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

[Jossi Fresco]

On Mar 21, 2007, at 12:01 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> 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

Thank you for the reply.

I was not aware of the need for a broad public poll. For example,  
WP:BLP, which I was quite involved in formulating, went from proposal  
to policy without such public poll.

As for the argument that "many good editors were unaware", I find  
that puzzling: How could such editors *not* be aware with all the  
discussions, involvement, redirecting of high-traffic pages such as  
NPOV and V, the referencing to WP:ATT in ArbCom cases, etc?

As for your last point, that is very clear and useful as it defines  
an unambiguous endpoint.

-- Jossi