The Cunctator wrote;
Waiting four minutes is not following the deletion
policy.
If the page is question was junk then there is no time limit. And the "policy" you speak of is the "one week rule" for listed items which you know very well that you wrote yourself on the votes for deletion page and I later bolded. I stated in the edit summary that I agreed with it but that it "needed to have list approval". I don't remember getting this approval.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_page...
No mention here of a time period.
Here is the link to your addition to the votes for deletion page;
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion&...
The way I understand how to use the votes for deletion page is to list page titles whose content has to be moved, copyright violations and anything else there is doubt about. Utter junk should be deleted on sight, otherwise there would be at least a dozen page titles added to the vote for deletions page every day.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
=====
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 15:33, Daniel Mayer wrote:
The Cunctator wrote;
Waiting four minutes is not following the deletion
policy.
If the page is question was junk then there is no time limit. And the "policy" you speak of is the "one week rule" for listed items which you know very well that you wrote yourself on the votes for deletion page and I later bolded. I stated in the edit summary that I agreed with it but that it "needed to have list approval". I don't remember getting this approval.
The page in question was not junk.
Maveric149 wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Waiting four minutes is not following the deletion policy.
If the page is question was junk then there is no time limit. And the "policy" you speak of is the "one week rule" for listed items which you know very well that you wrote yourself on the votes for deletion page and I later bolded. I stated in the edit summary that I agreed with it but that it "needed to have list approval". I don't remember getting this approval.
Does The Cunctator have a habit of modifying policy? He edited [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] a while back to make it seem less likely that articles like [[Stock market downturn of 2002]] are what Wikipedia is not. (I mentioned it here, and later modified his modification, but it got lost here amongs other things that I mentioned at the same time.)
I myself would write something along the lines of "Do not delete pages that are listed here without waiting a reasonable period to allow for responses.". And if pages that Cunc wants to save are deleted before he's had a chance to make his response, then ipso facto the period of waiting wasn't reasonable (since Cunc, I believe, makes a point of checking the queue). Nevertheless, mav is right that this should get list approval, and then be mentioned here:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_page...
-- Toby
On 9/27/02 12:58 AM, "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Maveric149 wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Waiting four minutes is not following the deletion policy.
If the page is question was junk then there is no time limit. And the "policy" you speak of is the "one week rule" for listed items which you know very well that you wrote yourself on the votes for deletion page and I later bolded. I stated in the edit summary that I agreed with it but that it "needed to have list approval". I don't remember getting this approval.
Does The Cunctator have a habit of modifying policy?
Yes, I do. And so should everyone else.
On 9/27/02 12:58 AM, "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Maveric149 wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Waiting four minutes is not following the deletion policy.
If the page is question was junk then there is no time limit. And the "policy" you speak of is the "one week rule" for listed items which you know very well that you wrote yourself on the votes for deletion page and I later bolded. I stated in the edit summary that I agreed with it but that it "needed to have list approval". I don't remember getting this approval.
Does The Cunctator have a habit of modifying policy?
I should continue: everyone has a habit of modifying policy through their actions on Wikipedia. I have a habit of modifying policy explicitly. As should everyone else.
I have changed policy pages to reflect de facto policies that I disagree with as well as ones that I agree with.
The policy pages aren't sacred and shouldn't be considered as such; but they should be followed. If you (being a reasonable and good person) think it is unreasonable or detrimental to follow something on a policy page, then you should change the policy page.
The Cunctator wrote:
I should continue: everyone has a habit of modifying policy through their actions on Wikipedia. I have a habit of modifying policy explicitly. As should everyone else.
I have changed policy pages to reflect de facto policies that I disagree with as well as ones that I agree with.
The policy pages aren't sacred and shouldn't be considered as such; but they should be followed. If you (being a reasonable and good person) think it is unreasonable or detrimental to follow something on a policy page, then you should change the policy page.
IOW, the policy pages _describe_ project policy, they don't _define_ it.
It's been frequently noted that policy and documentation pages aren't always consistent with practice. Sometimes this means the pages should be changed, sometimes this means practice should be changed, sometimes it means both.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion VIBBER wrote:
IOW, the policy pages _describe_ project policy, they don't _define_ it.
It's been frequently noted that policy and documentation pages aren't always consistent with practice. Sometimes this means the pages should be changed, sometimes this means practice should be changed, sometimes it means both.
Very well stated. And policy is policy-by-consensus with only in rare rare rare exceptions me stepping in to set something as definitive (wikipedia is an encyclopedia, for example, as opposed to a joke collection).
The nature of wiki is that there is often no final judge on matters like these. That's a problem, but it's also a huge benefit.
One thing it does ask of us: to work in a spirit of love.
