"David Mestel" wrote
I don't think that "implied discretion" is a good idea long-term - it's better to codify it in policy so that everything is consistent and in the open. Apart from anything else, it's kind of inadvertantly biting the newbies when stuff happens for reasons which aren't explained.
Well, as for explanation, when deleting a page one is supposed to fill in a Reason box, and something like 'promotional material' is a quite adequate explanation.
But your reply shows that (per David Gerard, and others of course), we have dialogues here in two languages. Let's for the purposes of argument call them Wonkish and Arbish.
In Wonkish, 'discretion' stands for certain grey and disreputable areas of policy, where what should happen is not yet properly regulated. In Arbish, however, and I speak here as an Arb with the publicly stated aim of keeping admins' discretion something meaningful, you have always to look behind applications of policy to see intention, and the application to the mission statement we have of writing the encyclopedia.
In other words, discretion in Arbish is read as saying that pro-active admins are the first, second and probably third lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, and taking away the mop-and-bucket from a very few, than doing up the constraints ever tighter, because it is felt that this pre-empts misuse of admin powers.
This debate, of course, will run and run.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Well, yes, and what I'm suggesting that we loosen the rules so that what used to be discretion outside the rules can now be within the rules, not that we stop admins deleting promotional material. In general, I think that policy should describe, as well as proscribe, the way things are done.
On 01/10/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"David Mestel" wrote
I don't think that "implied discretion" is a good idea long-term - it's better to codify it in policy so that everything is consistent and in the open. Apart from anything else, it's kind of inadvertantly biting the newbies when stuff happens for reasons which aren't explained.
Well, as for explanation, when deleting a page one is supposed to fill in a Reason box, and something like 'promotional material' is a quite adequate explanation.
But your reply shows that (per David Gerard, and others of course), we have dialogues here in two languages. Let's for the purposes of argument call them Wonkish and Arbish.
In Wonkish, 'discretion' stands for certain grey and disreputable areas of policy, where what should happen is not yet properly regulated. In Arbish, however, and I speak here as an Arb with the publicly stated aim of keeping admins' discretion something meaningful, you have always to look behind applications of policy to see intention, and the application to the mission statement we have of writing the encyclopedia.
In other words, discretion in Arbish is read as saying that pro-active admins are the first, second and probably third lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, and taking away the mop-and-bucket from a very few, than doing up the constraints ever tighter, because it is felt that this pre-empts misuse of admin powers.
This debate, of course, will run and run.
Charles
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/10/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"David Mestel" wrote
I don't think that "implied discretion" is a good idea long-term - it's better to codify it in policy so that everything is consistent and in the open. Apart from anything else, it's kind of inadvertantly biting the newbies when stuff happens for reasons which aren't explained.
You are in fact completely wrong and dangerously wrong.
Humans are not robots. The more rules, the harder it is for people to follow them. So they won't.
Human judgement is flawed, imperfect and subject to bias and abuse. So some people attempt to write reliable procedures for all actions and eliminate grey areas, in the interests of fairness and efficiency. But the rules are not complete, coherent or consistent, and precedent isn't binding in any case. (Really - check [[Wikipedia:Consensus can change]]. You'd be a fool to ignore it, but it's not at all binding.)
That Wikipedia is inconsistent, and permits things it does not condone, is a feature. Take care not to try to turn Wikipedia into something which, if it was, would never have become interesting enough for you to have heard about it in the first place. (See also [[The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs]].)
In Wonkish, 'discretion' stands for certain grey and disreputable areas of policy, where what should happen is not yet properly regulated. In Arbish, however, and I speak here as an Arb with the publicly stated aim of keeping admins' discretion something meaningful, you have always to look behind applications of policy to see intention, and the application to the mission statement we have of writing the encyclopedia. In other words, discretion in Arbish is read as saying that pro-active admins are the first, second and probably third lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, and taking away the mop-and-bucket from a very few, than doing up the constraints ever tighter, because it is felt that this pre-empts misuse of admin powers.
I think I'll be quoting that as a voice from on high.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
"David Mestel" wrote
I don't think that "implied discretion" is a good idea long-term - it's better to codify it in policy so that everything is consistent and in the open. Apart from anything else, it's kind of inadvertantly biting the newbies when stuff happens for reasons which aren't explained.
You are in fact completely wrong and dangerously wrong.
Careful, David, you don't want to turn into a robot, yourself, in your anti-process crusade!
"Codify it in policy" might be a little strong here, but certainly, if Brad's call to arms on corporate vanity isn't matched by some reasonably explicit corresponding language in our notability and deletion guidelines, it should be. (In particular, someone mentioned CSD A7, or something, and while I'm not one to memorize CSD numbers, that sounds about right.)
Take care not to try to turn Wikipedia into something which, if it was, would never have become interesting enough for you to have heard about it in the first place.
Nice. Where'd that come from? :-)
On 01/10/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Careful, David, you don't want to turn into a robot, yourself, in your anti-process crusade!
Anti-crap-process! Aargh! DOES NOT COMPUTE. DESTROY THE HUMANS.
Take care not to try to turn Wikipedia into something which, if it was, would never have become interesting enough for you to have heard about it in the first place.
Nice. Where'd that come from? :-)
Some guy added it to this page ...
- d.
This should be required reading. Charles is a voice of great experience and wisdom.
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"David Mestel" wrote
I don't think that "implied discretion" is a good idea long-term - it's better to codify it in policy so that everything is consistent and in the open. Apart from anything else, it's kind of inadvertantly biting the newbies when stuff happens for reasons which aren't explained.
