Cunctator wrote:
First, those choices are not the only ones; second, your reasoning with #2 is flawed. Your other choices:
- You can simply ignore the policy, as you have done in practice.
Why have a policy in the first place, then?
- You can express your disagreement on the Talk page or on meta or on
your user page or on the mailing list.
I thought your point was that everybody should just be editing the policy if they disagreed ("policy is decided by editing the policy pages"), so then this would not be an option.
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."
There's a big difference between Wikipedia articles and policy pages. The articles are about things that we do not have control of. We may have opinions about them, but it's been agreed that we try to present these opinions neutrally. However, we DO have control over the Wikipedia policies, and our own opinions DO count. Even if I'm reasonable, my opinion on many issue may be completely different with that of other Wikipedians (it frequently is), but there is no NPOV to "neutralise" our policies. The only way to change or formulate policy is by discussing it first. The policy pages are meant for Wikipedians to use as a reference. If I'd just go and change it to my personal opinion, that gives a wrong picture (unless that personal opinions happens to be the de facto policy) and things could get really messed up.
On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 15:24, Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
Cunctator wrote:
First, those choices are not the only ones; second, your reasoning with #2 is flawed. Your other choices:
- You can simply ignore the policy, as you have done in practice.
Why have a policy in the first place, then?
I didn't say that was a good option. But let me ask you; why do you ignore the explicit policy?
- You can express your disagreement on the Talk page or on meta or on
your user page or on the mailing list.
I thought your point was that everybody should just be editing the policy if they disagreed ("policy is decided by editing the policy pages"), so then this would not be an option.
No. Direct editing should be the first choice; not the only choice. And you're confusing two different threads here; I was adding to Engels' list, not delineating my own conception.
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."
There's a big difference between Wikipedia articles and policy pages. The articles are about things that we do not have control of. We may have opinions about them, but it's been agreed that we try to present these opinions neutrally. However, we DO have control over the Wikipedia policies, and our own opinions DO count. Even if I'm reasonable, my opinion on many issue may be completely different with that of other Wikipedians (it frequently is), but there is no NPOV to "neutralise" our policies. The only way to change or formulate policy is by discussing it first. The policy pages are meant for Wikipedians to use as a reference. If I'd just go and change it to my personal opinion, that gives a wrong picture (unless that personal opinions happens to be the de facto policy) and things could get really messed up.
There is an equivalent to the NPOV, and that is consensus. Your belief that changing policy to your personal opinion would automatically mess things up is based on flawed reasoning.
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 15:24, Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
Cunctator wrote:
I didn't say that was a good option. But let me ask you; why do you ignore the explicit policy?
Because the bits of "explicit policy" they ignored were declared by fiat, by someone with out such authority (i.e. you).
On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 11:37, Gareth Owen wrote:
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 15:24, Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
Cunctator wrote:
I didn't say that was a good option. But let me ask you; why do you ignore the explicit policy?
Because the bits of "explicit policy" they ignored were declared by fiat, by someone with out such authority (i.e. you).
Perhaps that's why, but we'd have to ask him, no?
And we didn't have a policy that said that individuals such as I don't have the authority to change the policy. In fact, we had the implicit policy that such individuals did, inasmuch as that's how it has worked historically, and as the pages aren't locked.
Of course, the rest of you who subscribe to the mailing list clearly feel that it's necessary to lock down the policy pages, so vive la revolution!
The Cunctator wrote:
Of course, the rest of you who subscribe to the mailing list clearly feel that it's necessary to lock down the policy pages, so vive la revolution!
I don't think it's necessary to lock down the policy pages. Is there a problem with ongoing vandalism there? I don't think so.
At the same time, I think it's wiser to steer towards a policy of openness and consensus decisionmaking. Why keep policy proposals hidden from the mailing list? Why not refrain from making policy changes until a consensus is reached, both on the mailing list and on any relevant talk pages?
It's one thing to say "policy pages should be locked down so only an authorized elite can edit them". It's another thing to say "Hey, it's better to talk about policy changes extensively before making them. It's more important, the bigger the change. So don't avoid making proposals to the mailing list."
In the current case, there's a question about deletions. There are many valid points on all sides, many pros and cons to various ways of handling them. But there is also consensus that non-destructiveness is good, that caution is good, that getting abject crap out of the system is good.
Edit wars on the policy pages won't help much with that, but talking will.
--Jimbo
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
Of course, the rest of you who subscribe to the mailing list clearly feel that it's necessary to lock down the policy pages, so vive la revolution!
Silly. The rest of me who subscribes to the list thinks it is:
a) foolish to lock the policy pages for fear of people changing them, and
b) foolish to advocate changing them whenever you disagree with what they say.
In the case of a, I've all ready made my arguments; check the list archives if you're interested.