--Jimbo
Brion VIBBER wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
I should continue: everyone has a habit of modifying policy through their actions on Wikipedia. I have a habit of modifying policy explicitly. As should everyone else.
What was being discussed was your modifying policy *pages*. That doesn't change what the policy *is*, implicitly or explicitly. Implicit change in policy: change over time in de facto behaviour. Explicit change in policy: discussion that results in a policy decision. Editing policy pages is an appropriate response to either of these, but it is not either of these.
I have changed policy pages to reflect de facto policies that I disagree with as well as ones that I agree with.
This would be an edit that responds to an implicit change in policy. Very reasonable. It would not be a change in policy itself.
The policy pages aren't sacred and shouldn't be considered as such; but they should be followed. If you (being a reasonable and good person) think it is unreasonable or detrimental to follow something on a policy page, then you should change the policy page.
If you edit a policy page to say that something is policy when it isn't, then you're not changing policy, you're lying about policy. And this paragraph quite at odds with your previous paragraph. After you edit a policy page to reflect a policy that you disagree with, do you then change it right back since you think that it would be detrimental to follow the policy that you disagree with? Presumably not, because you *are* a reasonable (and good) person.
IOW, the policy pages _describe_ project policy, they don't _define_ it.
That doesn't seem to be the same as what Cunc said at all. More precisely, it seems to be the same as Cunc's second paragraph, and antithetical to his first and third paragraphs.
My understanding is that policy is to be decided (or defined if you will) by discussion on talk pages and the mailing list (and in theory meta). People have said as much here before without confrontation. Once that has been done, the policy page should reflect the decision; that much should be obvious.
Mav described an edit that Cunc made to (not a policy page as such but) the part at the beginning of [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] that describes (or should describe) the policy for using that page. Mav didn't think it had been discussed properly (and it certainly didn't reflect de facto practice), which is why he thought that it should be confirmed by the list. So if mav was right about the lack of discussion, and I've been right about how policy is decided, then mav was right that the edit was premature.
I would like to be able to cite policy pages when I want to cite policy. Thus, it's important that these pages (and the policy sections of other pages) be accurate about what the policy actually is. In particular, if policy is in the process of being discussed (and thus decided, or defined), policy pages shouldn't be edited to reflect the opinion of one side of the discussion.
It's been frequently noted that policy and documentation pages aren't always consistent with practice. Sometimes this means the pages should be changed, sometimes this means practice should be changed, sometimes it means both.
Right. But editing the policy page is not the way to decide the issue. I hope that you agree.
-- Toby
On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 23:59, Toby Bartels wrote:
My understanding is that policy is to be decided (or defined if you will) by discussion on talk pages and the mailing list (and in theory meta). People have said as much here before without confrontation. Once that has been done, the policy page should reflect the decision; that much should be obvious.
This is where you're wrong. In general, policy is decided by editing the policy pages. If there's contention, then it moves to the talk pages. Only in the rare case where this is somehow "dangerous" (because the policy has sweeping and immediate consequence) or the process breaks down horribly does it need to go to the mailing list.
This is how it's worked historically, and how it should work in the future. The alternative is entirely too hierarchical and bureaucratic.
<snip>
Right. But editing the policy page is not the way to decide the issue. I hope that you agree.
Nope! I hope you'll be able to understand why editing policy pages is (as a general rule of thumb) the way to decide the issue.
In general, policy pages benefit from direct editing in the same way as article pages do; where the cumulative edits on articles influence them towards comprehensiveness and objectivity, the cumulative edits on the policy pages influence them toward robustness and fairness.
On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 01:24, The Cunctator wrote:
On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 23:59, Toby Bartels wrote:
Right. But editing the policy page is not the way to decide the issue. I hope that you agree.
Nope! I hope you'll be able to understand why editing policy pages is (as a general rule of thumb) the way to decide the issue.
Side note: I do agree, if by "decide the issue" one means "make an immutable decision". Under that definition, no policy issue should ever be decided. Thus editing the policy page is not the way to decide the issue, but neither is anything else. Now if "decide the issue" means to come up with a mutable decision, with some acceptable degree of error, then editing the policy page is the way.
On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 23:59, Toby Bartels wrote:
My understanding is that policy is to be decided (or defined if you will) by discussion on talk pages and the mailing list (and in theory meta). People have said as much here before without confrontation. Once that has been done, the policy page should reflect the decision; that much should be obvious.
The Cunctator wrote:
This is where you're wrong. In general, policy is decided by editing the policy pages. If there's contention, then it moves to the talk pages. Only in the rare case where this is somehow "dangerous" (because the policy has sweeping and immediate consequence) or the process breaks down horribly does it need to go to the mailing list.
