On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's become a guideline. Ho hum.
So much for policy changes being discussed widely prior to implimentation...
On 12/17/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's become a guideline. Ho hum.
So much for policy changes being discussed widely prior to implimentation...
Is there a functional difference between "guideline" and "policy"?
-david
On 12/17/06, David Ashby humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's become a guideline. Ho hum.
So much for policy changes being discussed widely prior to
implimentation...
Is there a functional difference between "guideline" and "policy"?
-david
WOW. I got rebuked by an Arbitrator for "wikilawyering"; jeez if she never heard of "my word is my bond", how many times to do I have to repeat myself to make the same point?
nobs
On 12/17/06, David Ashby humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's become a guideline. Ho hum.
So much for policy changes being discussed widely prior to implimentation...
Is there a functional difference between "guideline" and "policy"?
There's supposed to be.
Violating policy is supposed to get you blocked sooner. So, ironically violations of a guideline requires people to have more good faith before giving in to their trigger finger. This smells wrong anyway, it should've been discussed.
Mgm
On 12/18/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, David Ashby humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's become a guideline. Ho hum.
So much for policy changes being discussed widely prior to
implimentation...
Is there a functional difference between "guideline" and "policy"?
There's supposed to be.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I haven't participated in any of the discussion about Assume Good Faith, but in my experience, I've usually encountered it when users quote it to claim that criticism of them is equivalent to not assuming good faith.
Does it really solve more problems than it causes?
On 12/18/06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I haven't participated in any of the discussion about Assume Good Faith, but in my experience, I've usually encountered it when users quote it to claim that criticism of them is equivalent to not assuming good faith.
Does it really solve more problems than it causes?
I'd say it causes more problems than it solves, precisely because it's an instant "veto" to valid questions of whether someone is trying to POV push or has a conflict of interest.
Parker
On 12/18/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/18/06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I haven't participated in any of the discussion about Assume Good Faith, but in my experience, I've usually encountered it when users quote it to
claim
that criticism of them is equivalent to not assuming good faith.
Does it really solve more problems than it causes?
I'd say it causes more problems than it solves, precisely because it's an instant "veto" to valid questions of whether someone is trying to POV push or has a conflict of interest.
It only works effectively that way if people are naive about it.
I see people trying to use it that way, but it's generally really clear very early on that it's being used falsely as a shield, and most experienced admins and longtime editors seem to recognize that pretty well.
The policy doesn't say how long we have to keep assuming it, so people's general common sense seems to work to deal with that.
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:30:11 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I haven't participated in any of the discussion about Assume Good Faith, but in my experience, I've usually encountered it when users quote it to claim that criticism of them is equivalent to not assuming good faith. Does it really solve more problems than it causes?
It's like "don't be a dick". The idea is to do it, not to quote it.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/19/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I haven't participated in any of the discussion about Assume Good Faith, but in my experience, I've usually encountered it when users quote it to claim that criticism of them is equivalent to not assuming good faith. Does it really solve more problems than it causes?
It's like "don't be a dick". The idea is to do it, not to quote it.
I personally agree with Jimbo's elevation of "assume good faith" to be the single mantra which binds us together and makes Wikipedia work. Everyone *does* need to know about. You don't enforce it, you don't beat people over the head with it, but you do make sure people are aware of its existence, and hope they follow it.
Steve (with apologies if I'm overstating Jimbo's position)
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/19/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I haven't participated in any of the discussion about Assume Good Faith, but in my experience, I've usually encountered it when users quote it to claim that criticism of them is equivalent to not assuming good faith. Does it really solve more problems than it causes?
It's like "don't be a dick". The idea is to do it, not to quote it.
I personally agree with Jimbo's elevation of "assume good faith" to be the single mantra which binds us together and makes Wikipedia work. Everyone *does* need to know about. You don't enforce it, you don't beat people over the head with it, but you do make sure people are aware of its existence, and hope they follow it.
That's better. More than either a rule or a guideline, "assume good faith" is a principle. It is integral to the five pillars.
Ec
On 22/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/19/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
It's like "don't be a dick". The idea is to do it, not to quote it.
