[WikiEN-l] We need a policy to deal with new policies

[Mark Gallagher]

     This is rather long.  I may post it later as a personal essay.
     Consequently, I don't expect anyone to actually read it.  It felt
     good to say, at least ...

As a general rule, policy in an environment like Wikipedia is a Good 
Thing.  It means people get to know what to expect, those comparatively 
few users with power over other users are kept accountable, and a bunch 
of other fine things.  Thanks to policy, users can comfortably 
contribute to the encyclopaedia knowing that they are protected by 
English law, as is their birthright[0].

Wikipedia has a few basic, overarching, dreadfully important policies:
* we are an encyclopaedia
* we write from a neutral point-of-view
* we don't abuse Wikipedia to publish our own theories
* we treat each other with civility and respect and do our very best to
   assume good faith and not behave like dicks and disrupt the project
* anything that is not on this list is negotiable

Somehow, however, this is not sufficient.  People start to look at our 
principles as a game of Nomic: "Wikipedia could be really cool, if only 
it weren't an encyclopaedia."; "This article is about X, so *of course* 
it's going to be written from X's point-of-view.  Anything else is 
crazy!"; "Why should I need good sources?  You're just trying to censor 
THE TRUTH!"; "I didn't know edit warring was wrong."; "We should get rid 
of Ignore All Rules, it just encourages anarchy".  How many of these 
statements are fictitious?  They look awfully familiar, don't they?

Now, we can't rely on our basic principles for day-to-day dealings. 
There's too much potential for abuse: sure, NPOV, but *how* NPOV?  What 
*does* NOR mean, anyway?  Why should admins be allowed to decide who is 
and isn't being disruptive?  So we have to define, and define, and 
define, over and over again, in a never-ending bid to create the Grand 
Unified Policy of Everything.  If we don't have an exact definition, 
people won't know what to expect ... and that's tyranny!  But there are 
no perfect definitions, and there are always gaps in policy.  Admins who 
fall back on basic common sense to deal with stuff that falls into such 
a gap are rounded on by policy wonks and wikilawyers: "can you point to 
the policy that forbids <insert dickish behaviour here/>?  Then why 
should I not be allowed to do it?  The First Amendment says I can!"

Whenever we run into an unexpected situation, the first cry heard is 
always "we need a policy to deal with this!"  As the amount of policy 
increases, the feeling that we need to strictly adhere to policy also 
increases ... until we cannot do anything unless there's a policy to 
back it up.  Which, in turn, makes the gaps in policy gape all the more 
broadly ... which leads to yet more cries: "we need a policy to deal 
with this!"  Seal that gap!  What does one put into a policy-shaped hole 
except policy?  Every gap in policy proves that we need more rules ...

If "don't be a dick!" is insufficiently enlightening as to what is and 
is not acceptable in a collaborative environment, then there's probably 
no hope for you in mountains of policies guiding social interactions 
either.  And our reaction to anyone who triumphantly proclaims the 
discovery of a loophole in our policy should not be to say "oh, no! 
He's right!  We can't touch him!", but rather to reply with something 
like "well done!  You're still banned, though."

It seems we can't trust ourselves to do the right thing, to use common 
sense, to work within broad guidelines.  Why on Earth not?  Are we 
afraid of making mistakes?  Doing the Wrong Thing, with policy support, 
can never be considered a mistake: we were just following the 
community's orders, Jimbo!  And if we need a Byzantine collection of 
poorly-understood, constantly-shifting commands and definitions to cite 
as authority for any argument, then so be it.  At least we can't be 
blamed for anything!

Come *on*, people!  Do the Right Thing, and accept the plaudits if you 
get it right, and apologise if you don't!  So long as you're 
level-headed and honest with yourself, you can't go wrong.  Mistakes can 
be forgiven, and their effects will not last long; the same cannot be as 
easily said about process fetishism.  Remember when people discussed 
what was best for the project, rather than what was most likely to fit 
in with policy?


[0] Go on, guess the reference.

-- 
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.4/332 - Release Date: 4/05/2006