely to ignore?

• "Please do not cut this rope, even if it is in the way"
• "This rope is holding up an anvil, if you cut the rope, the anvil will fall on your head, and you shall die. It is recommended that you do not cut this rope."

Or compare (hover mouse over sign for interpretation):

Which sign are you more likely to obey? :-P

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's no doubt, at high-speed on the autobahn, the sign on the left with the Big Bold Red Circle. The "blue informative" one is likely to get lost amongst all the other blue-informatonal "guidance/advisory" signs that tell us about the next rest stop or gasoline station. Dreadstar † 18:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, they actually tend to show up pretty clearly on high-speed roads.

Even so, I'll grant that they actually do appear to use the red signs for both meanings on the actual german autobahn. (although my most favoritest speed limit sign EVER does show a blue square. {"Welcome to Germany. Please observe the following speed limits: Within city limits: 50 km/h; outside city limits: 100km/h; autobahn: We advise 130 km/h"})

On my way to wikimania in frankfurt, I saw one such sign with "80" on it, and assumed the system was the same as in .nl, even though all the Germans were braking[*] without any police in sight (big clue!). As it turns out, Germany is not really a country of obedient people; rather, they were all slowing down for some dangerous road works. At that point I empirically confirmed that my ABS worked just fine at 160 km/h ;-). This is also where I learned why the majority of germans DO tend to go 130 on the autobahn much of the time.

In the Netherlands, the blue square is used on freeway off-ramps on rare occaisions when there is a sharp turn ahead. Even when I was rather cheekier than I am today, I still always slowed down for those signs, even though I occasionally "forgot" some of the red ones. ;-) And that's where my argument stems from.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC) [*] Just across the border to the west, fuel is more expensive, and people generally coast down to the speed limit, rather than apply brakes.

lol..! (oh, no, what have I started??) Too funny, Kim..! Dreadstar † 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defining consensus

The following was added to this page today" "Wide consensus does not need to be declared as such, in any official capacity. Acceptance and performance of a general practice over time by many people indicates de facto consensus, unless challenged." Why do we need to redefine consensus here? We already have a page which describes our consensus process; that should suffice. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent summary of how consensus operates. We could expand on it at the consensus policy page, insofar that it isn't covered yet. At any rate I am SO keeping it! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"I am SO keeping it!" What does that mean? Is this your page? Maybe we should have a discussion. Adding this was bold and now it has been challenged; this is how we currently form consensus at WP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Wide consensus does not need to be declared as such, in any official capacity. Acceptance and performance of a general practice over time by many people indicates de facto consensus, unless challenged."

This is almost a dictdef, or a trivial derivation from such. If it is nowhere else on wikipedia, then this is only because everyone thought it too obvious to write down. It explains or at least clarifies where over 90% of our written guidance comes from, in just two sentences. That it was not on the page before is a horrible omission.

Is there any reason not to correct that omission now?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, but for now let's get some other input please. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the place for KB's proposed language is WP:CONSENSUS, not here, and only if consensus to add is reached on THAT talk page first. This page is supposed to be a summary. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it because from what I've seen, we don't ever have to have some special declaration that "Policy is live when people agree theres a consensus for it". It's "Policy is live when someone writes down the practice that nearly everyone has been already doing," or "Someone wrote a great idea, and everyone began doing it." Do we have a policy consensus-meter that I don't know about? :) My entry here was to make the description of how policy forms accurate. Lawrence Cohen 06:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

. . . and again, I think the place to do that is at WP:CONSENSUS, not here, and refer to that page from here, which is already being done. In other words, the change is one that this page does not need. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. All pages are descriptive. We don't need to first edit one to change the other, or first change the other to edit the one. All pages should reflect the current consensus. It doesn't matter which gets updated first.

If you do not agree with the wording itself for some reason, please come forward and provide your reasoning. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, please don't invent new procedures on the spot. --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Consensus is a page about consensus. This is a page that describes how policy forms. I just described how policy forms. Lawrence Cohen 06:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning why I don't agree with the proposed wording is that the following wording is sufficient: "Wikipedia policy is formed by consensus." UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that wording sounds less accurate to me. It is Consensus that has primacy. Lawrence Cohen's wording explains that in a very clear way. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The reasons I reverted

