The Cunctator <cunctator(a)kband.com> writes: Because the bits of "explicit policy" they ignored were declared by fiat, by someone with out such authority (i.e. you). -- Gareth Owen "Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)

The Cunctator wrote: 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

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 21:18, Stephen Gilbert 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).

On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 00:08, Stephen Gilbert 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. 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? 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.

On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 06:31, Jimmy Wales 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)." 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 <cunctator(a)kband.com> wrote: I look at Wikipedia policy as an agreement made between Wikipedians on how to handle various issues. An odd thing to say, if policy is an agreement made between people. Well, it confirms what I thought you were saying. 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? 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: 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

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 21:19, Toby Bartels wrote: 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 wrote in part: There's glory for you! -- Toby