As for b, it's always been my understanding the the policy pages are simply descriptive; actual policy comes from working on the encyclopedia and discussing things with your fellow Wikipedians. The policy pages simply describe the results of that process. Directly editing those pages in order to *change* policy negates any possible value of the pages. As Brion said, they don't define policy, they describe it. Your idea of editing the policy pages to come to a consensus, rather than coming to a consensus and then describing it, is similiar to re-writing your dictionary to change the meaning of words.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 21:18, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
Of course, the rest of you who subscribe to the mailing list clearly feel that it's necessary to lock down the policy pages, so vive la revolution!
Silly. The rest of me who subscribes to the list thinks it is:
a) foolish to lock the policy pages for fear of people changing them, and
b) foolish to advocate changing them whenever you disagree with what they say.
In the case of a, I've all ready made my arguments; check the list archives if you're interested.
As for b, it's always been my understanding the the policy pages are simply descriptive; actual policy comes from working on the encyclopedia and discussing things with your fellow Wikipedians. The policy pages simply describe the results of that process. Directly editing those pages in order to *change* policy negates any possible value of the pages. As Brion said, they don't define policy, they describe it. Your idea of editing the policy pages to come to a consensus, rather than coming to a consensus and then describing it, is similiar to re-writing your dictionary to change the meaning of words.
How can one edit a policy page without changing the policy? (Barring pages like Votes for deletion that is a combination of policy-non-policy).
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
How can one edit a policy page without changing the policy? (Barring pages like Votes for deletion that is a combination of policy-non-policy).
Ok, I admit it. I'm confused. I'm trying to say that policy should be changed first, and then the description should be updated to reflect the change. You seem to be saying that the description should be changed first, and then discussed. Your argument doesn't make sense to me (or most other people, it seems).
There are lots of ways to edit the policy pages without changing the policy they describe: correcting typos and grammar, linking, re-writing for clarity.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 00:08, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
How can one edit a policy page without changing the policy? (Barring pages like Votes for deletion that is a combination of policy-non-policy).
Ok, I admit it. I'm confused. I'm trying to say that policy should be changed first, and then the description should be updated to reflect the change. You seem to be saying that the description should be changed first, and then discussed. Your argument doesn't make sense to me (or most other people, it seems).
A lot of it comes down to a definition of "policy". What is it? Is it what people do? Is it what it says on the pages? Is it an admixture of the two? Is it what the most active contributor to Wikipedia at the time does? Etc. etc.
What I'm saying is that most changes to policy don't need to be discussed.
If that assertion is true, then the best meta-policy is to by default just change the policy.
Does that reduction make more sense?
There are lots of ways to edit the policy pages without changing the policy they describe: correcting typos and grammar, linking, re-writing for clarity.
None of those change the policy much (but they do change the policy--it's not a black and white thing) except for "re-writing for clarity". One man's clarity is another man's pea soup.
The Cunctator wrote:
What I'm saying is that most changes to policy don't need to be discussed.
Oh, but this can't be right. If policy isn't discussed, and people don't read the policy pages regularly (and they don't), then the policy pages don't have a strong impact on existing members. The policy pages are there mostly to orient newcomers, and to serve as a "reference" for the rest of us to remember what some consensus was in the past.
If you change a policy page today, I might not see it. (I confess to not looking at RecentChanges every day.) Then I'll go on my merry way doing things the "old way".
The only real policy change comes when a majority or consensus of participants achieves a change of heart and change of mind on a subject.
--Jimbo
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 06:31, Jimmy Wales wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
What I'm saying is that most changes to policy don't need to be discussed.
Oh, but this can't be right. If policy isn't discussed, and people don't read the policy pages regularly (and they don't), then the policy pages don't have a strong impact on existing members. The policy pages are there mostly to orient newcomers, and to serve as a "reference" for the rest of us to remember what some consensus was in the past.
Sorry. I should have said: "most changes to policy *pages* don't need to be discussed *before they are made* (but if they indicate a meaningful change to policy, they definitely need to be brought to the attention of as many people as possible)."
I hope that makes it more clear.
Ed Poor has done a better job of expressing what I'm trying to express. Maybe it's because he's less truculent.
The Cunctator wrote:
Sorry. I should have said: "most changes to policy *pages* don't need to be discussed *before they are made* (but if they indicate a meaningful change to policy, they definitely need to be brought to the attention of as many people as possible)."
O.k., then, I think you are right. Most changes to policy pages will not be material changes. Often, they will be changes to reflect a change in current practices that has been tried and tested over a period of time. That is, the policy pages will usually lag actual consensus.
I'd just suggest that if anyone thinks that changing policy _pages_ actually changes _policy_, they're mistaken. I don't think the majority of regular contributors even look at those pages very often.
--Jimbo
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 00:08, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
Ok, I admit it. I'm confused. I'm trying to say
that
policy should be changed first, and then the description should be updated to reflect the
change.
You seem to be saying that the description should
be
changed first, and then discussed. Your argument doesn't make sense to me (or most other people, it seems).
A lot of it comes down to a definition of "policy". What is it? Is it what people do? Is it what it says on the pages? Is it an admixture of the two? Is it what the most active contributor to Wikipedia at the time does? Etc. etc.