I just reverted the good-faith change made by User:CBM. Other than my strong belief that Process is important and so for policy pages a significant edit like this one should have its language pretty much agreed to on the talk page first, I have several specific issues: 1)I don't like the introduction of a hierarchical "most important policies" concept, 2) I don't know what "global consensus" and "local consensus" mean - I have a guess, but I think we need to define such amorphous concepts if we want to start using them (or better yet, not start using them), and most improtantly, 3) the text that was added does not address the fundamental problem with the text that was removed: a confusion between the Neutral Point of view foundation issue (a nine word phrase), and the specific NPOV policy page in English Wikipedia. I hope people agree we can continue making consensus-based changes/refinements/improvements to the NPOV page in English WP, and still have the page be consistent with the foundation issue. Hope this helps as an explanation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Several of the concerns you cited can be resolved by just editing the text to improve it. I'll try to do that, and everyone else is as always able to continue improving it. Editing rather than reverting is the fastest way to find compromise language. My impression is that the only reason that NPOV is specifically mentioned at all here is because the person who added that language feels it is particularly important. I think it's very odd to mention just one polisy, but none of the others.

PS. I have seen this idea more and more often lately - that everything has to be hammered out on the talk page before the policy/guideline/article/etc can be changed at all. That opinion leads to an erosion of the wiki process, another foundation principle, it contradicts WP:BOLD, and it makes it very hard to tell if there is actually agreement for language, because until the main page is changed, many editors don't feel a need to comment. The policy template is part of the problem, as it discourages editors from editing on a wiki. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick note pointing out two things: The "process is important" essay documents the minority dissenting opinion against actual policy. Your statement about requiring talk page discussion first runs counter to Wikipedia:Consensus. I might cover your core points in a further comment, if I have time later. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, I've already learned my lesson - I shouldn't try contributing to this page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Contributing to the page is encouraged. You could have simply edited my text to address your concerns, however, rather than reverting it, which would have addressed your concerns much more directly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Carl, I'm really sorry to take another opposing view, but did you really think through that comment? Your premise assumes that some change is mandatory for the process to be fair. If US perceived the status quo as the best course, how can he edit your change and maintain the status quo. While your suggestion sounds polite and compromising it is fallacious. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Then the status quo has no consensus, and United Statesian will have to find a compromise. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Just because one editor believes a change is needed has no bearing on the consensus, unless you define consensus as unanimity, which you clearly refute at the Consensus talk page. So what are you talking about? US followed the Consensus flowchart, and Carl continued to follow it by discussing. I only object to Carl criticizing US following the process. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason US supplies for making the revert is that he wished to halt the process in question (as he does not agree with it). Is that correct? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate you incessantly on the minutia. You make unsupported comments, and then when confronted, you side step the issue and throw back an irrelevant question. I think that you are playing a lot of games and just trying to wear down your critics. Good day! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. as you are no longer participating, de-facto we will not take your opinion further into account any further when forming consensus on this page.--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get off with that comment? You are really a piece of work. Will you stoop to any level to win you points now? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I am stating the full consequences of your actions, so that you will not be able to accuse me of disingenuity at a later date. AKA: CYA :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why wait? I think that we are already there. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I also welcome constructive participation. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please stay, we can't improve things unless people question them. And perhaps some day we may even actually require talk page discussions before major changes. In my personal view, WP:BOLD is the way to run a sterile debating society, rather than create content (or policy). DGG (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The other way around right? If you don't make a change to a wikipage, a wikipage will not be changed, and no content will be added. Therefore, if you want to add content, and make a change to a wikipage, you must change the wikipage. Therefore WP:BOLD leads to content, and debate on the talk page does not (as, de-facto, debate on a talk page does not make changes). Um, that's very trivial, isn't it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the distinction between BRD and D. It isnt trivial, it would be a complete difference in the way we work--and in fact, on most policy pages, anyone boldly changing the policy is almsot automatically reverted. As a way of getting attention, I can't think of any way more conducive to hostility--it immediately arouse every combattative instinct.Sure, the reasonable among us know how to repress it, but I think a discussion that starts out as a discussion is more likely to succeed in difficult situations.DGG (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with you to quite a degree, in the sense that initial edits using BRD can indeed cause friction (therefore, a user of BRD needs to be very good at diplomacy)

However, BRD is not a normal editing method. You use it to find people to talk with, and you use it to break open pages that are not being edited by Consensus at that point in time. Once the normal consensus and wiki-editing are happening again, making edits to pages is quite rapid and effortless.

Note that many wikis don't have talk pages at all. If there is no editing going on on the actual wikipage, then you are likely dealing with a pathological case. (A lesser wiki would have died at that point). --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic sentence

I see this is back:

"There is disagreement between those who believe rules should be stated explicitly, and those who believe that written rules are inadequate to cover every variation of problematic editing or behavior."