I personally agree with Jimbo's elevation of "assume good faith" to be the single mantra which binds us together and makes Wikipedia work. Everyone *does* need to know about. You don't enforce it, you don't beat people over the head with it, but you do make sure people are aware of its existence, and hope they follow it.
That's better. More than either a rule or a guideline, "assume good faith" is a principle. It is integral to the five pillars.
It's what I think of as the absolute hard policy - the constitution.
Content: Neutral Point Of View, Verifiability, No Original Research Community: No Personal Attacks, Assume Good Faith.
I suggest to people that they treat Don't Bite The Newbies as being in the Community list. Since occasional contributors seem to write a tremendous amount of our text.
These would be the "constitution" as new rules and procedures should be considered in terms of them, and ideally as following directly from them, as directly as possible.
(This is the thrust of the [[Wikipedia:Practical process]] essay, which as it states at the top is intended to provoke thought and thoughtfulness rather than be a tick-the-boxes guideline.)
- d.
On 23/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/19/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I haven't participated in any of the discussion about Assume Good Faith, but in my experience, I've usually encountered it when users quote it to claim that criticism of them is equivalent to not assuming good faith. Does it really solve more problems than it causes?
It's like "don't be a dick". The idea is to do it, not to quote it.
I personally agree with Jimbo's elevation of "assume good faith" to be the single mantra which binds us together and makes Wikipedia work. Everyone *does* need to know about. You don't enforce it, you don't beat people over the head with it, but you do make sure people are aware of its existence, and hope they follow it.
That's better. More than either a rule or a guideline, "assume good faith" is a principle. It is integral to the five pillars.
Ec
Apparently this pillar is unenforceable and does more harm than good... (Not my thoughts)
Peter
On 12/17/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's become a guideline. Ho hum.
So much for policy changes being discussed widely prior to implimentation...
It was called a guideline for a year before someone called it policy a few months ago. I haven't seen much difference in its treatment.
I would be more concerned if I thought it made any practical difference what sort of template got stuck on top of it; it's not as though it were an easily enforceable bright-line rule to begin with. It is simply necessary to avoid killing each other, sometimes, and so people tend to regard it as a Good Idea and try to hold others to it no matter what designation gets slapped atop it.
(As a side note, there is discussion about its status on the talk page.)
-Kat
On 12/18/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
It was called a guideline for a year before someone called it policy a few months ago. I haven't seen much difference in its treatment.
I would be more concerned if I thought it made any practical difference what sort of template got stuck on top of it; it's not as though it were an easily enforceable bright-line rule to begin with. It is simply necessary to avoid killing each other, sometimes, and so people tend to regard it as a Good Idea and try to hold others to it no matter what designation gets slapped atop it. (As a side note, there is discussion about its status on the talk page.)
I think we should totally do away with the Guideline/Policy/Essay notices.. Instead we should put a signature space below... so users can see all the people who support the page.
The idea is that the only policy which really matters on a day to day basis is the ephemeral policy which is implemented by each and every one of us through our actions and decisions.
So the list below a such a page becomes a list of the people whom you can expect to get on your case if you ignore the page.. and people whom it might be useful to consult if you're thinking about doing something which might be borderline.
This would avoid all the energy thats wasted on such discussions and provide a more honest outlook on the complicated system which underlies the operation of our project.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 12/18/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
It was called a guideline for a year before someone called it policy a few months ago. I haven't seen much difference in its treatment.
I would be more concerned if I thought it made any practical difference what sort of template got stuck on top of it; it's not as though it were an easily enforceable bright-line rule to begin with. It is simply necessary to avoid killing each other, sometimes, and so people tend to regard it as a Good Idea and try to hold others to it no matter what designation gets slapped atop it. (As a side note, there is discussion about its status on the talk page.)
I think we should totally do away with the Guideline/Policy/Essay notices.. Instead we should put a signature space below... so users can see all the people who support the page.
The idea is that the only policy which really matters on a day to day basis is the ephemeral policy which is implemented by each and every one of us through our actions and decisions.
