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

[geni]

On 5/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 3. Process is good, so we should not proceed without making process
> along the way.

As long as people give any weight to presedent this one is pretty much
imposble to avoid.

> 4. If a process exists, it must be followed because it's a process.
>

However much of wikipedia process exists for a reason. Please respect
that reason and understand the people who came up with probably put a
fair bit of thought into its desighn


> 2. Process is good, but more process is *BAD*. Process grows like
> bindweed and must be culled regularly. Anyone who says "process is
> important" must read and understand [[m:Instruction creep]].

Since m:Instruction creep relates to process they probably have. The
broad principle is correct (although I quite like our overgrown and
contradictory guidelines it means it is almost imposible to produce a
solid case based on them to stop me doing what I want to do) the
anicdote doesn't tend to apply wikipedia (It is generaly less complex
to remove someone from wikipedia rather than get a new policy
aproved).

> 3. Grey areas exist; the human brain exists to deal with them. You
> can't Taylorise clue.

However you can produce rigidly defined areas of doubt and
uncertainty. It is possible to define where the grey areas are.

> 4. Processes are frequently written up to try to win at wikinomic.
> This is part of how process grows like bindweed.
>

I find they are generaly writen by well meaning people. The trick is
squashing the idea without squashing the person.

> Process is important. It is also dangerous, and must be kept strictly
> under control and rebuilt regularly. AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP
> A PROCESS FOR THAT.
>
>
> - d.

So would you support protecting all policy pages (have you seen the
edit rate on CSD?)?
--
geni