Wikipedia talk:Process is important/Archive 1

message: I wrote this after having too many interactions with people who were IMO far too willing to ingore process in favor of what they regarded as a better short-term result. Lots of these people ahve been admins involved in deletion decisions -- both ways, and on multiple fora. This is also in part a response to opnions often aired at Wikipedia Talk:Ignore all rules, and by those citing WP:IAR in support of adminstrative (not editing) actions.
In its current form this is not sutitable to become a policy or a guideline -- it offers no rule for action. But it is my hope that this will gain significant widespread support, and that people will consider this when considering out-of-process actions, and point to it when discusing the merits of such actions. DES (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: :I salute you. This is a very good essay. One thing which we could add (or have in a separate essay) is the difference between the original IgnoreAllRules idea (which I very much support) and administrator action which goes against not only process but also the opinions of a large part of the community. - Haukur 17:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I didn't do that because i think that even out-of-process action which is supported by a majority is toxic to the project. It gets people in the habit of acting out-of-process. It is also common for people to mis-estimate how much support there is for a particular action. Also if out-of-process actions are common, so that the written policies can not be relied on, the only way for a newcommer to learn the rules is to watch actions and see what gets reverted and what stands. DES (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactions

message: Please note that I said at the top of this talk page "In its current form this is not suitable to become a policy or a guideline". That is why i didn't put  on this, because i wasn't even proposing it as a policy or guideline. The caveat now at the top is fine with me. Perhaps we should have a tempalte to match  and ? I think  is already taken for another purpose -- how about  or ? DES (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that  is appropriate. i will add it. DES (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay but what ticks me off slightly is that it too strongly implies that these are just the views of one author. In any case having two disclaimers is redundant. If you like it then put it back in and maybe remove mine :) - Haukur 16:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I like yours better, i just didn't want to not use "approved" tags. But you are right -- to discalimers was excessive. DES (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy or guideline status 

message: What are the things we need to *do* to make an encyclopedia?
Originally, our best practices and guidelines were written following what worked. Indeed, they described what needed to be done and how in some particular situation. That's process.
Currently, there's a lot of times where people try to make it so you vote ahead of time on what to do next. You can select representatives that way, or choose between predetermined courses of action, but what you can't do is actually work out the details of what's in procedures.
Procedures works differently. That's a case of figuring it out, applying it, seeing what goes wrong, and go back to figuring how to fix that. This should sound familiar to some people around here, especially those who write procedures for computers. Writing procedures for people is harder, because they're so unpredictable. :-)
So yeah, I'd love to go back to writing process on wikipedia. It does seem that we might need to have some discussion about what we mean by process. 
Kim Bruning 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewriting all process: now there's an idea! Sam Korn 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good idea! Grace Note 04:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's actually quite a good summary of the issue, IMO. Ambi 05:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process or policy?  

message: Any time anyone uses government as an analogy for how Wikipedia should operate — either legislatively or judicially — he loses my support.  I didn't volunteer to become a subject of yet another government.
I hold this truth to be self-evident: that whenever any Form of Policy, Guideline, or Process becomes destructive of the End of creating an Encyclopedia, it is the Right and Duty of all Wikipedians to alter, abolish, or simply ignore it.  Punishing volunteers for not following "the process," just because it's the process and disregarding the results, is destructive.  Process created Nupedia.  Ignoring all rules created Wikipedia. ➥the Epopt 19:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a government, and such analogies are of limited value. But IMO any project that attempts to get cooperative action from large numbers of people will have to have some mechanisms in place for avoiding and dealing with interpersonal friction and clashes of views, and many of those are likely to be in one way or another analogous to methods used by government; and lessons learned from what works and what does not in governmental situations are often relavent, although surely not binding. Thus I find such analogies often helpful, if well constructed. of course they are only analogies. DES (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What WP:IAR says is crucial to the constructing of an encyclopedia: It says that if you are doing something constructive toward the aim of creating an encyclopedia, do it. If ever there develops a "consensus" to, say, delete all images of anything sexual from Wikipedia, even if that decision is made through process, I will immediately ignore that alleged "process" and revert any deletion of images. Why? Because we're writing an encyclopedia, and sexual images are part of an encyclopedia. I don't care that that decision was made through alleged "process" - that decision is still wrong and may be freely ignored because it is destructive to the encyclopedia. People lose sight of what this place is. This is not a "community," this is not a "cooperative," this is an encyclopedia. All else is secondary. WP:IAR is a check valve to that end. FCYTravis 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. The consensus group just uses their power to remove you from any position where you can prevent them doing what they want. WP:IRA doesn't help you other than in allowing you to make a stupidly dramatic last stand.Geni 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus group, in that case, would be rapidly overturned by other admins, the ArbCom and Jimbo himself, if necessary. We would only be preventing a destructive act from taking effect until said destructive "process" decision could be thoroughly deprecated. FCYTravis 21:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said, Sean. Sam Korn 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia as government 

