Hi all, I have begun a project to add a one-line summary of every guideline and policy to some central place (probably [[WP:RULES]]), as well as appearing on each policy/guideline page itself. As I've now run into some (inevitable?) opposition, I'm asking for opinions, ideas etc here.
I've created a template [[template:Guideline one liner]] which displays a fairly ugly purple band - improvements welcomed. I then put it on the following pages with the following summaries.
* wikipedia:Editing policy: Improve any page without hesitation, regardless of the state you leave it in. Avoid removing information wherever possible. * wikipedia:Build the web: Link articles sideways to neighbours, and upwards to categories and contexts to create a useful web of information. * wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages: Sign all your posts on Wikipedia talk pages by typing ~~~~ to be accountable and to help others understand the conversation. * wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources: Don't copy lengthy poems, speeches or other source text into Wikipedia. Put them in Wikisource if you need to. * wikipedia:Subpages: Don't use slashes (/) in the names of articles to create subpages. * wikipedia:Edit summary: Always type at least a brief summary of the change that you made in the Edit Summary box. Avoid misleading summaries. * wikipedia:Disambiguation: If an article's name is very similar to another, make a note at the top. If many articles share a name, create a disambiguation page. * wikipedia:Deletion policy: If no page appropriate for Wikipedia could ever be written on an article's topic, nominate it for deletion. Otherwise, try and fix it. * wikipedia:Semi-protection policy: Pages undergoing frequent vandalism can be semi-protected to block edits by very new or unregistered users. * wikipedia:No binding decisions: All decisions, including poll results, can be reversed later as Wikipedia develops. * wikipedia:Ownership of articles: You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them. * wikipedia:Harassment: Don't make life miserable for other users, such as by wiki-stalking them, or you may be blocked. * wikipedia:Sock puppet: Do not use duplicate accounts to rig votes, mislead others or circumvent policy. Good-faith uses are fine. * wikipedia:Banning policy: Users may be banned for varying times. They may appeal, but must not circumvent the ban, so don't bait them or help them to try.
[copied from [[template talk:Guideline one liner]] - some of the terms are wikilinks]
Criticisms have included that the suggested summaries simplify or distort the relevant policies, that the template is ugly (I agree :)), that the template is redundant considering the first sentence is often (but surprisingly rarely!) a summary of the policy, and that users may feel they have grasped a whole policy when they've only read a "powerpoint" bullet point version of it.
I feel that many people never read the guidelines, as there are too many, and they're not well structured or organised together. By creating a single page with an accurate, concise summary of each guideline, a user can get a very good feel for not only how Wikipedia works, but also how the relevant policies and guidelines are structured, so they know where to go for more detail.
Certainly putting the summary on certain pages *is* currently redundant, but that can obviously be fixed by changing the first sentence etc. Also, one user suggested modifying [[template:policy]] (and related templates) to make room for this one-line summary, which would certainly alleviate aesthetic concerns.
So, I would love to hear some ideas and opinions on whether this is a worthwhile project, how best to implement it, and so on and so forth. There is a bit of discussion at [[template talk:Guideline one liner]] already.
Thanks, Steve ([[user talk:stevage]])
On 12/21/05, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Criticisms have included that the suggested summaries simplify or distort the relevant policies, that the template is ugly (I agree :)), that the template is redundant considering the first sentence is often (but surprisingly rarely!) a summary of the policy, and that users may feel they have grasped a whole policy when they've only read a "powerpoint" bullet point version of it.
To copy what I said on [[Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy#One_line_summary #One line summaryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy#One_line_summary ]]:
It seems to me that the problem isn't that we need a box to sum things up but that we need better first lines. Just take the information which you would put in the box and instead put it in the first line. Then, you don't have a massive ugly box, you have all of the same information, and it removes the simplistic summary of policies (i.e. from WP:BANhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BAN, the useless and PowerPointhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PowerPoint#Criticism_of_Powerpoint-eque *"Users may be banned for varying times. They may appeal, but must not circumvent the ban, so don't bait them or help them to try."*).
I feel that many people never read the guidelines, as there are too
many, and they're not well structured or organised together. By creating a single page with an accurate, concise summary of each guideline, a user can get a very good feel for not only how Wikipedia works, but also how the relevant policies and guidelines are structured, so they know where to go for more detail.