The sentence makes no sense. No one believes rules should never be stated explicitly. No one believes that written rules are adequate to cover every variation of problematic editing or behavior.

It is a false dichotomy. A straw man. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Some users,including myself, believe we should focus more on principles and less on specific rules. I believe that sentiment is one of the reasons we write policies and guidelines with "should" language rather than "must" language, because they are intended to be a description of best practices rather than a list of rules. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

I don't like that new language guidelines "may typically have a weaker consensus but this is not always the case". It's sounds a bit like pushing the envelope. I'd rather just see something like "guidelines have weaker consensus than policy" maybe with an additional phrase like "but they are still agree to by the majority of editors" or whatever... but right now it makes it sounds like there are some guidelines that are *enforced* as if they were equal with policy. I just don't think that it so. If it were they would *be* policy, not just seperate but equal with it. Wjhonson (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT, vs WP:TITLE. I rest my case. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

guidelines have weaker consensus than policy is incorrect. Both policies and guidelines carry the consensus of the community. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jossi, strength of consensus seems a strange way to separate out Guidelines from Policy. Dreadstar † 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines and Policy are already two different things. The language is only attempting to clarify — how. Wjhonson (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? The division is entirely artificial, afaik. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You have two different words to describe the exact same thing? Guidelines have always been optional. We would *like* everyone to follow them, that doesn't mean we are *requiring* everyone to follow them. Even if they have consensus, they are not imposed under sanction. If any admin is imposing sanction for not following "guidelines" then they are failing to understand the nuance.Wjhonson (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

While generally a guideline does not need as much as a consensus, there is no limiting factor preventing it from gaining more. The distinction is on the enforceability rather than the consensus. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 04:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonsen: I already demonstrated that that is incorrect. For instance: it is quite possible to be banned for violating WP:POINT (Guideline), but I don't think anyone has ever been sanctioned simply for violating the naming conventions (policy) alone. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there other guidelines with the same banning potential as violations of WP:POINT? Do all conditions under WP:POINT carry the same potential..or is it when a violation of WP:POINT crosses the line into disruption and vandalism or other more serious violations? Dreadstar † 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are several more guidelines with banning or desysopping potential. If you actually care about such things, you might find it alarming that some pages marked "essay" can also lead to such trouble, if maliciously ignored. Conversely, some policies can deliberately be broken in the most disruptive way possible, without sanctions.

I admit that this mess used to be much more pronounced than it is today, but it is still that way, simply due to the way consensus works, I guess.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I have this terrible habit of actually reading what I talk about ;-)

(Outdent) if you were banned for violating WP:POINT, protest it.Wjhonson (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There definitely are pages tagged as "guidelines" that are enforced as if they were policy. I was involved in an arbitration case in which the committee made clear that if someone was found to have violated WP:POINT, sanctions could be imposed. (They ended up not "convicting" anyone, but there was no question in anyone's mind that WP:POINT was considered a sanctionable principle.) So you could "protest" all you want, but I don't you would get very far with the ArbCom, if that is who you protested to. WP:Harassment is another example; it is tagged as a guideline, but I'm pretty sure that people get blocked etc. for violating it. So in those two cases, I do not think there is much of a difference between a policy and a guideline. Or is that these two pages have the wrong tag? 6SJ7 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• My impression is not that there is less consensus required for a guideline, just a wider lattitude in the expectation that it be followed (obeyed). I think that guidelines need just as much consensus as a policy. Sadly, I think that in practice the guidelines carry the weight of policy, and that the former is a euphamism for the latter. One of the few reasons for deletion of an article is lack of notability and the notability infrastructure is a series of guidelines. What is more serious than an deleting an article? --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think guidelines carry essentially the same weight, in terms of enforcement, as policy. Just saying "But it's only a guideline" isn't a good reason to ignore one any more than "because it's a policy" is a reason to follow a policy. I don't think this is sad, however. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) The tag at the top of WP:POINT states that it's not set in stone and there can be some rare exceptions or something like that. I disagree that "it's only a guideline" is not a good argument. Those people who feel the need to enforce guidelines should offer to discuss on the talk page making it into policy. Otherwise the entire structures only serves to confuse the editors not the help them understand how to negotiate the system. If the internal system is self-contradictory, how are people who operate using logical approaches, to understand clearly how to use it? The reality is, the system is constantly in flux. Policies in general were established as non-negotiable in their generality, but obviously changeable in their specificity. That is, specifically what we *mean* by verification can change and does as we encounter new situations not clearly covered or covered ambiguously. There is one at the pump right now that may be redirected to V talk hopefully. *If* Arbcom imposed sanctions for the *sole* affront of violating a guideline that would be interesting wouldn't it? Typically an issue doesn't get to ArbCom unless many things have been violated, so I wouldn't even see it as likely that they encounter a case with only Guide violations. Wjhonson (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has banned or heavily sanctioned people for violations of WP:POINT, afaicr. That's why I used that as my example, naturally. Why else mention it?

