Wikipedia talk:Practical process

message: Seems like there is a lot of overlap with WP:IAR? How is this intended to be different? Thanks, Gwernol 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IAR is policy. This is an essay, meant to show why caution as to process is a good idea - David Gerard 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IAR

message: I like it.  I added a note that seemed apt, I recall quoting it at someone, somewhere.  I support it. Hiding Talk 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like it 

message: Obviously.  Is this for real? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "blow it up" bits were only for humor, I assume.    Everything else seemed more or less reasonable and common-sense, and I struggle to understand how you might disagree with everything, but what's new?  --Interiot 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why it's such a struggle, honestly.  I feel like I'm speaking another language sometimes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the best possible explanation of why no one here understands you. Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course it's for real, it's got references. Please be as specific as you can - David Gerard 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say you and I pretty much agree, and that your points are what I'm trying to get across. Suggested rephrasings? Call the five basic rules and the mission statement the 'constitution'; everything else must be changeable as needed to scale from "hey, let's start a wiki" to "ohmygoodness, we're in the top 20" to "we left Google far, far behind." I'd like the essay to aid editors of good will in rewording the malleable process on top of the 'constitution' - David Gerard 15:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, by the way, the plain wiki method has actually scaled just about perfectly in the ideal case. See Articles distinct histo.png - that's a graph of how many editors have edited each article. Note the peak is waaay over in the single digits. Most articles are not controversial and don't need a ton of process, and letting edge cases write process for us is arguably letting hard cases make bad law - David Gerard 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate it 

message: I don't exactly disagree with anything you've written here, but I'm not sure it's a productive response to what I see as one of the two fundamental issues now facing Wikipedia.  New processes, and indeed significant changes to existing processes, are supposed to be made by consensus.  I believe Wikipedia has now achieved a sufficient size that for all intents and purposes this is impossible, with the consequence that any new process or significant change (including simplifications!) cannot be implemented following process.  No one can implement new processes unilaterally except Jimbo (IAR doesn't really pertain to process changes), so my conclusion is not process is dangerous but consensus as a mechanism to implement processes no longer works.  Encouraging folks to ignore rules when their common sense says the rules are wrong without providing an effective way to change any of the rules will almost certainly lead to more wheel wars, more banned users, more arbcom cases, more people leaving.  We are not a community of like-minded users anymore.  Ignoring rules, although perhaps necessary in some cases, is extremely perilous and I suspect nearly always feels horribly wrong to some set of users.  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's blockages all the way down. I think an attitude of recognising that any process that's in place is almost certainly a quick hack made of cheese and string rather than a robust and shiny piece of plumbing will help. The best way to unblock stuff is I find to go "um, this sucks, for these reasons. How's this quick workaround?" - David Gerard 12:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the problem too much process or no effective way to change process? 

message: You already have WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. How many excuses for doing whatever the hell you want do you need? Laughable is the contention that we lose editors because of having too much process, as if bullying and my-way-or-the-highway mentality isn't a greater problem. But whatever. Herostratus 03:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in no way an excuse for "doing whatever the hell you want" or meant as one. What would it need to make it not one? Apart from, e.g., the very first sentence - David Gerard 09:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What it's "meant as" and what it is are often very different things.  Certianly, IAR wasn't built to allow for egregious abuses as we tend to see when it's invoked. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that the answer to that is similar to the answer to a blocked vandal or POV-pusher complaining "But you said anyone can edit!" - David Gerard 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it's a good thing we have that dangerous process to keep them at bay, no? d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is! Process is fantastically useful stuff. It's also dangerous - David Gerard 17:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: More seriously, it's mostly meant as a description of things - David Gerard 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, rather than the title and signficant portions of the essay focusing on reasons for ignoring processes, how about retitling it "Processes are far from perfect" and focusing on how they can be simplified and improved?  My point from above is that given the current requirement that significant changes to process must be done only by consensus there is no effective way to significantly change them.  I don't think you disagree with this, but if we accept that our current processes are far from perfect either they should be changed or there are cases in which they should be ignored.  If we can't change them, we must ignore them.  The essay as it stands pretty much ignores the "change them" alternative.  This makes it sound like a rationalization to ignore them. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. Yeah, the actual problem is that process is kludged together quickly then sets solid and immovable. Perhaps a better title. "Process is useful but dangerous" is the right concept but too many words - David Gerard 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What  problem does this address, exactly? 