I agree: one of my main complaints about WP is that the Help stuffs aren't readily visible and hard to find (this becomes less of a problem once you discover Meta, but hey!). However, we already have the one-liner page: it's at [[Help:Contents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents]]. This handy little page is easily accessible if you use the vastly superior Classic skin (it's right underneath the link to your talk page), but is somewhat more hidden if you don't. If it became more obvious then it would alleviate some of the problems you're talking about (IMHO).
For those alternatives and reasons, I don't think that this box is necessary.
-- [[User:Blackcap]]
Steve ran this past me, I objected at first, he went back and did it differently and I said "hmm, you were right and I was wrong, go for it".
Steve Bennett wrote:
and that users may feel they have grasped a whole policy when they've only read a "powerpoint" bullet point version of it.
Any decent policy or guideline needs to be summarisable in a sentence IMO.
This objection falls into the error of assuming that you can solve not reading instructions by putting more instructions in.
This is where we get bloated guidelines with every special case outlined *right there*.
I feel that many people never read the guidelines, as there are too many, and they're not well structured or organised together. By creating a single page with an accurate, concise summary of each guideline, a user can get a very good feel for not only how Wikipedia works, but also how the relevant policies and guidelines are structured, so they know where to go for more detail.
Precisely. One page with the one-liners, each linking to the full novel.
This won't cram all the OMG INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT detail into everyone's heads, but nothing else will either.
Certainly putting the summary on certain pages *is* currently redundant, but that can obviously be fixed by changing the first sentence etc.
I see nothing wrong with putting the first sentence in a big visible box.
Also, one user suggested modifying [[template:policy]] (and related templates) to make room for this one-line summary, which would certainly alleviate aesthetic concerns.
That's a side issue. The question is whether to do this at all. (I say yes.)
- d.
On 12/22/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Precisely. One page with the one-liners, each linking to the full novel.
This won't cram all the OMG INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT detail into everyone's heads, but nothing else will either.
We already have this, as I've said, at [[Help:Contents]]. And why have a big box, when the same text as a first line can be done instead?
Hi,
We already have this, as I've said, at [[Help:Contents]]. And why have a big box, when the same text as a first line can be done instead? _______________________________________________
I'm having a look at that page (which, being a monobook user, I've never seen before), but it doesn't do what I'm trying to achieve. In terms of policies and guidelines, there are links to [[WP:RULES]], [[WP:V]] (labelled "why" [cite sources]), [[WP:DR]] and [[WP:MOS]], but that's it for policies and guidelines. Also, they're just links, they don't summarise what those policies and guidelines mean.
It's true that some P&G almost have self-evident titles, like "Sign your posts on talk pages". Others don't: "Build the web" and "Three revert rule".
One possible positive side effect of creating such a summarised list is that it will enable people to spot contradictions between guidelines more easily. This should reduce the "cite which ever guideline helps your case" problem.
Steve
On 12/22/05, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We already have this, as I've said, at [[Help:Contents]]. And why have a big box, when the same text as a first line can be done instead? _______________________________________________
I'm having a look at that page (which, being a monobook user, I've never seen before), but it doesn't do what I'm trying to achieve. In terms of policies and guidelines, there are links to [[WP:RULES]], [[WP:V]] (labelled "why" [cite sources]), [[WP:DR]] and [[WP:MOS]], but that's it for policies and guidelines. Also, they're just links, they don't summarise what those policies and guidelines mean.
Please, please, fix it. Add little summaries. I heartily encourage you to do so. The Help namespace could use that. But a box will not help matters.
Please, please, fix it. Add little summaries. I heartily encourage you to do so. The Help namespace could use that. But a box will not help matters.
Oi, I'm not pro-box :) Here are some possibilities I see for each page: * A box on each page (as I added, but prettier) * Extending the existing policy box to include the shortcut for the page and the one-line summary * Insisting that the first sentence of each page be a summary for the whole guideline. (As opposed to currently, where quite a few start with a background to the problem, rather than the solution) * No summary at all on each page
Separately there is the question, where should a list of all summaries of all policies and guidelines go: *At WP:RULES, reorganising the page so that every guideline/policy is referred to exactly once, with a summary. (Any guideline not referred to on that page probably doesn't deserve to be called a guideline) *At Help:Contents, including guidelines and policies with genuine help - probably not a good idea as it would end up just duplicating wp:rules *Somewhere else entirely
Comments and ideas please!