message: Stay tuned for the companion piece to this essay - Wikipedia:Community is Important :)
Notice that in the case of the speedy deletion of userboxes the principle product over process was invoked by those carrying out the deletion. But what is the product in that case? It's not (directly) the encyclopedia since the wheel wars were about templates used on user pages. The product is, in this case, the community.
Those in favor of deleting certain userboxes by any means necessary were doing so because they thought that the boxes were damaging to the community. They felt that boxes and categories segregating Wikipedians into religious and political groups could easily be misused and would poison the community.
Those in favor of keeping the userboxes argued (mostly) that allowing users to express themselves any way they wanted with templates was the way to keep the community happy.
Those in favor of deleting the userboxes but going through the normal deletion process to do so figured that was the best way of keeping the community non-poisonous and content.
Everyone was talking about the community. Because the community is building the encyclopedia.
Haukur 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community is Important 

message: The essay currently says this:
:Sometimes a process can be a pain in the neck. Some processes demand that editors jump through various hoops to achieve a result. Some can be cumbersome or time-consuming. Some do not deal with particular situations as rapidly as a person might wish. Sometimes going through the process seems unlikely to give the result that a person desires. In all these cases, there is a temptation, sometimes a strong temptation, to act unilaterally, to simply fix the problem. Often this is technically possible on Wikipedia. Sometimes no one, or almost no one, will object.
I think this buys right into the typical WP:IAR rhetoric about hoops and bureaucratic procedures. We should de-emphasize this. Wikipedia processes are largely not excessively bureaucratic. We don't have to fill out forms in triplicate to do stuff. Normally we just, well, do stuff and that's entirely within process.
People who emphasize the IAR philosophy typically try to put up a contrast between some sort of pointless bureaucratic nightmare and a simple easy freedom of IAR. This just isn't based in Wikipedia reality. It's a wiki. You can do things. There are just a few things, like deletion, where you have to make sure other people agree with you and we have processes to streamline that. If you railroad those processes you're railroading other people's opinions and that's not good.
I also think the essay shouldn't insist that process must be followed when everyone agrees about the result - that's going a bit too far for my tastes. But if a single person disagrees then we have a good reason to follow established procedures.
I'll rewrite the above slightly. Feel free to revert or improve as appropriate. - Haukur 19:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you been paying attention at all to the last three sections? :-P Kim Bruning 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haukur commented in each one so I'm thinking yes? ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I forget that irony doesn't carry. ^^;; Sorry. Kim Bruning 23:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Your division of the community into camps is not helpful, and polarises the divisions that naturally exist.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bleh. Reworded slightly. - Haukur 20:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoops 

message: This edit stretches my ability to AGF.  Is there some reason that actual examples of process/IAR are not allowed to be discussed? - brenneman(t)(c) 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Most userboxes have either been deleted or moved to user space.  Kelly Martin (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no thanks to your actions.Geni 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Only took eight months.  ergot 22:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less rhetoric, more evidence (take two) 

message: ==== Nupedia vs Wikipedia ====
24 articles vs . QED. --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worked 