message: Soe of the wording here is ironic if you look at some of the reasons given for the unblocks arbcom aparently supported.Geni 03:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything particularly egregious? The basic message I got from that kerfuffle was "process is not an excuse for stupid", which of course it isn't - David Gerard 16:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: look at the reason given for pulling Carnildo's blocks. In any case we only ended up in that mess in the first place because people ignored policy and process.Geni 17:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather, they claimed to be following it and defending it and certainly seemed sincere in claiming so - David Gerard 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Relisiticaly there was no way we could have got where we did if people had stayed within policy.Geni 17:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or process, anyway - David Gerard 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what side you're on in this conversation, but I do know for sure that trying to drive off pedophiles is certainly not a good thing. I have worked with pedophiles who are good editors and have been very useful in keeping ignorance at bay on articles related to this issue. Yes some pedophile editors have pushed POV, but much of the problems related to articles in this area are simply from young people who lack worldly experience are unable to think with subtlety. I judge an editor by his edits, and to do otherwise is both wrong and counterproductive. Anyway I do know this: while I appreciate that an actual userbox is highly problematical at best, the attempt to drive off pedophiles via block or harrasment was almost certainly harmful to the 'pedia and to the extent that it's seen as good example of ignoring process, that's just nuts. Herostratus 05:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did see the userbox on my user page which expresses my opinion of userboxes, didn't you? - David Gerard 10:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: To be honest, this link confused the hell out of me - there was a lot of jargon and in-reference that, despite being a long-time editor, I was unable to fathom.  It is a _long_ page.  By all means link to a summary, or explain the relevance in the text, but as it is it is just confusing. --HappyDog 23:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pedophile userbox wheel war

message: All the see-also are against excessive process, which looks unbalanced. But it shouldn't have links that are already in the essay. Others welcomed - David Gerard 16:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: see also

message: I've added a new section, aimed primarily at those who, in defending process, might be directed to this essay.  I hope I've maintained the spirit of things, and of course I welcome criticisim.  --InkSplotch 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Thank you! - David Gerard 10:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The "approaches that don't usually work" usually do work. Unfortunately. 192.75.48.150 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to "convince" - David Gerard 10:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm. Actually, I think that the "wrong" approaches under "how to deal with a bad process" in fact don't work. I actually meant the section under "how to deal with a disregard for process". It may be true that the "wrong" approaches described often won't exactly convince someone that something is right. But my feeling is that they usually will convince someone that something is the way it is going to be. The person either defers to the "consensus" and conforms, at least grudgingly, or maybe even proceeds to impose the "consensus" on others; or else becomes disaffected and leaves either the area in question, or the project as a whole. Am I out to lunch here? 192.75.48.150 14:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It "works" by driving away the outsider. Yeah. Hmm. How to word this as bad - David Gerard 16:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section 

message: Process exists to defend us from stupidity and malice, not to cause internal civil wars. As long as doing so doesn't cause false, misleading, POV, or otherwise harmful material to enter the encyclopedia, it is preferable to bend, ignore, or create an exception to the rules than to cause a fight. An exception does not destroy the policy, and can be quietly ignored later. Fights are always destructive, and difficult to ignore. Phil Sandifer 14:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Process doesn't really defend us from either stupidity or malice, though. It's like guidelines - it's there to help clueful editors of good will work better. The use of process to defend against stupidity or malice rests upon the assumption that outsiders to the process are stupid and/or malicious, which is an indicator that a given process has gone pathological - David Gerard 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course process was not made to give a clue to the clueless, so much as to give a bat to the clueful. Broadly put, no process should ever be used to remove information that nobody doubts is accurate, to prevent official praising of an article that nobody disagrees is pretty darn good, to "win" fights for the sake of winning, etc. Process is not for civil war. Phil Sandifer 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying not to bring cluebats to mind too much in this one ;-) - David Gerard 17:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The purpose of process

message: This section appears to missing.  Seriously I am stuggling with this. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Assume good faith and carry a big stick? - David Gerard 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to deal with fanaticism for process 

message: Process is a leash, not a noose. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is when regulars see a leash and non-regulars see a noose - David Gerard 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the whole essay boils down to this... 