Well, as for explanation, when deleting a page one is supposed to fill in a Reason box, and something like 'promotional material' is a quite adequate explanation.
But your reply shows that (per David Gerard, and others of course), we have dialogues here in two languages. Let's for the purposes of argument call them Wonkish and Arbish.
In Wonkish, 'discretion' stands for certain grey and disreputable areas of policy, where what should happen is not yet properly regulated. In Arbish, however, and I speak here as an Arb with the publicly stated aim of keeping admins' discretion something meaningful, you have always to look behind applications of policy to see intention, and the application to the mission statement we have of writing the encyclopedia.
In other words, discretion in Arbish is read as saying that pro-active admins are the first, second and probably third lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, and taking away the mop-and-bucket from a very few, than doing up the constraints ever tighter, because it is felt that this pre-empts misuse of admin powers.
This debate, of course, will run and run.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:23:39 +0100, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
discretion in Arbish is read as saying that pro-active admins are the first, second and probably third lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, and taking away the mop-and-bucket from a very few, than doing up the constraints ever tighter, because it is felt that this pre-empts misuse of admin powers.
Judging by Tony Sidaway's Talk page, the wonks are winning.
Guy (JzG)
On 03/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:23:39 +0100, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
discretion in Arbish is read as saying that pro-active admins are the first, second and probably third lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, and taking away the mop-and-bucket from a very few, than doing up the constraints ever tighter, because it is felt that this pre-empts misuse of admin powers.
Judging by Tony Sidaway's Talk page, the wonks are winning.
[[WP:PRO]]. Quote from it since the worst process wonks are curiously unable to read. Go through policies rewriting them for humans.
I come out against excessive process quite a lot. Process is actually important, though - else people haven't a *goddamn clue* which way is up, and our bureaucracy is confusing enough to newbies. So it is vitally important that process be shaped so that it is fit for mere humans.
- d.
- d.
On 10/3/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I come out against excessive process quite a lot. Process is actually important, though - else people haven't a *goddamn clue* which way is up, and our bureaucracy is confusing enough to newbies. So it is vitally important that process be shaped so that it is fit for mere humans.
Thank you, David. This is a critical point for us all to remember.
Process, like so many things, is not inherently bad. It's the abuse of process that causes problems.
However, as we fight excessive process and the abuse of process, we need to retain process that helpful, especially for those who otherwise would not know where to start or where to go next.
-Rich [[W:en:User:Rholton]]
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:04 -0500, "Richard Holton" richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Process, like so many things, is not inherently bad. It's the abuse of process that causes problems.
Actually the real evil is slavish adherence to process in the absence of the ever-elusive Clue. Wiki-process exists to guide and inform, not to instruct, and far too many people fail to understand this.
Guy (JzG)
On 04/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:04 -0500, "Richard Holton" richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Process, like so many things, is not inherently bad. It's the abuse of process that causes problems.
Actually the real evil is slavish adherence to process in the absence of the ever-elusive Clue. Wiki-process exists to guide and inform, not to instruct, and far too many people fail to understand this.
It's an easy error to make - many a considerate editor will come here, read up on the policies and guidelines and words and words and PAGES AND PAGES of stuff and try to make sense of it all. Do they know which way is up without a guide in the face of an incoherent morass of millions of words of policies and guidelines? Of course they don't.
- d.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:50:52 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's an easy error to make - many a considerate editor will come here, read up on the policies and guidelines and words and words and PAGES AND PAGES of stuff and try to make sense of it all. Do they know which way is up without a guide in the face of an incoherent morass of millions of words of policies and guidelines? Of course they don't.
Not disputed. The trouble is that most of the stuff tells you what Wikipedia is *not* about, rather than what it *is* about.
Guy (JzG)
On 4 Oct 2006, at 10:02, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:04 -0500, "Richard Holton" richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Process, like so many things, is not inherently bad. It's the abuse of process that causes problems.
Actually the real evil is slavish adherence to process in the absence of the ever-elusive Clue. Wiki-process exists to guide and inform, not to instruct, and far too many people fail to understand this.
The only way to find out is to be around for a bit.
Having a list of gurus would be useful. Even keeping tabs on a few talk pages (such as Guy's) is very educational.
On 10/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:04 -0500, "Richard Holton" richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Process, like so many things, is not inherently bad. It's the abuse of process that causes problems.
Actually the real evil is slavish adherence to process in the absence of the ever-elusive Clue. Wiki-process exists to guide and inform, not to instruct, and far too many people fail to understand this.
I agree with you, Guy. I wasn't very clear, but I was primarily thinking of slavish adherence to process when I wrote "abuse of process". That and attempting to dictate process when not absolutely necessary.
There are places where following a strict process is important. Think about a paper-based filing system, with filing cabinets. A strict process for filing is essential.
Since we're computer based, and computers are excellent at strictly following processes, we automate most of those situations. But sometimes that isn't practical, or just hasn't been accomplished yet.
One part of having a clue is being able to distinguish between situations where process is absolutely necessary, versus situations where process is to guide and inform. Most Wikipedia processes are of the latter type.
The controversies on Wikipedia seem to involve processes where judgment is required, and you can't automate judgment.
-Rich
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]
On 04/10/06, Richard Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
The controversies on Wikipedia seem to involve processes where judgment is required, and you can't automate judgment.
The hard part is how to get across that that last isn't a bug.
- d.