On 3/21/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco(a)mac.com> wrote:
1. Develop the policy as a proposal as we have done
with ATT;
2. Seek Jimbo's feedback when involved editors think it is time ;
3. Submit the proposed policy to a "public vote" via a poll,
including the rationale for the policy, a summary of of the steps
taken by involved editors (e.g time discussed, number of edits,
advertising done to mailing lists, Village Pump, etc.) as well as
Jimbo's comments.
I worry about the poll thing. When you're dealing with policy, you
have to know that the new proposal is consistent with other policies
and guidelines, consistent in letter *and* spirit. A poll might
attract 200 editors who know about the policies and have carefully
considered all the implications, which is great, but what if it
attracts 200 editors who've barely read them?
Developing a content policy isn't like discussing an article for
deletion, or a behavioral policy like 3RR. With the content policies,
the bottom line is that people have to know what they're talking
about, or else we'll end up with a dog's breakfast of pages that
contradict each other in subtle ways. We can't afford to have that
situation with pages that determine the content of Wikipedia.
Sarah