Also, I have never heard of "policies being established" as such, and never as non-negotiable. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not so sure that levels of sanctions for violations is a good measure for judging the sameness or difference between Policy and Guideline. It's really the concepts (principles) behind them that are important. The principles behind the policies, and thus the core, central concepts and spirit of the policies - regardless of actual wording of the policies - is what is non-negotiable. That is, after all, what IAR actually means. Dreadstar † 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So "Ignore All Rules" means "You must not ever ignore the rules"? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh..now that would be a nice trick, wouldn't it. I meant that the spirit or principle behind the policy is what's really important. If the letter of the policy (even if put there by consensus) is contrary to the spirit behind it...you should still make sure to do what's right for the project, even if it means ignoring the letter of the policy. That's at the core of IAR, and why these central principles are truly not subject to consensus. Dreadstar † 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar’s last edit “this is far more accurate” is not accurate. Some guidelines, such as WP:N, are enforced firmly at AfD, in contrast to some policies, such as WP:IAR or WP:EP, which are far more “advisory” in nature. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Guidelines are advisory" is a far more accurate way of describing their nature, especially when comparing with Policies. As for this:

"Guidelines typically may have a weaker consensus than policies, although this is not always the case"

Are guidelines truly "typically" weaker in consensus? Where is that from? (perhaps Kim has the stats?). And saying that something is "typical although not always the case" seems a bit redundant. I'd suggest (if true) saying:

"Guidelines are regarded as advisory, and in general have a weaker consensus than policies."

Dreadstar † 07:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar, you’ve not addressed my examples which contradict your position. Do you consider WP:N advisory, and consider WP:EP more than advisory? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My view is that guidelines should "guide" or "advise" editors on how things should be done, giving descriptive information. Policies should do more than just advise or guide, they should make a stronger, more prescriptive statement on what needs to be done, something that should be followed. Rather along the lines of "mandatory" versus "advisory."

If we're going to shift from a guideline being advisory to something stronger, that's fine by me. Essays can be advisory, Guidelines can be standards that should be followed, and Policies can be considered to be mandatory. Dreadstar † 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we will need to work towards some compromise language on that point. I am not comfortable classifying polices as "mandatory", nor guidelines as "advisory". — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I know..I know..this has been an ongoing discussion. SmokeyJoe was asking about my position, but my position is also subject to compromise...naturally...:) Dreadstar † 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we all are in rough agreement in that: It would be nice if there were a simple difference between policies and guidelines. The confusion seems historically based. The very old policies tend to advisory. New things tend to be more prescriptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that redundant though? Aren't all Policies, guidelines and essays advice? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice along the lines of: "You’re advised to follow these rules if you’d like to avoid seeing your contributions deleted". "You’re advised to not make personal attacks if you don’t want to get banned". I don’t think newcomers read “advised” with this degree of force. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree that guidelines should be described as "advisory" if policies are not also described as such. The term suggests that users are free to ignore guidelines, which isn't right. If they were only advisory, "I don't feel like it" would be an acceptable argument for not following them, which it isn't. I removed the sentence for the time being; it isn't really necessary in the lede, and we may be able to compromise on saying nothing rather than on saying they are or are not advisory. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, why not "Guidelines serve as advisory guides to Wikipedia, and while ignoring them may lead to problems on Wikipedia, are not policy. They should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception." This is mostly lifted from Template:Guideline. I do think they should be labeled as advisory since that is what they have been since they were created. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 15:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't find them advisory, though. If you don't have a good reason, you should follow the practices outlined in the guidelines. The situation with policies is exactly the same: if you don't have a good reason, you should follow the practices they outline. I would be happy with a compromise that reminds everyone that both guidelines and policies are advisory, but not with a compromise that implicitly inflates the importance of policies by explicitly lowering the importance of guidelines. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Even the choices of the words "guideline" and "policy" give a strong indication that one is a guide, and the other is a rule. I think this is an important distinction made in the spirit of WP:CREEP where we minimize our rules, and minimize the enforcement of rules to only what is needed. I have no objection to wording the states policy can be ignored if it is done in conjunction with IAR, but guidelines are really just meant to be guides. I think the whole idea of the guideline class is to include information that while describing best practices, is not a set of rules to must be followed short of IAR. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 17:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason we spend time building consensus for guidelines is because we expect others to follow them, edit them, or have a good reason for not taking one of those two options. If guidelines were truly optional, on the other hand, nobody would spend the effort to develop them (or we would just call them essays). The historical choice of the terms "policy" and "guideline" is unfortunate, but it's too late to change I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think that an advisory guideline can do a lot of good, and that people still would spend the effort to develop them. The distinction between an essay and a guideline is that there is a consensus by the community that this is a good idea, whereas an essay need only be seen as a good idea by at least one person. I admit the distinction is a little muddy due to the influence of IAR and the fact that everything short of the m:Foundation issues are mutable. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 20:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that we disagree here, I think that finding some sort of compromise language, or compromising to remain silent on this point, is a path forward. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines can always be suggested for promotion. It's happened before. It's a slippery slope to believe that guidelines and policy are identical. Next you'll be telling me that Jimbo's thoughts and policy are identical! Ok wait... Wjhonson (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is easier:

