G'day Cascadia,
<big snip/>
The point I was making was that written policy is not Wikipedia
policy. That's an intersting statement. Considering one of the first things at WP:SOCK is:
"This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
I appologize if I sound obtuse or overly confused... but when does "official Policy on the English Wikipedia" not be Wikipedia policy??
There are a number of problems with written policy. Firstly, policy pages themselves do not have, and cannot have, a completely accurate, exhaustive description of what any user does or ought to do (in the same vein, we have the seemingly-simple "thou shalt not kill", but sometimes it is okay to kill; how do we define killing, and describe every occasion when it is acceptable and when not?). Secondly, since this is a wiki, anybody can edit policy pages; radical changes tend to be reverted unless first discussed on the talk page, but more subtle rephrasings, committed in good faith with intent to make things clearer, can over time lead to the actual words on a policy page differing dramatically from what was initially agreed to. Finally, only a small subset of users actually take part in policy debates. There are those who aren't interested in the formation of policy; those who don't know that they can contribute; those who are too busy actually working on the encyclopaedia to get..
The second issue, a favourite of mine, is the difference, to use a footballing phrase, between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. What Tony means by "Wikipedia policy" --- he can correct me here if I'm wrong --- is the *spirit* of the law, while written policy is what they actually say. On Wikipedia, as with football, it's recognised that the written word is insufficient to explain our best practices. Where the letter is found wanting, the spirit can be used to override it. It's entirely possible to follow policy and still get slapped by ArbCom, because although you may have done what the policy pages said, you did something incredibly silly. Likewise, it's possible to ignore policy pages and do the Right Thing. The policy pages are not, and cannot be, perfect, so you need to use your judgment and common sense in interpreting them. Strive always to do, not what the letter of a policy page says, but what the spirit of Wikipedia says.
As George Orwell said in a completely different context, but I like it and think it fits: "Break any of these rules sooner than do anything outright barbarous."
On 4/20/07, Fuddlemark m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
What Tony means by "Wikipedia policy" --- he can correct me here if I'm wrong --- is the *spirit* of the law, while written policy is what they actually say.
As usual Mark interprets, with eloquence and patience I would strive hard and never match, the *spirit* of my words.
On 4/20/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
The second issue, a favourite of mine, is the difference, to use a footballing phrase, between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. What Tony means by "Wikipedia policy" --- he can correct me here if I'm wrong --- is the *spirit* of the law, while written policy is what they actually say. On Wikipedia, as with football, it's recognised that the written word is insufficient to explain our best practices. Where the letter is found wanting, the spirit can be used to override it. It's entirely possible to follow policy and still get slapped by ArbCom, because although you may have done what the policy pages said, you did something incredibly silly. Likewise, it's possible to ignore policy pages and do the Right Thing. The policy pages are not, and cannot be, perfect, so you need to use your judgment and common sense in interpreting them. Strive always to do, not what the letter of a policy page says, but what the spirit of Wikipedia says.
And this, of course, is the soul of Ignore All Rules, something which is less well understood than it ought to be, methinks.