I look at Wikipedia policy as an agreement made between Wikipedians on how to handle various issues.
What I'm saying is that most changes to policy don't need to be discussed.
An odd thing to say, if policy is an agreement made between people.
If that assertion is true, then the best meta-policy is to by default just change the policy.
Does that reduction make more sense?
Well, it confirms what I thought you were saying.
There are lots of ways to edit the policy pages without changing the policy they describe:
correcting
typos and grammar, linking, re-writing for
clarity.
None of those change the policy much (but they do change the policy--it's not a black and white thing)...
No, they change the pages that describe the policy. The pages don't *define* the policy, so making corrections and links to the *decription* doesn't change the policy.
Let's pretent you and I are making an agreement. The agreement is that I will borrow $20 from you now, and pay you back $30 at the end of the month. Now, we write this down so we'll remember:
"The Cunctator agrees to land Stephen Gilbert $20. On October 31, Stephen will pay him back $30."
Oops, there's a typo. You correct it; "land" becomes "lend". Has our agreement changed?
...except for "re-writing for clarity". One man's clarity is another man's pea soup.
We agree on this, at least. :)
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
The Cunctator wrote:
A lot of it comes down to a definition of "policy". What is it? Is it what people do? Is it what it says on the pages? Is it an admixture of the two? Is it what the most active contributor to Wikipedia at the time does? Etc. etc.
It is what people do -- that seems sufficiently vague to be correct. The pages should reflect this accurately.
What I'm saying is that most changes to policy don't need to be discussed.
True, but also most policies aren't written down. I rather suspect that most policies that have been written down were discussed first, and thus would merit discussion to change them. But most policies just change as people's habits evolve.
If that assertion is true, then the best meta-policy is to by default just change the policy.
Sure -- but this has nothing to do with changing the policy page.
Does that reduction make more sense?
Yes, except that it's irrelevant to the issue under discussion (the editing of policy pages).
There are lots of ways to edit the policy pages without changing the policy they describe: correcting typos and grammar, linking, re-writing for clarity.
None of those change the policy much (but they do change the policy--it's not a black and white thing) except for "re-writing for clarity". One man's clarity is another man's pea soup.
None of those, of course, change the policy. They merely change how the policy has been written. Even rewriting for clarity doesn't change the policy, although it may change whether the policy page is accurate.
Is my definition of "policy" (as what people do) correct? Yes, because it has been discussed on this list, and everybody except for you agrees. I might or might not write that down.
-- Toby
The Cunctator wrote:
How can one edit a policy page without changing the policy? (Barring pages like Votes for deletion that is a combination of policy-non-policy).
Well, I think what he meant is that _merely_ editing a policy page doesn't change people's actual views and behaviors. Only communication and consensus can do that.
A vandal right now could edit a policy page to say "Alwayz spel wr0ng." That wouldn't make it policy.
Similarly, editing the policy page to say "wait a week before deleting" doesn't _automatically_ make it real-world policy... only a shared consensus makes it policy.
--Jimbo
The Cunctator wrote:
Of course, the rest of you who subscribe to the mailing list clearly feel that it's necessary to lock down the policy pages, so vive la revolution!
Well, *I* certainly don't think that they need to be locked down. I don't think that even [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] needs to be locked down -- it's on my watch list, I'll fix it. We just need to remember to be vigilant for suspicious edits, like anonymous IDs, new users that we don't recognise, and you (that is, people that may not know to discuss policy changes). That should be easy enough; ensure accuracy and NPOV on these pages just as on encyclop�dia articles.
-- Toby
On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 21:19, Toby Bartels wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Of course, the rest of you who subscribe to the mailing list clearly feel that it's necessary to lock down the policy pages, so vive la revolution!
Well, *I* certainly don't think that they need to be locked down. I don't think that even [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] needs to be locked down -- it's on my watch list, I'll fix it. We just need to remember to be vigilant for suspicious edits, like anonymous IDs, new users that we don't recognise, and you (that is, people that may not know to discuss policy changes). That should be easy enough; ensure accuracy and NPOV on these pages just as on encyclopædia articles.
Well, if people aren't allowed to edit the pages without review from the mailing list--and pretty much everyone who's on the mailing list can have (or should have, IMHO) sysop priveleges, then the pages are in effect locked down. And if they're in effect locked down, then they should be locked down. Otherwise there's a logical disconnect.
When I said "lock down" I meant "prevent unauthorized edits". It doesn't matter if that prevention is done through technology or practice--it all amounts to the same thing.
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
When I said "lock down" I meant "prevent unauthorized edits". It doesn't matter if that prevention is done through technology or practice--it all amounts to the same thing.
If, as you have said: a) Editing policy pages creates policy b) Those who edit policy pages need not have their edit reviewed by any and all interested parties including (gasp) members of the mailing list.
Does it not follow that anyone can create policy by fiat?
Do you not think thats a bad thing, because I'd bet dollars to donuts that almost everyone else with an interest in wikipedia's success does.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org