Amen.
Process is important. However, the fallacy is to assume any of the following:
1. Process is not less important than product. 2. Process is good, so more process is better. <-- this is a bad one 3. Process is good, so we should not proceed without making process along the way. 4. If a process exists, it must be followed because it's a process.
The fallacious elements of these are:
1. Process is important, but the product is more important. "We're here to write an encyclopedia." 2. Process is good, but more process is *BAD*. Process grows like bindweed and must be culled regularly. Anyone who says "process is important" must read and understand [[m:Instruction creep]]. 3. Grey areas exist; the human brain exists to deal with them. You can't Taylorise clue. 4. Processes are frequently written up to try to win at wikinomic. This is part of how process grows like bindweed.
Process is important. It is also dangerous, and must be kept strictly under control and rebuilt regularly. AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP A PROCESS FOR THAT.
- d.
On 5/5/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- Process is good, so we should not proceed without making process
along the way.
As long as people give any weight to presedent this one is pretty much imposble to avoid.
- If a process exists, it must be followed because it's a process.
However much of wikipedia process exists for a reason. Please respect that reason and understand the people who came up with probably put a fair bit of thought into its desighn
- Process is good, but more process is *BAD*. Process grows like
bindweed and must be culled regularly. Anyone who says "process is important" must read and understand [[m:Instruction creep]].
Since m:Instruction creep relates to process they probably have. The broad principle is correct (although I quite like our overgrown and contradictory guidelines it means it is almost imposible to produce a solid case based on them to stop me doing what I want to do) the anicdote doesn't tend to apply wikipedia (It is generaly less complex to remove someone from wikipedia rather than get a new policy aproved).
- Grey areas exist; the human brain exists to deal with them. You
can't Taylorise clue.
However you can produce rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. It is possible to define where the grey areas are.
- Processes are frequently written up to try to win at wikinomic.
This is part of how process grows like bindweed.
I find they are generaly writen by well meaning people. The trick is squashing the idea without squashing the person.
Process is important. It is also dangerous, and must be kept strictly under control and rebuilt regularly. AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP A PROCESS FOR THAT.
- d.
So would you support protecting all policy pages (have you seen the edit rate on CSD?)? -- geni
geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/06, David Gerard wrote: > 2. Process is good, but more process is *BAD*. Process grows like > bindweed and must be culled regularly. Anyone who says "process is > important" must read and understand [[m:Instruction creep]].
Since m:Instruction creep relates to process they probably have. The broad principle is correct (although I quite like our overgrown and contradictory guidelines it means it is almost imposible to produce a solid case based on them to stop me doing what I want to do) the anicdote doesn't tend to apply wikipedia (It is generaly less complex to remove someone from wikipedia rather than get a new policy aproved).
Are you saying this is "good"? Instruction creep could easily be retitled tax code creep or bureaucrat creep. Tossing people into the torture chamber doesn't seem like a reasonable solution to dealing with a process problem, especially if the intent (AGF) is to cleanup (de-weed) the process.
> 3. Grey areas exist; the human brain exists to deal with them. You > can't Taylorise clue.
However you can produce rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. It is possible to define where the grey areas are.
Very true.~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
On 5/5/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote: Are you saying this is "good"? Instruction creep could easily be retitled tax code creep or bureaucrat creep. Tossing people into the torture chamber doesn't seem like a reasonable solution to dealing with a process problem, especially if the intent (AGF) is to cleanup (de-weed) the process.
There is a limit to how far we should go to acomerdate people. Currently you have to do something pretty negative to get banned long term. However it is genraly better that we remove those people rather than comeing up with special process just for them. Admins don't have the power to toss people into torture chambers. I am aware that being blocked can hurt but it is still preferable to most forms of tourture.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 5/5/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- If a process exists, it must be followed because it's a process.
However much of wikipedia process exists for a reason. Please respect that reason and understand the people who came up with probably put a fair bit of thought into its desighn
This sounds like respect for intelligent design. Quantity of thought should not be viewed as superior to quality of thought. Imputing reasons as a foundation for a process is not enough.
- Process is good, but more process is *BAD*. Process grows like
bindweed and must be culled regularly. Anyone who says "process is important" must read and understand [[m:Instruction creep]].
Since m:Instruction creep relates to process they probably have. The broad principle is correct (although I quite like our overgrown and contradictory guidelines it means it is almost imposible to produce a solid case based on them to stop me doing what I want to do) the anicdote doesn't tend to apply wikipedia (It is generaly less complex to remove someone from wikipedia rather than get a new policy aproved).
In a backhanded way I would agree. Generating enough policies and processes can result in "everything being permitted", and in allowing the Grand Inquistor to have free reign.
- Grey areas exist; the human brain exists to deal with them. You
can't Taylorise clue.
However you can produce rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. It is possible to define where the grey areas are.
Oh the antinomious faith of the software student as he bows before the graven image of HAL9000!
For those of us with less faith: when you define a grey area it is no longer grey, but out of self-defence it begets new grey areas
- Processes are frequently written up to try to win at wikinomic.
This is part of how process grows like bindweed.
I find they are generaly writen by well meaning people. The trick is squashing the idea without squashing the person.
Does this imply that nomic players are no well-meaning? To be sure we don't want to squash the person, but even with an idea if you approach it with the preconception that it must be squashed it leaves little room for change.
Process is important. It is also dangerous, and must be kept strictly under control and rebuilt regularly. AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP A PROCESS FOR THAT.
So would you support protecting all policy pages (have you seen the edit rate on CSD?)?
Unprotecting them all would be a better option. Process should reflect the stone in David's sling rather than the spike in Goliath's club.
Ec
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Process is important. It is also dangerous, and must be kept strictly under control and rebuilt regularly. AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP A PROCESS FOR THAT.
How about: IF Process.Growth > 10% THEN EXECUTE(Process.Rebuild) ELSE EXECUTE(Process.Grow(.1 - Process.Growth.Current) ~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP A PROCESS FOR THAT.
Do you crave the rich, satisfying sensation of having a clue, but dislike that harsh, time-consuming thinking that can accompany it? Then you need KLOO[tm], the clue-free process-compliant clue-flavored process[0] from Process Fetishes R Us!
99.44% of Wikipedia's admins agree[1] that decluvinated KLOO[tm] solves all their problems, including Trolls, Rabid Inclusionists, World Hunger, IAR Fanatics, and David Gerard!
And now, for those heavy days, introducing Super-Absorbent Maximum Strength KLOO-XTRA[tm]! Guaranteed to neutralize three times its weight in excess thinking ... and ... IT'S TAYLORIZED![sm]
[0] No products were produced during the production of this process. [1] Improperly formatted survey returns were discarded.
- -- Sean Barrett | You know, boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot sean@epoptic.org | like women. You just have to read the manual | and press the right button. --Homer Simpson