message: This, along with Wikipedia:Process is Important are two excellent pieces of work.  How to deal with excessive or broken process is quite interesting as is the Kudzu picture's caption. --Kevin_b_er 04:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent 

message: Those looking for a new way to try relating to process might want to glance at my userpage, and keep an eye on the process blog I've started. I expect that it will be a very interesting experience to see what happens when I just start applying IAR 24/7. Phil Sandifer 00:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new approach

message: I've added this:
* Prescriptive when it should be a guideline
** A lot of people think making things hard policy means people will actually follow them. This means editorial guidelines get phrased as didactic policy. This results in situations like WP:RS (a guideline) being applied rigidly and with no thought as to how well it applies to specific cases.
** Policy is harsh stuff, and there's a limit to how much people will hold in their heads. Everything that can be a guideline should be, because clueless editors won't understand it and bad faith editors won't care. Furthermore, everything that can be left up to individual editors should be, for basically the same reason.
WP:RS (and WP:BLP) are written in good faith for good reasons, but as written they are consistently overapplied. WP:RS in particular is proving a disaster both in terms of encyclopedic content and in public relations, as overapplied by editors whose logins appear to have been taken over by insane robots.
Now. Can someone please rephrase the above better? - David Gerard 13:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Phil Sandifer 16:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New hallmark of bad process: guideline vs policy

message: # Does it follow logically from the guiding principles of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation?
# Can it be easily and succinctly summed up in one or two sentences such that every element in the process follows logically from this summary?
# Will it make sense to someone who is not familiar with wikiculture?
# Is it flexible enough to handle unusual and special circumstances?
# Is it transparent enough that following process does not create unnecessary strain on editors involved in the process?
# Does it show good common sense in general on the part of the Wikipedia/media community?
--Carl (talk|contribs) 02:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Winnah! - David Gerard 10:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two "hallmarks" sections and the above are redundant. If you want to keep the above, then a summary statement should probably replace those sections. Something like, "If a process can answer all the above questions in the affirmative, then it is a 'good process.' If it answers one or two in the negative, then some minor tweaking is probably in order. Less than half in the affirmative suggests that the process in question may actually hurt Wikipedia more than it helps." --Carl (talk|contribs) 12:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just left it at the last coupla lines - David Gerard 12:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that "good process...very best process" line could be rephrased with the "makes sense" question: "Is the process so intuitive that someone unfamiliar with Wikiculture, especially new editors, will pick up on the process by seeing the process in action, without ever reading the process text itself?" A little verbose, but I like the intent of the question better than the "makes sense" question. --Carl (talk|contribs) 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see how it looks there - David Gerard 16:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important questions about a process 

message: "Process cruft" - useful phrase or problematic phrase? - David Gerard 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process cruft 

message: I believe that ideally all our processes should boil down to "slap on a tag, discuss for a few days, get consensus". That should be all most people need to know about the process. So my question is, are there any processes in particular that fail this KISS principle? >Radiant< 16:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends. That presumes watchlist use, for example - David Gerard 16:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand that - you mean that participating in process requires a watchlist? >Radiant< 21:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't use a watchlist it would be posible for an article you care about to be adfed without your noticeing.Geni 01:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amd if you do use a watchlist, it still can be; depends on the size of your watchlist. However, this is a real problem only for deletions; other decisions can be reversed more easily. Septentrionalis 05:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is then that Wikipedia has grown too large for everybody to be involved in everything they're interested in. While true, I don't see how that can be solved. >Radiant< 07:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested that AFD should require a note on the author's talk page. The regulars were outraged and treated it as a plot to obstruct the deletion process with unnecessary red tape. As opposed to the thicket of subpages the deletion process is now, presumably. Severe pressure of dealing with a firehose of crap has turned AFD into a strange place in many ways - David Gerard 11:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point. A solution might be to change the javascript AFD helpers that people seem to use to automatically drop a message on the talk page of a page's creator. Another solution might be to expand criteria for both speedy keeping and speedy deleting; repetitive debate tends not to be very useful. >Radiant< 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe notifying the creator is or was somewhere in the list of things to do when filing an AFD. WP:PROD has been useful for keeping stuff off AFD that doesn't really belong there - and off DRV, since you can recreate an uncontested PROD at will (though good sense suggests you should fix whatever the problem was) - David Gerard 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: I'm here from WP:RS. I see you mention it as being used robotically and gutting articles of content. It also goes the other way, but might interfere with your point here, that it can also be used to gut articles of perfectly valid content which is contrary to an established editor's PoV; the content is usually being contributed by a new editor, who has never heard of WP:RS or . Septentrionalis 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And more than that, who may be greatly taken aback by the fact that we have a one-size-fits-all sourcing policy instead of a flexible one that allows for editorial judgment. Phil Sandifer 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least WP:RS is, thank goodness, still a guideline, which does supply some flexibility; at least when people bother to notice it.  Septentrionalis 22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Some people though treat it as if it were policy though, which I think is a big contributor to these sorts of problems.  JYolkowski // talk 02:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is precisely the point about the problem with didactic phrasing - David Gerard 11:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Malign use

