[WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT

[Jimmy Wales]

jf_wikipedia wrote:
> (a) What was done that we should not have done;

The change was made before a sufficient process had taken place to make 
the change, with the result that many good editors were unaware that 
such a fundamental change was about to take place.  Many have reported 
being baffled and unhappy with the change.

> (b) What was not done that we should have done;

A process which has worked well in the past is a process of discussion 
to arrive at a specific proposal, followed by a broad public poll (or 
"vote"), followed by a certification of the result.

This achieves something quite useful: broad notification, a serious 
assessment of the strength or weakness of support for some proposal, and 
a defined endpoint so that people know that policy has been changed. 
All of these things serve to promote harmony by making policy changes 
democratic rather than power struggles.

> (c) How do we gauge consensus as it relates to policy changes.

We do not have a simple clear definition of this.

> (d) Do we need to involve you in the final determination so this does  
> not happen again?

I think this would be a good thing, yes.  I do not want to have a veto 
over policy changes (other than perhaps WP:NPOV - if a vote of 90% of 
all editors was to turn Wikipedia into Conservapedia, I would not accept 
it at all of course :) ).  But I think it is important that for really 
major shifts of policy, we have a clear and defined endpoint.

--Jimbo