On 9/16/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The core policies (NPOV, NOR and V on the content side; AGF and NPA on the community side, and I'd add BITE to the community list since the numbers seem to say newbies write most of the actual encyclopedia) aren't negotiable. Everything else is process, even if it's accepted enough to tag policy.
You know the foundation has a lot of explaining to do if that really is the case.
See, this is why you have trouble with people listening to you: you answer things with a one-liner that doesn't actually address the point.
Do you want to tell the foundation that WP:OFFICE and copyright is just process?
Here's one to run past you:
When encountering an editor who seems to be displaying a flagrant disregard for process, check the process isn't flawed.
* Rewrite the process description to show how it follows asdirectly as possible from core policies. Even if it isn't made official, this helps you explain it to others better. This is one of the best ways to resolve disputes over the value of a process.
None of our copyright policies come from those core policies.
* Reexamine the process. Does it follow obviously from the corepolicies? Do people keep complaining that it's hard to understand or that it excludes outsiders? Do regulars express distrust of non-regulars, or dislike the idea of any random person interfering?
How were you suggesting I rewrite IAR to deal with this problem?
* Failing to follow or rejecting process is not, of itself, awrong act. The encyclopedia itself is more important than any process designed to protect it; both intent and results should be measured against the core content policies (NPOV, V and NOR) and core community policies (AGF and NPA).
So you shouldn't be worried about pissing large numbers of people off? You know working with the community and all that?
** If your only argument is "it's out of process" or "it violatespolicy" (other than a core policy), you don't have an argument.
Cool so what happened to consensus?
* Changes in process may be sudden, or they may be gradual. Aneditor who consistently disregards a particular process may indeed influence others to do the same ... and that process is changed. Make sure the documentation stays up to date.
It tends to.
* Of course, the editor may well be a troll or a dick. But don'tmake that your first assumption.
I try to avoid making assumptions.
Now, a question for you:
Q. The above looks good to geni.
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Much longer and detailed answer, which geni will give below:
It's okish for editors and a really bad idea for admins. Editors actions can be undone by pretty much anyone. Admin actions cannot. An editor doing something annoying will merely result in them being reverted. Admins actions can affect far larger numbers of people. Most people accept WP:OWN applies to edits. A section of admins keeps trying to claim that it does not apply to admin actions making it even harder to revert the things. Admins are meant to serve the community. The powers were only given by the community in order to do what the community wanted. They were not given for you to do whatever seemed like a good idea at the time.
IAR is ok for content but admin actions apply to people rather than content.