message: You can't in fact implode the rules by turning them against themselves. The recent DRV of DRV was a rather amusing attempt at this - it might be worth mentioning in the essay. Haukur 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the AFD of AFD? (or the FAC of AFD, but that was april fools). Maybe the SNOW of SNOW, and didn't we have a page "ignore ignore all rules rules" at some point? :) >Radiant< 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need examples, I think - I mean any attempt to use the structure of rules to bring down the structure of rules by adding something that does not compute - David Gerard 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implode the rules 

message: You know how Wikipedia was having a funds drive recently? they should open a shop selling spools of Wikipedia branded red tape This is a pretty good quote but when I go and read the actual episode that seems to have prompted it I'm left surprised. That episode, as amusingly described by David, seems to have been a model of Wikipedian efficiency. Haukur 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was talking in general, rather than in the context - David Gerard 11:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red tape 

message: This useful phrase isn't in WP:POINT anymore. Should we put it back? Septentrionalis 05:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back in there after noticing it had gotten lost along the way - David Gerard 11:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is inconsistent

message: This essay lines out some very serious problems and how to deal with them. I think that (though having a snowballs's chance in hell) there should be an attempt to actually make it policy. It needs more rewriting and careful wording lest such an attempt fail outright, and I think the agenda should therefore be: rewrite, review, condense, rewrite, review, let sit, circulate among those in the know, start over again. Ask high-profile experts on common sense (Raul, Kat, ...) for help. Then, and not before, submit to the community and try to make it official. Just a thought. 91.64.174.21 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm loath to push for it to become even an official guideline - see the robotic application problem with WP:RS. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - tha`t's an essay, but just because you'd be a damned fool not to take it very seriously indeed doesn't mean we'd benefit from it being made an official guideline ... and not doing so makes it a useful Darwinian mechanism ;-) - David Gerard 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone really does want to push it to a guideline, it'd be best to give it a few months' practical use first - so that it proves it really does work. Otherwise it'd just be more text telling people what to do - David Gerard 20:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What it really needs is an easy-to-remember shortcut and for people to start dropping references to it into conversations all over the Wiki. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PRO - David Gerard 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bravo! 

message: OK, the how-to is phrased as a usable guideline. Anyone have anything new and important to say? Does anyone have any other useful exercises for the reader? - David Gerard 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads more like a 'how-not-to' than a 'how-to'. >Radiant< 15:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was working from a pile of bad examples - it's way below ideal. If you can think of more good examples (e.g. ideally we wouldn't need nutshells, but they're still a great way for the writer to focus on the page's take-home message), that'd be great. - David Gerard 20:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have used the information in this essay (especially in the how-to section) to create a new draft of a Wikisoure policy.  I would really appreciate everyone's comments about my efforts to make the policy more readable and useful to humans along the lines of this essay.  Of course if anyone has something they must say about the actual content of the policy, it is a wiki.  I firmly believe that good policy is developed through current practice.  So please keep in mind that people who are dealing wtih the current practices of Wikisource on day-to-day basis may have a better insight into policy matters.  So I guess I want to say please comment as anthropologists, not missionaries.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked, I'm still trying to think of something useful to say :-) - David Gerard 09:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of how-to section

message: There has been alot of talk of polices that written in problamatic ways.  What do you guys believe are three best policies as judged by the concerns raised here?Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just out of curiosity 

message: The proposed guideline WP:C&E says that, before an article is written on a  political candidate, there should be enough credible information for an article. It recommends that, to achieve this, the article on the election be written first, and the article on the candidate only split off when the necessary information has accumulated. Both these are quite sensible. 
But Diane Farrell is now up for deletion, largely on the grounds that the election article hasn't been written. No one has questioned the credibility of the information, or the length of the article. Notability has been questioned, and may prevail; but my problem is with the argument, not the AfD. Is this page strong enough to be cited yet? Septentrionalis 03:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Don't cite it, just use arguments from it in your own words, I expect :-) It'll be a nice robustness test - David Gerard 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As I've just done on the talk page. I like it as a guideline for article creation, it's eminently sensible - but it can't be the whole story - David Gerard 11:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cart before the horse

message: I've removed the following encrustations of cruft from the "See also" section:
*Wikipedia:Follow all rules	 
*Wikipedia:Use common sense; Wikipedia:Ignore common sense; Wikipedia:There's no common sense	 
*Wikipedia:Product, process, policy
--TS 21:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: See also cleanup