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

[Cheney Shill]

geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

    On 5/5/06, David Gerard wrote:
    > 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).
    
Are you saying this is "good"?  Instruction creep could easily be retitled tax code creep or bureaucrat creep.  Tossing people into the torture chamber doesn't seem like a reasonable solution to dealing with a process problem, especially if the intent (AGF) is to cleanup (de-weed) the process.

    > 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.

Very true.~~~~Pro-Lick



		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.