message: 24 articles vs . QED. --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nupedia]] vs Wikipedia 

message: (semi-explicit.(see box at top of page))
*Not an example of IAR.  An example of informality as a rule. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:TINMC|Mediation Cabal]] 

message: (explicitly uses it.)   
*Mentions it, yes. Using it as evidence of sucess is recursive. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:TRI|Policy Trifecta]] 

message: Keeping something with 27 "keep", one "delete unless funnier" != good example of IAR. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia]] 

message: Do we have some specifics as to who this applies to this discussion? - brenneman(t)(c) 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[GNAA]] 

message: ==== Ed deletes AfD ====  
AfD restored, RfC results. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Most userboxes have either been deleted or moved to user space.  Kelly Martin (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no thanks to your actions.Geni 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Only took eight months.  ergot 22:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't work 

message: AfD restored, RfC results. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed deletes AfD 

message: AfD restored, RfC results. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowspinner deletes lots of AfD discussions 

message: Incredible amounts of venom released, most userboxes restored, now almost impossible to delete useless boxen due to "backlash" - brenneman(t)(c) 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Most userboxes have either been deleted or moved to user space.  Kelly Martin (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no thanks to your actions.Geni 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Only took eight months.  ergot 22:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelly deletes userboxes 

message: Schools all restored - brenneman(t)(c) 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality deletes schools 

message: To be fair and balancedTM here's a spot to list where process was a mistake. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When process screwed something up? 

message: It turns out that ignore all rules mostly has the occaisional problem with the current implementation of deletion. Unsurprising, everything has problems with that. Kim Bruning 04:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're saying that often when someone ignores the current well-organised and overwhelmingly succesful deletion procedure there is a problem, I agree completely. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're saying our current deletion procedure is 'overwhelmingly successful', I think you may need to reassess your understanding of the concept of success. --Nick Boalch ?!? 15:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Over 80% of articles are deleted or kept without a single opposing recomendation, and very very few articles of any validity are ever deleted.  Even if we accept that those articles which go to DRV and have "out-of_process" wheel wars to restore them represent places where XfD going wrong, that's an error rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  The complaints that XfD has failed are almost entirely apocryphal, and thos instances where it demonstrably does fail are often backlash against lone-gunman IAR action.  Have a look above if you doubt me.  I cannot help but notice there is an inverse correlation between the amount that one complains about XfD and the level of participation in the daily grind of examining articles and making recomendations as to their fate.  XfD is broken?  . - brenneman(t)(c) 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even jimbo wales is treading carefully. The system is too entrenched. Kim Bruning 11:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  start of a pattern here

message: Process is a tarbaby to catch and hold certain types of verbose time-on-their-hands contributors so they do less damage to the actual encyclopedia. Let the process pages expand! Let the mediations and wikilawyering in wikicourts  expand to fit the need to distract people who would otherwise be adding their self important unsourced opinions  all over the actual encyclopedia. Letting them play with pretty boxes is a good distraction too. Maybe the boxes should make noises and move (*.gif). distraction is a powerful tool. WAS 4.250 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to mediate between people who are contributing to articles, thanks. Kim Bruning 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: process is a tarbaby

message: ...and the layout isn't too good. You may want to consider making it more clear and concise. Radiant_>|< 18:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is too long 

message: I added four pictures, mainly (but not entirely) to make the whole thing easier on the eyes. Herostratus 20:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whimsical and fun. Thank you :) - Haukur 20:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I loved the encyclopedia example. Somehow I wonder though, wasn't our strength precicely that we can make something of similar quality with a lot LESS oversight? Kim Bruning 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting and not unsensible choices, IMO DES (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: I've added this because, guess what! Someone did just that!
(I tell you, sometimes the degree of tough love some of the community need would be a waste of falling anvils) - David Gerard 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: added note not to cite this as policy

