--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Sadly, we are not a small little community anymore
where informal means of running the shop could do
just fine. We need clear rules and clear ways to
enforce those rules.
I'm very much in agreement with Daniel here. One thing
in particular that I find frustrating and troubling
now is that even the policies that we do have are not
sometimes not clearly stated as policies. For example,
[[wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] is the main
entry point into the Wikipedia policies. There you
will find that "No personal attacks", "No offensive
user names", and other items that seem to have the
force of policy are listed under "Specific guidelines
to consider", where you will also find "Ignore all
rules" and "state the obvious".
I believe that the time has come to firmly state
exactly what policies we have, and clearly separate
them from "suggestions". We still want to keep the
list of policies as short as we can, but no one is
served by the confusing mish-mash that exists now.
I suppose what is required first is for someone
(Jimbo?) or some group to define exactly how policies
are set and reviewed. (I've heard that 80% is
considered valid consensus for a policy, but where is
that stated? How is the polling to be conducted?)
I'm not sure how the Arbitration Committee is
proceeding where policies are vague, but it seems to
me that their efforts would be only aided by any
clarification of what our policies are.
-Rich Holton (user: Rholton)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com