Andrew Gray wrote:
There are policies on Wikipedia that are granite,
bedrock; that we
write from a neutral point of view, or that we are an enyclopedia and
not an academic journal or discussion board.
There are policies on Wikipedia that are a matter of solid consensus;
our image-licensing policies, or our (admittedly confusing) stance on
What Dialect Of English To Use.
Then there are policies - well, guidelines - that are fluid, amenable;
that we abbreviate US as "U.S.", or the minutae of the protection
policy, or whether or not we italicise certain kinds of terms, or
obscure naming conventions, or... oh, you could name thousands.
And, to confuse matters, we talk about them all as "policy", hence
confusion like this.
So, our new guy comes along, and decides he wants to debate policy.
Good-good; there'll certainly be someone willing to argue with him,
whatever side he chooses - three geeks, one place, four opinions. And
he may certainly have a new and innovative viewpoint on his topic.
Just because he wants to debate these things does not mean that any of
us needs to feel obliged to engage in that debate. It should be made
clear to him that silence doesn not imply consent. He may not really be
a troll, but the "Don't feed the trolls" principle can also work with
other ideas.
But if he's going to argue over whether we're
an encyclopedia, or
whether we should search-and-replace every instance of "petrol" with
"gasoline"... then *absolutely nothing* will ever be gained by this
debate. We're set in our ways, we're not going to change because one
persuasive guy comes along and suggests it, though he may be damn good
at doing so.
Whether we are an encyclopedia is an unchangeable policy that is
fundamental to our existence, and that is what makes it unchangeable.
Wiktionary and Wikibooks both grew out a fundamental deviation from that
policy.
The petrol/gasoline is, at least theoretically, debatable and
changeable. It is just highly unlikely that the person who makes such a
suggestion would ever get anywhere with it. To use the argument that
"*absolutely nothing* will ever be gained by this debate" as an argument
for stopping the debate before it starts prejudges the outcome, and that
detracts from the freeness of Wikipedia. Let him make his proposal, and
just as quickly ignore him.
It is good to discuss things. But discussing something
that cannot and
will not be changed is, to my mind at least, a bit of a waste of time.
I'm all for debating political issues, but I confess to getting a bit
tetchy when someone tries to debate gravity with me.
Gravity is the whole problem with some of these discussions; a little
levity would bring about a significant improvement in tone.
Anyone remember the guy who wrote to us - it might have
been
wikipedia-l, come to think of it - demanding that we set up an English
English language wikipedia? Absolutely nothing to be gained by arguing
with him - it just used up the time of a lot of people, without doing
anything beneficial, and pissed a few people off. (Goodness knows I
was one)
There is no effective way of arguing with utter cluelessness; it could
have as easily been a dog demanding a woofopedia.. The best way to
argue with them is not to argue at all. They go away much more quicly
when you say absolutely nothing.
Arguing over something immutable - doesn't help
anyone. Arguing over
something we are willing to change, from a new viewpoint? Can
certainly be helpful.
To the extent that policies are at all votable those votes should remain
open forever. Established organizations are prone to group-think based
on their own past experiences. A newcomer may have a completely
different view of a situation, and should not need to feel frozen from
the debate because he arrived late. If enough newcomers vote to revoke
that policy, then it's reversed. There is no reason to fear that very
widely accepted policies will ever be changed by this. On the other
hand, maybe the more hotly disputed policies need to be kept open until
a more solid consensus can be reached.
Ec