That's where I disagree. A policy is first discussed, then implemented. Implementation is done by putting it on a policy page. If I am of the opinion that a certain thing should be policy, I put it on the talk page or the mailing list. Then people react to it, and if there is sufficient agreement without much disagreement, it can be stated as policy. If there is disagreement, it is discussed and hopefully a conclusion is reached.
You don't first include a policy, then discuss it, that's the wrong way around.
This is how it's worked historically, and how it should work in the future. The alternative is entirely too hierarchical and bureaucratic.
Doing it your way would either lead to dictatorship of the most bold ones, or to edit wars.
Right. But editing the policy page is not the way to decide the issue. I hope that you agree.
Nope! I hope you'll be able to understand why editing policy pages is (as a general rule of thumb) the way to decide the issue.
No, I don't.
In general, policy pages benefit from direct editing in the same way as article pages do; where the cumulative edits on articles influence them towards comprehensiveness and objectivity, the cumulative edits on the policy pages influence them toward robustness and fairness.
Suppose I want A and you want B. You change the policy page. There are two possibilities: 1. I decide to live with the policy even though I do not agree with it, and you have single-sidedly decided the issue. Not fair. 2. I change it back, and perhaps someone else who is of yet another opinion changes it again. Thus, we get into an edit war. Not robust.
Andre Engels
On 9/28/02 7:42 AM, "Andre Engels" engels@uni-koblenz.de wrote:
This is how it's worked historically, and how it should work in the future. The alternative is entirely too hierarchical and bureaucratic.
Doing it your way would either lead to dictatorship of the most bold ones, or to edit wars.
That's as absurd as saying, Doing it your way would either lead to dictatorship of the most bold subscribed ones, or to flame wars.
Suppose I want A and you want B. You change the policy page. There are two possibilities:
- I decide to live with the policy even though I do not agree with it, and
you have single-sidedly decided the issue. Not fair. 2. I change it back, and perhaps someone else who is of yet another opinion changes it again. Thus, we get into an edit war. Not robust.
First, those choices are not the only ones; second, your reasoning with #2 is flawed. Your other choices:
3. You can simply ignore the policy, as you have done in practice. 4. You can express your disagreement on the Talk page or on meta or on your user page or on the mailing list.
The flawed reasoning with #2 is simply that changes to a page do not an edit war necessarily make. If that were so, then Wikipedia wouldn't work. A quote from the FAQ: "We assume that the world is full of reasonable people and that collectively they can arrive eventually at a reasonable conclusion, despite the worst efforts of a very few wreckers. It's called optimism."
In general, I think that policy changes should be discussed here before changes are made to the policy pages. One reason is that many newcomers will visit the policy pages to find out what the consensus is, and so the policy pages should be 'stable' (not permanently fixed, but stable, changing conservatively over time to reflect emerged consensus). We can hash things out here, and then make non-drastic changes there.
If people want to have a say in policy, the most effective tool is to subscribe to this list. This is not particularly burdensome, as a person could easily set the list to 'nomail' and read the list via the archives.
I would be supportive of the policy pages making this clear.
--Jimbo
The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
My understanding is that policy is to be decided (or defined if you will) by discussion on talk pages and the mailing list (and in theory meta). People have said as much here before without confrontation. Once that has been done, the policy page should reflect the decision; that much should be obvious.
This is where you're wrong. In general, policy is decided by editing the policy pages. If there's contention, then it moves to the talk pages. Only in the rare case where this is somehow "dangerous" (because the policy has sweeping and immediate consequence) or the process breaks down horribly does it need to go to the mailing list.
I don't know about "is" decided. I've only noticed you doing this; others at least mention the edit in the policy page's talk page, thus explicitly inviting discussion.
This is how it's worked historically, and how it should work in the future. The alternative is entirely too hierarchical and bureaucratic.
I don't see what's hierarchical about the mailing list, much less talk pages. I do agree that discussing every policy change is bureaucratic, but that's because I forgot to mention that most policy changes are the implicit kind, changed because of a change in actual practice. But these are the policies that are rarely written down; we discuss policy that's written up on pages, these days.
In general, policy pages benefit from direct editing in the same way as article pages do; where the cumulative edits on articles influence them towards comprehensiveness and objectivity, the cumulative edits on the policy pages influence them toward robustness and fairness.
The problem is that policy pages will be inaccurate if they are changed to what policy should be but is not. (Unless you think that policy is defined to be whatever's on the page, an unlikely position if a vandal replaces the text with "This is stupid.".) OTOH, policy proposals can be edited in the wiki way on talk pages (which is the best place for it; I don't like the mailing list format either). While I've only noticed you edit major policy pages without discussion, I've noticed several occasions where text was edited on a talk page before being incorporated into the policy page itself, so that agreement could be established for the new text before it appeared on the page.
This is an encyclopaedia; we strive for accuracy ^_^.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org