G'day Todd,
Charlotte Webb wrote:
Would I be right in guessing that anyone who
understands either of
these pages is not going to check them for asterisks before performing
an action, or possibly ever?
I don't think you necessarily are. I've had -plenty- of people cite both
BOLD and IAR for breaking the three-revert rule after I blocked them.
"But I was improving the article, and not being able to revert the 6
idiots who disagreed with me was preventing me from doing it, so I
ignored the rule! I can do that, right?" People need to comprehend "be
bold" doesn't mean "put the match to the gunpowder to see what
happens",
and "ignore the rules" doesn't mean "do whatever you damn well
want".
That is a misunderstanding of BOLD and IAR, so I think Charlotte is
still right: he who understands them won't read them, and probably not
anything else in project space, until he runs into trouble (and, if that
editor is a bit of an arrogant prick of times, he still won't look at
policy after that ...)
Unfortunately, some people don't get that, so we
need to spell it
out-"Be bold, but don't be a flaming moron about it" and "Ignore the
rules if you need to, but you better have a damn good reason for doing
it and be ready to accept the consequences if you screwed up."
Bureaucracy we may not be, but we're also not an anarchy, and the rules
generally are there for good reason. If you need to break them, you
better think carefully about whether the need really is so pressing, and
if it really is, how you're going to explain yourself once you do.
I think you're going a bit far there, but that's okay. Lots of people
don't understand IAR, and for them, process works fine 60% of the time.
Policy doesn't and can't prescribe the Right Thing all of the time. The
spirit of IAR is: it doesn't even try. Policy is: "This is what we've
done in the past, and generally what we want to do in the future"; it's
a guideline (I use that word deliberately) for editors who may not know
exactly what the Right Thing is. Those of us who *do* know what the
Right Thing is will go ahead and do it, whether policy supports us or
not; and on those occasions when we don't know what it is (nobody knows
the Right Thing 100% of the time, though some claim they do), we need to
refer to policy, or step back and let other experts have a look.
What IAR is for is to a) tell the policy wonks to back the heck off, and
b) tell newbies that they don't have to let their Wikipedia experience
be corrupted by policy wonks. Those of us who strive to do the Right
Thing, policy or no, do not need IAR. It's not for us. It's for those
of you who tell us not to.
An extension of this is: if you have to cite IAR, you're doing it wrong.
If I do something against policy, but my reasoning is sounder than
that of those supporting policy, then I don't need to cite IAR --- I
just have to cite my own reasoning. If I do something against policy,
and all I have to offer in support is "IAR", then it's pretty clear I
haven't thought things through. Of course, this applies to all policies
and process: if you want to rigidly enforce process, you'd better have a
damn good reason, too. Policy is not an excuse to renounce our
responsibility to *think*.
People who have that mystical attribute of actually
what they're doing
will properly implement BOLD and IAR anywhere they go, whether it's
written down or not, and will generally do it well. The problem comes
when someone without the first clue tries to emulate them (or even when
someone smart happens to screw up, it does happen...)
It strikes me that this last paragraph is a very good one, and,
incidentally, restates exactly what Charlotte was trying to say.
It's good to know I'm not the only one with a tendency to agree violently.
Cheers,
--
Mark Gallagher
"'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten
in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/