Robert Scott Horning wrote:

I've been trying to find out the origin of a "policy" on Wikimedia projects, and I'd like some help to see just where the discussion about this is at and where the origins of the policy came from. Most of the Wikimedia projects copy the help pages from Meta, usually with a strong disclaimer that you shouldn't edit the copied pages but instead try to contribute to the pages on Meta.

My question is this: Why are the pages copied to the other projects at all? Is there a strong technical reason to have this content duplicated multiple times across multiple projects? Who made the decision to have all of this content duplicated? Where is an appropriate forum for even discussing this policy and where is the policy even written down?

The same thing has been happening at Wiktionary with the same bot has been doing this on Wiktionary as on Wikibooks. It seems to have started about a month ago but I did not notice it until recently. That comes as no surprise since experienced participants don't normally have a need to look at the help pages. If I hadn't wanted to do some editing of newcomer information it could have gone on unnoticed mudh longer. I have thus far blanked the disclaimer template. Until this can be resolved Wiktionarians should feel completely free to edit these pages, and overwriting their edits with this bot should be subject to being reverted. I have also asked the owner of the bot to stop. If need be I will have no qualms about blocking the bot if it does any further importing.

It would make sense to use such pages on a new project that has not yet established its own procedures; that project could then feel free to modify these pages as its circumstances required. As you can see I attach very high importance to the autonomy of the projects, and except for a few obviously necessary principles such as NPOV, each project should be free to set its own policies.

In theory the discussion would be taking place on some Meta page, and all the people who regularly participate in Meta would have the right to have input into the policy. Extending the theory further the least that should happen if you are going to have these policies affect other projects is to notify the separate communities that the discussion is about to take place. This has not been done at Wiktionary, and it is apparent that it has not been done at Wikibooks either. Even if the discussins were to take place on Meta, what provisions would there be to prevent a "tyranny of the majority" from imposing its views on projects that may be doing things differently. Wikis depend very much on respecting the rights of members to establish their own rules, and policies. By making these pages effectively uneditable by anyone in the project (by saying that any edits will be ignored and botted over) this person has clearly gone against the openness that characterizes a wiki.

I got into an editorial dispute with another admin on Wikibooks, where I was having the help pages simply redirect to Meta (including the MediaWiki:Edithelppage location) to point users directly to the original source rather than trying to duplicate the content on Wikibook. These changes were reverted back, so I started a VfD on Wikibooks over this whole thing to get community input on the concept. So far, it is accepted as gospel fact that this content must be duplicated, but I am challenging that assertion and trying to find out why it is done in this manner.

I've just read through the Wikibooks VfD discussion on this, and find it unfortunate that this was the avenue chosen for this discussion. I don't think that it's a deletion issue at. Some of the pages are probably very useful; if one of them fills a policy hole I don't mond it's staying there for the time being. It's really a question of project members' rights to edit the pages. A see also link to the corresponding page in Meta should be adequate for having access to the information there.

My main argument for getting rid of these pages on Wikibooks (and perhaps other Wikimedia projects) is that not only do they take up server space, but they are also vandalism targets and seldom on the watchlist of any users. In addition, because the editorial effort is taking place on Meta they tend to go stale rather quickly and don't the the attention of the active regular users on the project. Making the help pages protected may be an option, but that keeps the pages "frozen" with no ability to update the content if it improves on Meta except through direct admin intervention. I am not advocating the removal of the Help namespace, just the end of duplication of the MediaWiki handbook.

Right now a user on Wikibooks has created a 'bot (without the bot flag in place as well... another issue for another day) that occasionally duplicates the help content on Meta and copies it over to Wikibooks and other Wikimedia projects as well. As this is just a single user's pet project, there is no scheduled update for transfering the help pages either. This also causes problems typical of a 'bot like overwriting talk page discussions, but it does help keep the help pages coordinated.

The operation of these rogue bots is another issue. The purpose of bot flags has been only to prevent these edits from appearing on Recent Changes. Bots often continue to function without approval as long as its edits come within easily achived guidelines for frequency of use. I think that projects need to develop much tighter controls over the operation of bots, but that's a major other topic.

Mind you, I'm not trying to disparage the very valiant effort of those who have been writing this content for the MediaWiki handbook. This is a largely thankless job that is critical to all of the MediaWiki users, beyond just the Wikimedia sister projects. Steady improvements in the content have occured over this past year, together with minor changes in the MediaWiki software that have generally been reflected in the documentation as well. A general thank-you to all who have been involved with its development is certainly in order.

I agree with you there too. Most of the content is indeed very good and useful. It's the duplication that is mindless, along with the total lack of provision to change or even comment about it on the talk page.

Ec

Ec