• make an edit here to demote all guidelines
• promote all guidelines
• Ignore all rules anyway. ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I nominate Kim Bruning for my just created WP:Evil Wikipedian of the Day Award. I know all right-thinking people agree with me. On a more serious note, (*stop laughing*), I think IAR by consensus is applied *very* rarely (unless you are Jimbo). Promote all guidelines would fail and you'd probably get banned for being disruptive and trout-like. Rather we should have some RfC's for promoting *particular* guidelines that seem to enjoy more-than-adequate consensus. The distinction is being blurred *because* high-consensus has been reached on certain guidelines which haven't yet been promoted. The quick fix is promotion of those. Wjhonson (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"I am honoured to recieve this award. I want to thank my manager, my staff, and all the little people out there!"

 :-P

So, like, isn't what you're proposing to do the most pessimal path thinkable (maximum resistance and minimal gain?). All you're really doing is swapping out some tags. So after months of work, and megabyte after megabyte of wikidrama, you end up changing a couple of hundred bytes(bytes!) on the actual wiki. Does that really seem like a good idea to you? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Silliness. The most pessimal (is that even a word?) path thinkable would be to start an RfC to out you as an alien shill planted either with or against the consensus of the illuminati. But I digress. So instead I shall start a new section (cf Promotion) in a second to address your most cogent rebuttal. Wjhonson (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do policies and guidelines have to conform to the manual of style?

I had someone on here tell me that the policy and guidelines pages has a much looser style requirement than actual pages. In short, that Wikipedia:Manual of Style does not apply to policy and guideline pages. Is this true? I wouldn't think it would be, but then I couldn't find anything that said policy and guideline pages had any style requirements. Fredsmith2 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The belief that we can write Wiki-space pages without the need to obey the requirements of the English language sounds awfully pointy to me. Did you have something more specific in mind? Wjhonson (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple things. 1) A lot of the policy pages look horrible and tacky, because they're way over-bolded. If the style guide applies to the policy pages, we should get rid of lots and lots of the bolding on the policy pages. In my opinion, the policy pages are some of the weakest pages on Wikipedia, as far as profesionalism in their presentation. If the policy pages were article pages, the bolding would get stripped out very, very fast, but the bolding in the policy pages seems to have persisted for a while, and may even be increasing.

2) Could we get some guideline written down somewhere that WP:STYLE applies to the Wiki-space pages as well? And, that it's somewhat relaxed for talk pages and user pages? In short, a guideline for where it does and where it doesn't apply. Fredsmith2 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a great idea to me. Why don't you start a discussion there and we'll see where it goes. Wjhonson (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For cross-wiki assist, Fred has taken my sage advice and started discussion here. Please come and contribute. Wjhonson (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Connecting the dots is not assuming, yes or no?

Although it started a little rough, our discussion [here] has come to a simple matter of considering Connecting the Dots to be assumption or not. To resume, out discussion is regarding a Continuity Issue with Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and the fact that in the series, Sarah is very much alive in the year 1999 when she should have died back in 1997 from Leukemia.

Now we know that the series takes another timelime after Terminator 2, avoiding the events of Terminator 3. The only problem is that changing the future does not change the past. In T3, John Connor stated that his mother dies from Leukemia after being diagnosed with it 3 years ago. Now for the facts:

-T3 takes place in 1997
-Sarah gets diagnosed with cancer in 1994
-T2 takes place in 1995

I don't know about you guys, but if the Sarah Connor in the series didn't have cancer in 1999, that's not a Continuity Issue, I don't know what it is. Mistake or purposely done, the writers ignored the fact that the main character was suppose to die 2 years before the series began.

