[WikiEN-l] Process is evil

[Steve Bennett]

On 8/22/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> Policy and process are sticks; the policy one is for hitting people
> with.  NPA, CIVIL, AGF, etc. all exist because we sometimes need to hit
> someone over the head when they refuse to conform to "don't be a dick".

No, no, no. Some people use them that way. I use AGF as a guiding
principle, to remind me how to behave. I have no idea how you would
make a stick out of it.

>  NOR, CITE are there because "don't make shit up" isn't obvious enough
> and sometimes need to be accompanied by a whack to the noggin as well.

No. NOR is critical for defining what kind of reference work we are,
and setting limits on how far people can go. Not all rules have to be
used as sticks to be effective.

> Similar, but less obvious whacking has occurred in support of "we're an
> encyclopaedia" and "we're neutral".  Funnily enough (or perhaps not),
> nobody's felt the need to create policies which help shore up "ignore
> all rules".  Perhaps there's hope yet?  The point, regardless, is this:
> policy is a stick for hitting people because they're too damn stupid to
> do the Right Thing.  If you're already doing (or striving to do) the
> Right Thing, then policy doesn't have to apply to you.

No. Policy is there to define what the right thing is, because it's
not always obvious! I very frequently see discussions between people
like "Are we allowed to say this in the article? Doesn't that violate
NOR?" then someone replies "Hmm, should be okay according to section
x.y...I think?". No sticks.

> Process, meanwhile, is a crutch.  It's there to help editors through
> complicated actions.  The AfD process, for example, theoretically

In the sense that every useful tool ever invented is a "crutch".

> row of Lilliputian houses).  Just as with policy we have editors who
> don't need to be hit over the head, there are times when Wikipedians
> don't *need* a crutch.

Definitely. There are very very few cases where a process absolutely
*must* be followed. In most cases, alternate sequencing of events
arriving at the same destination work equally well, even if they
confuse spectators :)

> We must always be careful not to confuse these two ... er ... metaphors
> (ahem).  Policy is not a crutch, and leaning on it when you don't have
> to can lead to absurdity.  Process is not a stick to hit people with,

The absurdity is the two people in perfect health criticising each
other because they're not leaning on the crutch enough. That happens.
Like when a vote gets closed early due to overwhelming inevitability
and someone complains that it's supposed to get 7 days or whatever. No
crutch needed.

> and giving someone a fair and unnecessary wallop behind the ears is not
> likely to improve their humour (unless they're a member of CVU, but
> that's another post entirely).

I honestly don't see a lot of this kind of behaviour, but I do stay
away from most controversial/busy articles.

Steve