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
- Insisting that the first sentence of each page be a summary for the
whole guideline. (As opposed to currently, where quite a few start with a background to the problem, rather than the solution)
That's a good idea in general. All policy and guidelines should be in summary style with a lead section in strict inverted pyramid. This is really important.
- d.
On 12/22/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
- Insisting that the first sentence of each page be a summary for the
whole guideline. (As opposed to currently, where quite a few start with a background to the problem, rather than the solution)
That's a good idea in general. All policy and guidelines should be in summary style with a lead section in strict inverted pyramid. This is really important.
Seconded.
That's a good idea in general. All policy and guidelines
should be in
summary style with a lead section in strict inverted
pyramid. This is
really important.
Seconded.
Would you agree to putting that whole first sentence in bold? What about separating it slightly from the main text? What about putting it in a box? :)
Ok, I'm being facetious, but just wondering where the line is. In any case, this will probably have to wait for the New Year now. MC and HNY to everyone!
Steve
On 12/22/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Would you agree to putting that whole first sentence in bold? What about separating it slightly from the main text? What about putting it in a box? :)
Put the first sentence in bold, that'd do the first job.
That seems all right to me: a hell of a lot better than another infobox.
Blackcap wrote:
On 12/22/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Precisely. One page with the one-liners, each linking to the full novel. This won't cram all the OMG INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT detail into everyone's heads, but nothing else will either.
We already have this, as I've said, at [[Help:Contents]]. And why have a big box, when the same text as a first line can be done instead?
I see no reason not to do both. The good and clue-friendly editors can get the header box quickly, and the rules lawyers can be dealt with using baseball bats.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Steve ran this past me, I objected at first, he went back and did it differently and I said "hmm, you were right and I was wrong, go for it".
Steve Bennett wrote:
and that users may feel they have grasped a whole policy when they've only read a "powerpoint" bullet point version of it.
Any decent policy or guideline needs to be summarisable in a sentence IMO.
This objection falls into the error of assuming that you can solve not reading instructions by putting more instructions in.
This is where we get bloated guidelines with every special case outlined *right there*.
Some years ago the IRS decided that it needed to simplify instructions by putting everything at the 10th grade reading level. One effect was to make the tax guide thicker because thaey had to use smaller words.. For people who already knew how to read this stuff it meant weading through long-winded paraphrases which many or may not have meant the same thing that they said before. Those who could not read it before were not exactly encouraged by the prospect of reading an even longer guide.
Another of the US Government wonders was the Paperwork Reduction Act. In some instances it involved adding a separate slip to documents expressing how much they were commited to reducing paperwork.
Ec
Some years ago the IRS decided that it needed to simplify instructions by putting everything at the 10th grade reading level. One effect was to make the tax guide thicker because thaey had to use smaller words.. For people who already knew how to read this stuff it meant weading through long-winded paraphrases which many or may not have meant the same thing that they said before. Those who could not read it before were not exactly encouraged by the prospect of reading an even longer guide.
Another of the US Government wonders was the Paperwork Reduction Act. In some instances it involved adding a separate slip to documents expressing how much they were commited to reducing paperwork.
These are cute examples, but they're not fair analogies. I'm proposing replacing a long document which says "Read all these subdocuments. Some of them are relevant, some of them aren't. Some have been voted on, some haven't. Oh, and here are a couple of old ones that we're preserving for "historical interest"", with, Here are the rules: *[[WP:3RR]] If you revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours, you may be blocked. ...
Here are the general guidelines we'd like you to follow here: *[[wikipedia:Edit summary]]: Always type at least a brief summary of the change that you made in the Edit Summary box. Avoid misleading summaries. ...
Here's are some tips on how to behave and have a good time here: *[[wikipedia:Harassment]]: Don't make life miserable for other users, such as by wiki-stalking them, or you may be blocked. ...
Ie: You don't even need to read the subdocuments to get a pretty fair idea of what's expected of you here. Obviously you *should* read the actual policy documents, but most people don't. And this is a hell of a lot better than nothing.
Can anyone here claim to have read every item on [[Category:Wikipedia official policy]] (41 articles) and [[Category:Wikipedia guidelines]] (67 articles, 5 subcategories)? What if you only had to read one page, that succinctly summarised each of them? Would you consider it?
Steve