I am really concerned that the number and extent of policies on en Wikipedia is getting seriously out of hand. It's true that some policy needs are necessary, but I feel like it's getting to the point where you must have memorized hundreds of pages, spanning hundreds of kilobytes of text, just to be able to edit within the "rules". Unless you're spending most of your waking moments on Wikipedia, and keeping up with all the new rules and decisions, you're unlikely to keep up with all this. This is especially hard on admins who are the targets of disruptive users. I am not saying that there shouldn't be accountability, but all these rules is making the whole editing process a whole lot less fun than it used to be. I am already feeling like I should stop being an admin, and if the policy explosion extends much further into the normal editing, I'd probably stop editing altogether. Common sense seems to be going out the window.
It used to be that we had mostly guidelines, but at some point guidelines seems to have moved into policy, and users are using these to clobber each other left and right. I think this is a looming threat to Wikipedia. The bureacracy level is increasing every day. I don't think that the benefits of the increased bureacracy outweigh the added complexity. Obviously Wikipedia is a lot bigger than it used to be, but I think the medicine might turn into a new disease.
On Dec 4.2004, at 19:36, Dori wrote:
The bureacracy level is increasing every day
Wired had a great idea a long time ago; the theory was that if a company/enterprise had more than 25 people, it should be made a standalone company.
The theory was to contest the kind of excessive bureaucracy you've alluded to. It kept it to a minimum.
I'm not suggesting it'll solve problems necessarily, or that it applies everywhere (it takes more than 25 people to turn out umpteen thousand boring American sports cars) but it's a solid thought for an IT based industry.
At some point bureaucracy slows you down, and - most importantly - no longer adds value.
Note if you hire a maniac like me of course, but that's just me :)
The original author makes some very valid points, and they should be considered carefully.
First suggestion: you can only sit on the board of/actively work on one wiki project at once. Maybe two. -- Skot Nelson skot@penguinstorm.com
Here's a question for you then. Do you want the Arbitration Committee to use "common sense" or follow established policies. (fyi, the Committee is somewhat split on this point)
Fred
From: Dori slowpoke@gmail.com Reply-To: Dori slowpoke@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:36:32 -0600 To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Policies expanding out of control
I am really concerned that the number and extent of policies on en Wikipedia is getting seriously out of hand. It's true that some policy needs are necessary, but I feel like it's getting to the point where you must have memorized hundreds of pages, spanning hundreds of kilobytes of text, just to be able to edit within the "rules". Unless you're spending most of your waking moments on Wikipedia, and keeping up with all the new rules and decisions, you're unlikely to keep up with all this. This is especially hard on admins who are the targets of disruptive users. I am not saying that there shouldn't be accountability, but all these rules is making the whole editing process a whole lot less fun than it used to be. I am already feeling like I should stop being an admin, and if the policy explosion extends much further into the normal editing, I'd probably stop editing altogether. Common sense seems to be going out the window.
It used to be that we had mostly guidelines, but at some point guidelines seems to have moved into policy, and users are using these to clobber each other left and right. I think this is a looming threat to Wikipedia. The bureacracy level is increasing every day. I don't think that the benefits of the increased bureacracy outweigh the added complexity. Obviously Wikipedia is a lot bigger than it used to be, but I think the medicine might turn into a new disease.
-- [[en:User:Dori]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:16:54 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Here's a question for you then. Do you want the Arbitration Committee to use "common sense" or follow established policies. (fyi, the Committee is somewhat split on this point)
Fred
I think that 90% of all policies should apply to the main and Image: namespaces (only 10% should apply to the other namespaces). The number of policies should be pretty small (GFDL, NPOV, factual, be nice, etc). The committee would go by the policy where one applies, but go on common sense on most things.
From: Dori slowpoke@gmail.com Reply-To: Dori slowpoke@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:36:32 -0600 To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Policies expanding out of control
I am really concerned that the number and extent of policies on en Wikipedia is getting seriously out of hand. It's true that some policy needs are necessary, but I feel like it's getting to the point where you must have memorized hundreds of pages, spanning hundreds of kilobytes of text, just to be able to edit within the "rules". Unless you're spending most of your waking moments on Wikipedia, and keeping up with all the new rules and decisions, you're unlikely to keep up with all this. This is especially hard on admins who are the targets of disruptive users. I am not saying that there shouldn't be accountability, but all these rules is making the whole editing process a whole lot less fun than it used to be. I am already feeling like I should stop being an admin, and if the policy explosion extends much further into the normal editing, I'd probably stop editing altogether. Common sense seems to be going out the window.
It used to be that we had mostly guidelines, but at some point guidelines seems to have moved into policy, and users are using these to clobber each other left and right. I think this is a looming threat to Wikipedia. The bureacracy level is increasing every day. I don't think that the benefits of the increased bureacracy outweigh the added complexity. Obviously Wikipedia is a lot bigger than it used to be, but I think the medicine might turn into a new disease.
-- [[en:User:Dori]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Just so that the discussion gains more interlingual dimension..
I recently find a similar tendency at Japanese Wikipedia. Some of the policies that I feel difficult include the kind of policies that define people's qualifications:
*Who can vote at Request for Deletion *Whose inappropriate comments could be removed at Request for Administratorship *Who can remove inappropriate comments at Request for Administratorship *Who can make a request at Request for Blocking *Who can conclude a discussion on an item on Request for Deletion *Who can conclude a discussion on an item on Request for Administratorship
These policies were formed in reactions to IPs and new accounts disturbing the process by making irrelevant comments, illegitimate requests, disputable conclusions, etc. We do not know those IP edits and new accounts are real innocent newbies who were simply bold, or some troublemakers disguising as a newbie.
I was thinking what alternatives were available:
1)No rule, & give matters on the discretions of bold volunteers, who may or may not exercise fair judgment.
2)No substantive rule, but give matters to designated trusted volunteers who we can expect would act in good faith and common sense.
3)Simplify those rules but still let them exist.
I don't have an answer except that 1) is probably not as good as 2) and 3).. I had a chance to chat with other Japanese Wikipedians on this, and some of them who were pushing/leading to formulate the rules seem to recognize that those rules create some problems by solving one.
Tomos
----- Original Message ----- From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:16:54 -0700 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Policies expanding out of control
Here's a question for you then. Do you want the Arbitration Committee to use "common sense" or follow established policies. (fyi, the Committee is somewhat split on this point)
Fred
--- Dori slowpoke@gmail.com wrote:
I am really concerned that the number and extent of policies on en Wikipedia is getting seriously out of hand.
[Snip]
Obviously Wikipedia is a lot bigger than it used to be, but I think the medicine might turn into a new disease.
Amen.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
As to the argument in discussion, i do not have a fixed opinion one way or the other; yes polices are suffering something similar to [[feature blot]], but equally which policies are the non-essential ones. I would also like to share an insight re: our polices, that i had on the train home - Our core policies ([[Be bold]], assume good faith, NPOV) are all "thou shalt" rather than "thou shalt not" ie, rather than Jimbo sending Larry Sanger down the mountian with 10 comandments; thou shalt NOT covert thy neighours ox, thou shalt NOT J-walk, etc. they are thou shalt be bold, etc
I am reasonably sure that this is very significant, though not quite so sure why.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
I am really concerned that the number and extent of policies on en Wikipedia is getting seriously out of hand.
[Snip]
Obviously Wikipedia is a lot bigger than it used to be, but I think the medicine might turn into a new disease.
Amen.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org