[WikiEN-l] Hallmark of bad process: guideline vs didacticism

[David Gerard]

I've added this to my process essay (which I should declare "done"
some time soon really). It's too long and too bitter. Your help is
most welcomed.

* Prescriptive when it should be a guideline

    ** A lot of people think making things hard policy means people
will actually follow them. This means editorial guidelines get phrased
as didactic policy. This results in stupidity such as WP:RS (a
guideline) being used by apparently insane robots as a reason to gut
articles of content.
    ** Policy is harsh stuff, and there's a limit to how much people
will hold in their heads. Everything that can be a guideline should
be, because clueless editors won't understand it and bad faith editors
won't care.


to expand:

There is no point being didactic on editorial guidance pages even if
you REALLY REALLY think people REALLY REALLY need to do this. Because
it doesn't work. It doesn't stop clueless editors, because they won't
understand it. It doesn't stop malicious editors, because they don't
care. It provides a new way for apparently insane robots to
inappropriately misapply process without understanding why it's there.
And it pisses off the good clueful editors who go "what, MORE policy?"

Now. The above bullet points are from the perspective of me, who hates
this stuff. What's a phrasing that would get through to someone who
thinks being didactic on editorial guideline pages is a necessary
idea? This is the school of thought that removes all blog or Usenet
references because they don't like them, then the apparently insane
robots move in.


- d.