Duhman0009 (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest asking this quesiton on the original research talk page instead of here. This page is for general discussion of creating policy and guidelines. Chaz ^Beckett 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Promotion

I would like to hear some suggestions for Wiki-space articles, currently marked as guidelines, which would be better to discuss as candidates to promote to policy. I will ignore silly responses. Thanks and have a great day!Wjhonson (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't say I didn't warn you. --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Experimental

Please see Wikipedia:Experiment, Template:Brainstorming and Template:Experimental. I was thinking that some of this content could be moved into Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals, and some of it could become part of the template documentation. On this page, we might briefly mention the optional Brainstorming and Experimental stages, which are intended as predecessors to a formal proposal which will be accepted or rejected after a period of debate. The rationale is that some new ideas might be immediately exposed to withering criticism and have the {{rejected}} slapped on there prematurely. These other templates basically say, "Chill out, we're not about to adopt this as policy, right now it's just a partially-formed idea that we're trying to get in an acceptable shape to where it could be a useful addition to policy. We'll put the {{proposed}} tag up when it appears ready for prime-time." It's kinda like how you wouldn't put an article on WP:FAC before subjecting it to WP:PR first; it would get shot down and you'd be wasting everyone's time. Ron Duvall (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with {{brainstorming}}, but {{experimental}} in its current form makes me very uneasy. I've commented further at template talk:experimental.--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foundation policy

Recently in a feisty debate on Wiki-en, someone mentioned that our policies must conform *under* Foundation Policies. I have never heard this, in all the time I've been here. I've always been under the impression that we set our own policies by our own community consensus. Can anyone point to the exact area where this is state or contradicted? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Namespaces of policies & guidelines

I notice that a couple of User pages are tagged as being guidelines. I assumed that all "real" policies and guidelines would be in the Wikipedia namespace, but I can't find anything to that effect. Is it appropriate for pages in non-Wikipedia namespaces (User, Talk, Help, Template, etc.) to be tagged as guidelines of policies? Libcub (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked into it. They appear to either be drafts of guidelines or accidental inclusions into the category. I corrected a few of them, but I don't think there's much danger of people treating "guidelines" in user space as real.--Father Goose (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What has been lost

This line was taken from the edits back in 2002 "Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia--indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to become a reliable resource." I feel that we have lost this spirit, and we re-incorporate the above line back into policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Anti-Trivia

Hello if you hate Trivia sections on Wikipages you should support Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Anti-Trivia --Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Location question

My apologies if this may have been asked and answered before...Is it possible to link the article Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines to the main page? I've gotten messages from editors who want to know how to start, but aside from just jumping in, they don't know how. I can't say I'm not personally sympathetic to this, as it took me over a month from my first edit to find guideline articles. The wikilinks when you start an article should be written better, it shows the basics of how to do an article, but now the policies that are behind those basics. Thank you in advance. Leobold1 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The first "policy" pages I would want a newbie to read are Be bold, the five pillars, and Understanding Ignore all rules. Everything that comes after that -- including what's on this page -- you can learn as you go along.--Father Goose (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymity and outing

I'm trying to locate the policy that explicitely states that contributors are promised as much anonymity as possible but I'm having trouble locating it. In which policy does it state that Wikipedia editors are promised anonymity? Where does it state that outing is wrong? WP:Anonymity and WP:Outing are essays, not policies or guidelines. WP:BLOCK states that blocks can be given for disclosing personal information, but doesn't state what is considered personal information as opposed to raising allegations of COI. So, which policy is used by admins when warning or blocking someone for outing another editor? Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING, which is a different page from WP:Outing. I added a hatnote to WP:Outing to clear up the confusion.--Father Goose (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a bit of tidying

Especially the section under guideline was becoming a cliff's notes on "consensus on wikipedia", so I shortened it. I've also done some other small things, hopefully none are controversial --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

On that same vein, I've removed the Experimental category which is not used and tried to clarify the differnce between rejected and historical. I would like to think again about changing the name rejected to failed or not-accepted, or a better name. The term rejected seems to offend contributors but using historical as a euphamism is inaccurate. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• "No current consensus"? Or "No consensus"? Or "Consensus not achieved?" Would the "Disputed" tag work? Maybe "Not-accepted" works best. Hiding T 10:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think that I like failed consensus. I think that there needs to be some finality, but rejected is hard on the ownership ego. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Things keep drifting towards that guidelines should be treated discuss first.

