Wikipedia talk:Product, process, policy

message: The history of this page seems odd. It begins as a page in full... was it copied from somewhere? Whats the deal - I really doubt Radiant made the first edit as his own work all at once. Fresheneesz 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I think there is another P, which is even more important to Wikipedia than product, process and policy - and that is people. We should always strive to remember that our fellow editors are people, and they are all entitled to be treated with courtesy, politeness and respect at all times. And that includes anonymous contributors, newbies, POV pushers, spammers, vandals and sockpuppets. Even where it is necessary to reprimand or apply sanctions to another editor, we should always do this in a polite way. WP:CIVIL says a lot more about this. I think we should extend the 3Ps essay to a 4Ps essay - People, product, process, policy. Views ? Gandalf61 10:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People are important because they produce product.  So there's no way they could they be more important than the product. I think people are covered in "process"- the process involves people collaborating to product the encyclopedia.  Maybe this says it best, from WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end,  an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect.".  Friday (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. People are important just because they are people, not because they produce some product. The logical conclusion of your argument is that it is alright to be rude and abusive to another editor as long as you can show that Wikipedia is somehow being improved by that abuse, because the good of the "product" outweighs any other considerations. Is that really what you believe ? Gandalf61 17:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what I'm saying.  Rubbing people the wrong way creates strife and drama, which hurts the project in the form of lost time and alienated editors.  I've made this exact point many times to folks who caused all manner of uproar while doing what they insisted was right.  I was making a statement about priorities- saying that the encyclopedia is more important than any individual editor does not mean I'm saying individual editors are unimportant.  Without editors there'd be no project, so they're very clearly important.  Friday (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I just realized where some of the disagreement may come from- in real life yes, people are obviously more important than Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia.  Given the choice between saving a drowning baby and making an edit, I would assume nearly all of us give priority to people.  However, here on Wikipedia, as opposed to "real life", the project is most important.  Friday (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Real life trumps the Wikipedian virtual reality universe at many points that are acknowledged within Wikipedia including law (copyright, trademark, libel, privacy of nonpublic persons, mediawiki foundation's educational charter ruling out noneducational endevors, real life harrassment), social (real life get togethers), realities of life (conflict of interest, time/space condiderations), and the point of it all (WP:IAR can be used when "encyclopedia" doesn't quite cover an important good that we can serve concerning current events). WAS 4.250 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If some editor says ""change this article so-and-so or else I'll go cry in the corner and leave the project", we could say "I am sorry you feel that way - is there anything we can do to help you feel that you are making a valued contribution ?" or we could say "Goodbye - the product is better off without you anyway". I am arguing for the former approach. This essay seems to promote the latter approach. In particular, it says "do whatever you like as long as it improves the encyclopedia" - which could be taken as a charter for all sorts of intolerant and agressive behaviours. Gandalf61 11:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy WAS 4.250 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People - the 1st P 

message: less focus on the last 2 and more on the first JeanLatore (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  we need 

message: You homesteaded WP:PPP before Wikipedia:Page protection patrol had a chance to. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argh! 

message: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_29#Category:Transport - the only reason people bring up to re-rename categories is process. They should put more focus on the product. TruckCard (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3P]] violation 

message: As I read this essay, it appears to be in direct conflict with WP:CONLIMITED. The first paragraph reads,
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
I also read this to say that a bunch of editors can't override clear policy--i.e. something middle of the road, not some boderline or lawyering case. Think of a group of editors posting textbook type material to Wikipedia, and agreeing that it should stay on the talk page (because it is super useful!). Then I guess the idea of this essay is that if people started doing these things all over, then Wikipedia would eventually change its policy to reflect that change to a textbook type style? But maybe I misunderstand. 018 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  how does this work with [[WP:CONLIMITED]]