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

julieharding1 at charter.net julieharding1 at charter.net
Fri May 5 20:59:59 UTC 2006

---- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote: 
> Amen.
> Process is important. However, the fallacy is to assume any of the following:
> 1. Process is not less important than product.
> 2. Process is good, so more process is better.  <-- this is a bad one
> 3. Process is good, so we should not proceed without making process


Maybe they mean, the existing fundemental process is good, so we should not proceed without making more progress. 

 Vocabulary can play tricks with anyone's head, even the smartest of geniuses.  If they've been at it all night, who knows what's going to pop out of them.


> along the way.
> 4. If a process exists, it must be followed because it's a process.
> The fallacious elements of these are:
> 1. Process is important, but the product is more important. "We're
> here to write an encyclopedia."
> 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]].
> 3. Grey areas exist; the human brain exists to deal with them. You
> can't Taylorise clue.
> 4. Processes are frequently written up to try to win at wikinomic.
> This is part of how process grows like bindweed.
> 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
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list