I agree that discussion is important, naturally :-)

However, from a system point of view, the current dynamics are that some people have a tendency to enforce discussion upfront. This very often ends up as a kind of indefinite filibuster that might take several months to resolve. So we want to try to stay away from giving the impression that "discuss first" is mandatory. Discussion in general is always a good idea, of course. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC) systems point of view can at times be a tad counter-intuitive or confusing.

Ok, reedited that short text again. I don't like this one either. Basically it's just recapping the consensus system again (which uses both the project page and the talk page). Can't we just say "Guidelines are maintained through Wikipedia:Consensus"  ? (or is that too short?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC) scratches head

Kim, you broke my heart! That was my favorite sentence of the whole day. Oh well so much for the tender sensitivities of ownership. If editing before discussing was ruled out, we'd all be in jail. Have a great Friday or whatever it is today on the backside of the bottom of the world. Cheers and I'll toast you with my first IPA. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

^^;; I didn't mean to break your heart! Maybe we can sort something out. :-) Cheers, Have a good one! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected changed to Failed

(Some discussion from above is copied here for continuity) The term rejected seems to offend contributors but using historical as a euphamism is inaccurate. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• "No current consensus"? Or "No consensus"? Or "Consensus not achieved?" Would the "Disputed" tag work? Maybe "Not-accepted" works best. Hiding T 10:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think that I like failed consensus. I think that there needs to be some finality, but rejected is hard on the ownership ego. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes "rejected" does mean rejected. We need some way of summarizing the consensus. DGG (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But then, even rejected ideas can resurface and gain acceptance, given that consensus can change. I've been bold and edited {{rejected}}; if people agree with the changes I've made, we'll need to a few other edits in concert with them, and should probably move {{rejected}} to {{failed}}.--Father Goose (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I support FG and have taken further steps to incorporate the new term into the text at the project page. Suggest gaining consensus then move {{rejected}} to {{failed}}, as FG suggests. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes "rejected" does mean rejected, but usually it doesn't. Usually, it means (1) More forceful editors have declared that this wil never achieve a consensus, or (2) discussion has died down with a consensus for support. In these cases, "failed" is more appropriate. In the rare cases that a consensus has agreed to reject the proposal, this is better noted explicitly on the proposal talk page. The talk page is always a good place for summarising consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Joe, do you think that we need two tags so that one covers the rare case of "rejection", or could we remain a bit euphamistic in those cases? --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We don’t “need” two tags, but I don’t see having a variety of tags as a problem. Nearly every “rejected” I’ve seen should be a softer worded “failed”. Occassionaly, proposals are resoundingly rejected, where you could say that there has been a consensus to reject. In these cases, I would support a “reject” tag, along the lines of the overly strong tradiational one, stating that the community has rejected the proposal. Examples: The talk page of Wikipedia:Full meta links seems to reflect a pretty emphatic “rejection”. Another proposal I am familiar with is User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification, which was in my opinion emphatically, though not unanimously, rejected, and which persists with a euphemistic use of the historical tag. I don’t think it hurts for a failed proposal to have a softly worded tag. So, I am not very strong about this either way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Failed" still covers "rejected", and if we have both, we'll just have fights over when something failed vs. was rejected. No need: failed is failed. Athough for the real dogs, I suppose we could add a picture of epic fail guy to the template.--Father Goose (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some humor wouldn't be all bad. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps “failed” vs “rejected” fights would serve as a pressure relief valve for overheated pro-/op-ponentes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Having been in a fight over "rejected" status (with Kevin, no less), I can vouch that such fights are ugly as fuck. To minimize wikidrama, the best thing is to let down the proponents as gently as possible; all that's actually important is that a proposal that is actually dead be marked as no-go.--Father Goose (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, closure without insult. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. There is no need for "rejected". All that matters is that there is not consensus for support, that the proposal has “failed” for whatever reason. The reason should be on the talk page. Also note that not having “rejected” avoids a mechanism to game policy processes, such as has been alleged by having Wikipedia:Supermajority created, rejected, and possibly used to imply that the converse holds consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding guideline enforcement tags