So the list below a such a page becomes a list of the people whom you can expect to get on your case if you ignore the page.. and people whom it might be useful to consult if you're thinking about doing something which might be borderline.
This would avoid all the energy thats wasted on such discussions and provide a more honest outlook on the complicated system which underlies the operation of our project.
I would support that as a policy.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 12/18/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
It was called a guideline for a year before someone called it policy a few months ago. I haven't seen much difference in its treatment.
I would be more concerned if I thought it made any practical difference what sort of template got stuck on top of it; it's not as though it were an easily enforceable bright-line rule to begin with. It is simply necessary to avoid killing each other, sometimes, and so people tend to regard it as a Good Idea and try to hold others to it no matter what designation gets slapped atop it. (As a side note, there is discussion about its status on the talk page.)
I think we should totally do away with the Guideline/Policy/Essay notices.. Instead we should put a signature space below... so users can see all the people who support the page.
So what happens when someone amends the page, as they often do? Are the signers deemed to continue supporting the "policy", or are all the signatures wiped out with the voting started again?
Many policy statements which have broad support lose that support when that policy is elaborated in some direction.
Ec
On 12/17/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's become a guideline. Ho hum.
So much for policy changes being discussed widely prior to implimentation...
It was called a guideline for a year before someone called it policy a few months ago. I haven't seen much difference in its treatment.
I would be more concerned if I thought it made any practical difference what sort of template got stuck on top of it; it's not as though it were an easily enforceable bright-line rule to begin with. It is simply necessary to avoid killing each other, sometimes, and so people tend to regard it as a Good Idea and try to hold others to it no matter what designation gets slapped atop it.
(As a side note, there is discussion about its status on the talk page.)
-Kat
I don't particularly feel driven to see it either one way or the other; it's important, and it should be there.
What's disturbing is that it's gone through a series of status and content gyrations leading to a borderline wheel-war, and I get to find out about it via wikien-l..
On 12/18/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's become a guideline. Ho hum.
So much for policy changes being discussed widely prior to implimentation...
It doesn't seem to work like that these days - the change is made, then thye see who complains.
Incidentally, see the "Assume high intelligence" bit?
Steve
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, see the "Assume high intelligence" bit?
Yeah. That should be a different guideline, at least, and probably someone should do an essay attempting to put forth a coherent idea of what exactly it means and how to interpret it.
If it's an attempt to say "please stop telling people that they're dumb so often" then it belongs under NPA anyways.
I don't think our policies or guidelines should expand out to include every fundamental aspect of human value or dignity.
On 12/18/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, see the "Assume high intelligence" bit?
Yeah. That should be a different guideline, at least, and probably someone should do an essay attempting to put forth a coherent idea of what exactly it means and how to interpret it.
If it's an attempt to say "please stop telling people that they're dumb so often" then it belongs under NPA anyways.
I actually think it's the complete reverse of what AGF is really about. I frequently interpret AGF as "Assume incompetence". That is, assume that someone is just clueless, absentminded, ignorant or something, rather than malicious...
Steve
On 19/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I actually think it's the complete reverse of what AGF is really about. I frequently interpret AGF as "Assume incompetence". That is, assume that someone is just clueless, absentminded, ignorant or something, rather than malicious...
Yes. AGF can be thought of as a nicer way of saying "Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice."
- d.
On 12/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. AGF can be thought of as a nicer way of saying "Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice."
For historical interest, you may which to see the initial version of AGF that I wrote. It wasn't some "let's all hug and be happy" type thing, it was some practical notes about how assuming good faith is a good debating tactic because you can give your opponent Enough Rope (tm).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith&ol...
On 19/12/06, Abigail Brady morwen@evilmagic.org wrote:
On 12/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. AGF can be thought of as a nicer way of saying "Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice."
For historical interest, you may which to see the initial version of AGF that I wrote. It wasn't some "let's all hug and be happy" type thing, it was some practical notes about how assuming good faith is a good debating tactic because you can give your opponent Enough Rope (tm).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith&ol...