message: How about a policy that says that Process is Important, but in some situations it's better to IAR? — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. If you need something tell you there is a time to IARs then you shouldn't be doing it.Geni 04:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or excuse me...not policy, but something like this. The way this reads, we should be bureaucratic mindless drones following only policy. — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but all actions involving citation of IAR are subject, like all reversible Wikipedia actions, to potential revision by the community. This creates implicit unwritten  rules about the application of IAR. The question is, if it is necessary to ignore rules to achieve something (rather than, say, reinterpret them), doesn't this indicate that the rules are broken and should be fixed rather than ignored? Perhaps someone feeling the need to cite IAR should also suggest revisions to the rules to the prevent the need for its citation in similar situations in future. If nothing else, it's a useful thought experiment - if you're not willing to make your IAR application a precedent, you probably shouldn't do it. Rd232 talk 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this page isn't policy, nor proposed policy. it is an essay suggesting arguments for not ignoring procvss when there is relevant process. Nowhere does it suggest being a "bureaucratic mindless drone". If a given process is overly bureaucratic, propose a change to it to make it more flexable or more useful. There is no "process" for most content editing, so this hardly applys to that sort of action. If most people who used IAR also suggested policy improvements, as Rd232 suggests above, things might be better, it's worth thinking about. This page nowhere says that you can't use IAR, it merely says "here are some reasons why it might well be better to go throguh a process when one exists, rather than ignoring it or evading it" DES (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Per tradition, after applying Ignore All Rules, it is important to note down what you did, so others can indeed use it as precedent. Kim Bruning 20:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the Golden Center? 

message: This page brings a joyous tear to my eye. I can't think of any other namespace page that I agree with more than this. MUCH kudos to everyone who contributed in writing this. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just want to say... 

message: I've removed, from this essay and from WP:SNOW, some boilerplate that seemed to be saying that these essays are "important", and with a "nudge nudge" type of wording implying that they're up on the level of guidelines or policies.  This wording struck me as inappropriate to both essays. They're essays and that's that. --Tony Sidaway 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about WP:IAR? —Ashley Y 22:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "This is important"

message: This was added, trimmed, cut, and restored earlier today:
Wikipedia is not "all about process" and such an attitude is absolutely contrary to our longstanding community spirit. Wikipedia all about people, about mutual respect, about thoughtfulness and respect for others as individuals. The rules lawyers of Wikipedia are a sickness upon us.--Jimbo Wales 16:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh this is an easy one to deal with you just cite this and remove it.Geni 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just out of curiosity, what was your reasoning behind putting a quote about how Wikipedia is not all about process, at the essay talking about how important process is? Seems counter-productive, and maybe designed to undercut the essay with an appeal to authority. But maybe you can shed light on this for me... for right now, I've removed your inclusion. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  please, lets discuss in the relevant talk page, not here. this is a conversation worth having where the entire community can hear us,  not use on a user's talk page. In any case, thanks for the headsup, but my watchlist is as good as yours ;-)--Cerejota 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Having looked at the context of the quote I think it is rather a bad one to include. Jimbo was basically attacking a complete strawman; the opinion he's arguing against is not found in the post he was replying to. I like this part, though: "Wikipedia all about people, about mutual respect, about thoughtfulness and respect for others as individuals." I think this encapsulates well why process is important. We show respect to fellow editors when we allow them to have a fair say within a fair process - when minority opinions are steamrolled with reference to IAR or some such, people get frustrated. Haukur 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The strength of a society can be gauged by how it treats its minorities. Process guarantees rights to minorities on WIkipedia. Stephen B Streater 08:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure this is the right language. You have no 'rights' on Wikipedia. (Or, rather, you have precisely one right: to fork Wikipedia's content.) --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 09:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Editors may not have rights, but their content does. The AfD process allows content to get a fair hearing before it is deleted, for example. Stephen B Streater 09:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I certainly don't disagree that this is a good thing: personally I'm a great fan of AfD, because it can result in unsuitable or unencyclopaedic content being improved to the point where it benefits the encyclopaedia. However, I'm still not sure this should be construed as a 'right'. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  "AfD" and "fair hearing" in one sentence... <shivers> Kim Bruning 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo quote