On 5/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
4. If a process exists, it must be followed
because it's a process.
However much of wikipedia process exists for a reason. Please respect
that reason and understand the people who came up with probably put a
fair bit of thought into its desighn
This sounds like respect for intelligent design. Quantity of thought
should not be viewed as superior to quality of thought. Imputing
reasons as a foundation for a process is not enough.
2. Process is
good, but more process is *BAD*. Process grows like
bindweed and must be culled regularly. Anyone who says "process is
important" must read and understand [[m:Instruction creep]].
Since m:Instruction creep relates to process they probably have. The
broad principle is correct (although I quite like our overgrown and
contradictory guidelines it means it is almost imposible to produce a
solid case based on them to stop me doing what I want to do) the
anicdote doesn't tend to apply wikipedia (It is generaly less complex
to remove someone from wikipedia rather than get a new policy
In a backhanded way I would agree. Generating enough policies and
processes can result in "everything being permitted", and in allowing
the Grand Inquistor to have free reign.
3. Grey areas
exist; the human brain exists to deal with them. You
can't Taylorise clue.
However you can produce rigidly defined areas of doubt and
uncertainty. It is possible to define where the grey areas are.
Oh the antinomious faith of the software student as he bows before the
graven image of HAL9000!
For those of us with less faith: when you define a grey area it is no
longer grey, but out of self-defence it begets new grey areas
are frequently written up to try to win at wikinomic.
This is part of how process grows like bindweed.
I find they are generaly writen by well meaning people. The trick is
squashing the idea without squashing the person.
Does this imply that nomic players are no well-meaning? To be sure we
don't want to squash the person, but even with an idea if you approach
it with the preconception that it must be squashed it leaves little room
important. It is also dangerous, and must be kept strictly
under control and rebuilt regularly. AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP
A PROCESS FOR THAT.
So would you support protecting all policy pages (have you seen the
edit rate on CSD?)?
Unprotecting them all would be a better option. Process should reflect
the stone in David's sling rather than the spike in Goliath's club.