-- Abi
I don't think it is okay to assume malice. If you think something is malice you should have some proof, including an effort to discern the nature of the action. I guess it depends also on whether you are thinking about the idea in the context of a discussion, or in the context of vandalism on articles or otherwise.
Peter Ansell
On 19/12/06, Abigail Brady morwen@evilmagic.org wrote:
For historical interest, you may which to see the initial version of AGF that I wrote. It wasn't some "let's all hug and be happy" type thing, it was some practical notes about how assuming good faith is a good debating tactic because you can give your opponent Enough Rope (tm).
See also http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AssumeGoodFaith
On 22/12/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 19/12/06, Abigail Brady morwen@evilmagic.org wrote:
For historical interest, you may which to see the initial version of AGF that I wrote. It wasn't some "let's all hug and be happy" type thing, it was some practical notes about how assuming good faith is a good debating tactic because you can give your opponent Enough Rope (tm).
See also http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AssumeGoodFaith
500 error! Anyone got a copy?
- d.
On 12/22/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/12/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
See also http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AssumeGoodFaith
500 error! Anyone got a copy?
- d.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060212050612/http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.p...
On 22/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/12/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
See also http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AssumeGoodFaith
500 error! Anyone got a copy?
For anyone coming across this now, Meatball is back up.
George Herbert wrote:
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, see the "Assume high intelligence" bit?
Yeah. That should be a different guideline, at least, and probably someone should do an essay attempting to put forth a coherent idea of what exactly it means and how to interpret it.
If it's an attempt to say "please stop telling people that they're dumb so often" then it belongs under NPA anyways.
I don't think our policies or guidelines should expand out to include every fundamental aspect of human value or dignity.
But we do need a policy to meticulously define common sense. ;-)
Ec
So much for policy changes being discussed widely prior to implimentation...
It doesn't seem to work like that these days - the change is made, then thye see who complains.
Which is fine. That's the point of a wiki - you can make changes and if other people don't like them, they can undo them.
On 12/18/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't seem to work like that these days - the change is made, then thye see who complains.
Which is fine. That's the point of a wiki - you can make changes and if other people don't like them, they can undo them.
That undermines the credibility of our policies, though. It means that they're pretty much just ephemeral, reflecting the mood of the latest contributor, rather than anything more substantial than that.
Steve
On 12/18/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/18/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't seem to work like that these days - the change is made, then thye see who complains.
Which is fine. That's the point of a wiki - you can make changes and if other people don't like them, they can undo them.
That undermines the credibility of our policies, though. It means that they're pretty much just ephemeral, reflecting the mood of the latest contributor, rather than anything more substantial than that.
We have seen this bite people; I've seen policies quoted by people who'd happened to see a version which was then pushed back and reverted, for example.
This is normally not that bad a problem, but people who tend to rules lawyer instead of acting in the spirit of cooperation can cause glitches.
On 18/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have seen this bite people; I've seen policies quoted by people who'd happened to see a version which was then pushed back and reverted, for example. This is normally not that bad a problem, but people who tend to rules lawyer instead of acting in the spirit of cooperation can cause glitches.
Well, yeah. There is no rule that can outlaw rules-lawyering.
But AGF is quite genuinely a policy, even if it isn't Taylorisable.
- d.
On 12/18/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have seen this bite people; I've seen policies quoted by people who'd happened to see a version which was then pushed back and reverted, for example. This is normally not that bad a problem, but people who tend to rules
lawyer
instead of acting in the spirit of cooperation can cause glitches.
Well, yeah. There is no rule that can outlaw rules-lawyering.
Which has never stopped anyone from trying, or from beating down their opponents for 'wikilawyering' when it's pointed out that their actions go against policy.
In general, I'm fine with AGF as a guideline, but its usage has passed from being a well-meant guideline into something between an "opening salvo" and a "bludgeon" when it comes to content disputes, and that's not good.
Parker
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/18/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's become a guideline. Ho hum.
So much for policy changes being discussed widely prior to implimentation...
It doesn't seem to work like that these days - the change is made, then thye see who complains.
IOW, who notices?
Ec
Ha ha.
Does anyone see the irony?
On 12/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's become a guideline. Ho hum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l