On Sunday 08 September 2002 12:01 pm, you wrote:
I don't recall ever having a problem with people changing policies unilaterally, so I guess I don't see any good reason to have these pages frozen. I do, however, see some problems with it.
Stephen Gilbert
Yes there has been a problem with this in the past (albeit relatively minor - but that was back when we had 1/3 the edit volume). Off the top of my head; an anonymous IP tried to add a new naming convention unilaterally without discussion; http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions&...
24's additions to rules to consider (admittedly not a policy page but very similar); http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Rules_to_consider&...
And there are probably others that could be found by digging a bit more.
Then there is http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_L... which for legal reasons can't be edited by anybody and also http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
As Karen said anybody who has been around for a while can be a sysop and we can't have just any anonymous IP changing policy pages.
If you have noticed when I refactored the naming conventions page I spun-off the majority of the text in sub-articles which /are not/ protected - just watched by little old me. I think something similar should be done with NPOV which has become a monster. That way the amount of protected text is at a bare minimum and anybody can copyedit the majority of the text yet the short policy statements on the protected page are not changed.
In fact all of our policy pages should be as short as possible with separate but linked unprotected pages which go into in-depth discussion and explanation. See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
We might want to have some type of boilerplate block at the top of each policy page stating something to the effect;
"[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Wikipedia policy]] has evolved over time and continues to evolve as the project matures. Policy changes must be agreed to by consensus however. If you want to help us refine our policies please add to this page's talk, join the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia-L|mailing list]] and/or ask to become a [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Wikipedia administrator]] (which is granted to any logged-in user who is generally known and trusted by the community)."
It has been stated before that we can't trust any anonymous yahoo with meta functions (and changing policy is one of these functions).
PS I've heard several people chim in that "Ignore all rules" is a policy. That's plain wrong; it is just a rule to consider. See: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes there has been a problem with this in the past (albeit relatively minor - but that was back when we had 1/3 the edit volume). Off the top of my head; an anonymous IP tried to add a new naming convention unilaterally without discussion;
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions&...
This addition about variants of names is a convention that we mostly follow; it just isn't written down. Still, it should have been at least mentioned on the Talk page first.
24's additions to rules to consider (admittedly not a policy page but very similar);
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Rules_to_consider&...
That was the intented function of Rules to Consider. It's been around since the beginning of the project so that people could suggest rules and discuss them. It is not a policy listing. Whatever the consenus about polcy pages, this page should be unlocked.
And there are probably others that could be found by digging a bit more.
Then there is
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_L...
which for legal reasons can't be edited by anybody and also http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
Yes, I agree with those two.
As Karen said anybody who has been around for a while can be a sysop and we can't have just any anonymous IP changing policy pages.
We can do what we do with every silly change: change it back.
It has been stated before that we can't trust any anonymous yahoo with meta functions (and changing policy is one of these functions).
I don't recall that ever being agreed upon. What was generally agreed is that total deletion and banning was not something that any random passerby should be able to do. Also moving pages was not open to everyone because it didn't move article histories; now that it is not dangerous, everyone can do it.
I don't mean to come across as contentious, although I probably am. :) Let me state my position here.
There are only two iron-clad, unbreakable Wikipedia laws: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should be written following the principle of the neutral point of view. Any policies that we develop are in the service of these two laws. Such policies are not unbreakable; they are suggestions and conventions, although as KQ pointed out, many of them are very *strong* suggestions.
The issue I'm concerned about is not whether or not people should be allowed to make random changes on the policy pages; we are in agreement that policy should be reached through group discussion and agreement. My two concerns are:
1. Freezing the policy pages is a policy I don't recall discussing. If there was a discussion and I just missed it, then I apologize, and this concern is moot. I'd appreciate a link to it.
2. Frozen policy pages do more harm than good. For the minor convienence of not having to do the occassional reversion, we have the implication that policies are unchangable except by the "old timers"; newbies need not apply. This is not the case, as all of our policies have evolved naturally through all Wikipedians participation. Also, changing the policy is not the only reason for changing a policy page. I've already mentioned copyediting and linking, but there is also rewording to make the policy clearer without changing the actual message. A person shouldn't have to seek out a sysop to make these minor changes on a wiki.
That being said, we both agree that policy should be discussed on an appropriate talk page and possibily the mailing list (although I'd rather people just dropped a link to an appropriate talk page instead of conducting the entire discussion on the list). I like your idea of a policy page boiler plate. I would like to unprotect those pages and add such a notice, asking people not to change policies without discussing the changes first. That would allow people to make non-policy changes, and eliminate the sense of being able to change the way things are done.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org