[WikiEN-l] Process wonkery

[David Gerard]

On 27/09/06, Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com> wrote:

> Even if there are "guidelines", Wikipedia's organisation mechanism will
> ensure that there is - generally speaking, no consistent standard of
> applying those guidelines. Nevermind the fact that the concept of having no
> hard and fast rules is not really sustainable.


I'd suggest that too many rules is problematic, like trying to hold
too many axioms in your head at once. The more rules, the less
articles. We need process, but must take great care in what process we
have. See [[User:David Gerard/Process essay]] and hack to bits as
needed.

So the guidelines must obviously and elegantly flow directly from the
hard policy (NPOV, NOR, V). And if there is no obvious and elegant
guideline, come up with something that'll work for now with the people
we have, but be very aware that (a) it's a quick hack (b) anything
that doesn't follow obviously and elegantly from the hard policy will
need to be re-justified repeatedly. Because precedent is not binding
on Wikipedia.


> I make little apology for being so critical of Wikipedia's processes - I
> only do so because I've been here for quite some time, put a lot into the
> project, and would really like to see it improve a lot. At present it's like
> driving down the national roads (main arterial routes) in Ireland - where
> along the same route you will have anything between spanking new motorway
> and aged narrow two lane (no hard shoulders) winding bumpy country road (on
> a major intercity route). Oh - except that in Wikipedia's case - bits of the
> road are missing entirely.


The nature of process is that the editors are humans, not robots. And
volunteers. So just any process is not necessarily going to work. This
has been a source of great frustration for many editors for many
years.


- d.