(I hope I'm posting my question in the right place. Please feel free to redirect me to a more appropriate location.) If a Wikiproject decides by consensus amongst a small group of editors within the project that a certain presentation guideline should be followed on all pages claimed to be under the domain of the project, is the project entitled to insert and maintain hidden text placed at the top of every such article linking back to the project's guideline as an "enforcement" measure? Robert K S (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is: adding that hidden text does not violate the letter of any policy or guideline I can think of. The long answer is, it depends, (esp. if the hidden text could be construed as pointy, and I infer from how you worded your question that it is a real, rather than hypothetical, one. If so, could you share the real example so I and other editors may comment more enlightenedly? UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In the case at hand, members of a WikiProject intend to exclude infoboxes from all biographical articles deemed to be under the project's domain. Once they believed they found consensus for this initiative within the WikiProject, they removed existing infoboxes from all such articles and added inline text to the tops of those articles that read, "Please do not add an infobox" and include a link to their WikiProject guideline prohibiting infoboxes. What would WP:OWN say about this sort of across-the-board enforcement? The concern here is that the "rule" was made with the consent of fewer than 10 editors (with the actual text prohibiting infoboxes being approved by only 3) but applies to potentially hundreds of articles edited by thousands of other users. Robert K S (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, the project in question is the opera wikiproject and I would suggest that the discussion be had on that project's page as there is a lot more dialogue already on that page in regaurds to this topic. Also, Robert K S has highly distorted the reality of the situation as I have stated on the other talk page. First, hidden texts are not tags and serve a completely different function. Second, there is and has not been any attempt by the opera project to enforce or implement the removal of info boxes. The hidden text merely serves as a cautionary measure pointing out the inherant problems with info boxes that often lead to distortions of truth or inaccuracies in information. The project does not forbid infoboxes (that would be WP:OWN) but merely asks editors to talk about adding an info box on that article's talk page before adding one to the article. If such a discussion decides to add an info box than of course an info box can be placed. Third, to my knowledge the hidden text appears on very few of the opera project's articles. I would venture to say that less than fifty of the 4,500 plus articles (less than 1%) under the opera project's perview include them. For the most part, these hidden texts have only been placed on articles where info boxes have proven to be counterproductive. They have not been placed on mass and there is no policy requiring a hidden text. Fourth, there are similar positions held by other projects. (see Opera Project talk page). Finally, there are more editors that support the project's position than mentioned above. I myself am not included in the numbers above as I did not participate in any prior info box discussion. No project member has complained about the policy to my knowledge so I would assume that most project members are supportive. We are a very active group and, knowing the project members as I do, there would have been complaints if there was disagreement. You are all welcome to join the discussion.Nrswanson (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third party paid entries okay?

A professional writer asks other writers if accepting payment to write Wikipedia entries is "ethical." What is Wikipedia's policy on this? I have not so far found anything. Other writers are coming down on both sides... Eperotao (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I see more and more entries that are most likely the product of industry flacks. Much of the information is useful and interesting, but also very one sided. I see this problem getting worse before it gets better,since the sheer volume of it will overwhelm other less interested sources of content. Does Wikipedia have a policy on industrial generated content? Is that the future of Wikipedia?? Eperotao (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a number of instances where such articles are created, but they tend to be either deleted as being irreparably spammy, or subjected to sufficient NPOV power-washing to render it an adequate article. That being said however, creating or editing articles is not only certainly frowned upon, but is almost inevitably fruitless because the editor's efforts are almost always frustrated by the dynamic I mentioned above. – ClockworkSoul 16:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, ClockworkSoul. So you think the phenomenon is relatively harmless to Wikipedia as a whole and that editors can keep up with it? I'd be concerned that industry's resources are such that Wiki editors could not keep up with, for example, massive pharma generated content. Also, I'm wondering if Wikipedia has developed a specific policy about this. Eperotao (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've worked with a number of PR people from various places, and some of them have learned how to write decent Wikipedia articles that are informative and meet our standards. Good professionals in that business are not fools, once it's explained that this is a different medium they can write as well or better than most of us can, & they know how to be objective when they need to be. (Many never do learn, of course, and get blocked, & recognized easily if they reappear. ) The best guide to dealing with this is Durova's WP:BFAQ from which I've learned anything good in my approach. What needs to be encouraged I think is for them to simply declare their COI. Then the people in the subject can watch--we can deal with the amount of likely input. It's the undetected ones who do the damage. (Though even here I am aware of some who have never admitted it but do consistently decent work under multiple throw-away accounts.) DGG (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I relayed this to the interested writers. Forgot to thank you earlier. Eperotao (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New MOS for TV

The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summaries?

Do we need a further category called Summary? The failed proposal for WP:ATT has been recently tagged as a Summary of multiple policies. I object to a new category (tag) which does not yet have consensus, but poses as legitimate guidance. I don't see the need for a new category, but would be less concerned if there was a clear procedure for identifying such a category and defining the level of consensus required to achieve "Summary" status. Maybe it is just a harmless euphamism at this point, but why add to the confusion? As it stands now anyone can subjectively summarize several policies on one page, and then parade the new animal as gospel to further confuse our contributors. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)