Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/Archive 8

The difference between policies and guidelines is that policies are regarded as mandatory, while guidelines are advisory?

I am moving this new addition to this talk page for further discussion:

The difference between policies and guidelines is that policies are regarded as mandatory, while guidelines are advisory.

I believe this goes beyond the consensus on policies at WP. Policies certainly carry more weight than guidelines, but the WP:IAR policy recognizes that all policy statements are always imperfect and should not be followed off the cliff, as the "mandatory" statement could lead us to do. The main difference between policies and guidelines are that policies have fewer exceptions and have less room for interpretation than guidelines. Yes, there are some non-negotiable policies like WP:BLP, where a libel lawsuit could be an existential threat to WP, but these are exceptions to the exceptions, not the basis for all policies. Dhaluza (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like that simple definition of the difference, that both explains and differentiates between policies and guidelines, please suggest your own, so we can compare. Crum375 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the previous formulation was fine. There is no need for a hard distinction. Dhaluza (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Imagine I have just arrived at this site, ready to edit. I see you have policies and guidelines here. I am asking you to please explain to me, in 10 words or less, the essence of the difference between policies and guidelines. Can you do that for me please? Crum375 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Dhaluza (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Seven words; not bad. In four: "Don't worry about it." Or, in one word: "Mu." -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the question poses a false premise, so 'Mu' is the best answer. Dhaluza (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Even BLP, as a "Wikipedia rule", is not mandatory, as in "inviolable". This ties into what Dreadstar is saying above (although he voices other positions I do not agree with) -- we have a few principles which are pretty much inviolable (most of which are Foundation rules), but none of Wikipedia's actual rules are "mandatory" as written (or interpreted). You can't say "BLP is mandatory" and brook no exceptions if you're misapplying the principle that underlies it, even if WP:BLP as worded suggests some absolute action. There's always the possibility that you're misinterpreting the rule or that it's miswritten. We have laws but are not a community of laws, so calling policies "mandatory" is just wrong.

I'm really quite surprised by this conflict, because those who seem to be pushing for this change are quite experienced policy editors. They surely know that Wikipedia policies aren't mandatory, unless for some reason they're not using the usual sense of the word.

Offering a concise explanation of what policies and guidelines are is great, as long as we don't do it wrong. "Mandatory" is wrong. Not just wrong in spirit; it's the wrong word. It has a different meaning from what is actually the case on Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my question to one and all: I am a newcomer to this site, I notice you have "policies" and "guidelines" here, please explain the difference in 10 words or less. Can someone here help me? Crum375 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you would like this page to say about the difference between guidelines and policies? I think the conversation is somewhat lopsided. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My own understanding is: "The difference between policies and guidelines is that policies are regarded as mandatory, while guidelines are advisory." If someone here disagrees, I'd like to hear their version, which should be as short and simple, so a new editor can immediately grasp it. Crum375 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the objection is to the characterization of policies as mandatory. That is an unfortunate choice of word, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. That is, we don't have rules for the sake of rules, we have rules to make a better encyclopedia, and this is the spirit embodied in the Ignore all rules policy (which, by the way, links back to this page). Dhaluza (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeat question: I am a new editor, just arrived here ready to edit. I notice you have "policies" and "guidelines". Can you explain to me the difference please, in 10 words or less, so I can grasp it? Crum375 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeat answer: See: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Dhaluza (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And you seriously think that telling that to a new editor asking for a short and simple explanation of the difference between "policy" and "guideline", is a way to attract new editors to this site? Crum375 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite. A new editor should not be concerned with policy, they should be concerned with content. That is what the page says in its first sentence, and then goes on to explain what it means. The point is a new editor does not need to know the difference between a policy and a guideline--they need to learn the difference between a poor encyclopedia article and a good one. And the only way to learn that is through editing, not reading policies and guidelines. That should come later. Dhaluza (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So if I am a new editor, just arrived here, and I ask you for the difference between "policy" and "guideline", so that I can grasp what they mean, you would tell me that "I should not be concerned with it"? That would be a way to attract some people here, I suppose. Crum375 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And just to give you some personal background, I studied all policies and guidelines here long and hard, for quite a while, before I ever started editing. Of course I may not be typical. Crum375 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has their own way of exploring the world (or not) so there is no right or wrong way. But since you are asking how to advise a new user, if "don't worry about it" was not a satisfactory answer to them, I would tell them that rather than study policies and guidelines and try to understand the difference, they should study WP:GA and articles on their way to deletion at WP:AFD and try to understand the difference. I think that would be less confusing and get them editing productively much sooner. (Of course AfD is a very confusing process, but that's another matter). Dhaluza (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That would basically cover the two main groups. My friend User:Mindspillage also read all policy first, logged in, and then made her first edit. By contrast, I created my first articles anonymously, got corrected by the regulars within minutes, became amazed, and got hooked. I'm not sure I really started reading guidelines 'till much later. I think Crum357 is correct that in that we need clear wording for the "read all guidance first" group of people. At the same time the fact that all project namespace pages are guidance is one of our five core pillars. So we shouldn't contradict that fact anywhere. Unless you believe in the concept of lies-to-children, perhaps? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC) LTC is a defensible concept. Interesting concept to discuss...

I had basically the same experience as you. I read articles first to get an idea of what WP was all about. Then when I could not find an article I was looking for, I took the plunge and created it by imitating what I had seen. Another editor quickly cleaned-up my mistakes, and I was amazed. And I didn't even know the policies existed until later. How does a new editor find the policies anyway? They are not linked from article space, except for the few self-refs on similar sounding articles. There is a link to the WP:Village Pump on the main page, and I think that curiosity about what the hell a 'village pump' was lead me to the main space policy pages. I think policies and guidelines should be written to be inviting to new users, but not so simplistic as lies to children. We need to be careful not to arm crusaders with policy statements that will lead them to do more harm than good. Dhaluza (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Dhaluza, the way I've always understood the distinction, and the way it was explained to me when I first started editing, is that if you repeatedly violate policies, it can be a case for the ArbCom, whereas the repeated violation of guidelines would tend not to be. This is a crude distinction but it points to the mandatory/advisory one. Original research really isn't allowed, and is removed wherever it's spotted. Ditto with NPOV violations and violations of V and BLP. Whereas violations of the MoS are rarely noticed, and in fact just about everyone engages in them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly would not explain it to a new user in those terms! Dhaluza (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Wikipedia:Naming_conventions would never get you in front of the arbcom by itself ever (though edit wars spawned by this {{policy}} have a times lead to arbcom cases). An actual, valid violation of don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point requires a large amount of policy acumen to pull off. Even though WP:POINT is "merely a {{guideline}}", you are very likely to be sanctioned by the arbitration committee, unless you can do a lot of really fast talking ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC) O:-)

(←) That's what it means to say that policies have fewer exceptions. But they still aren't "mandatory" in the ordinary sense of the word. Wikipedia isn't set up that way. I'm sure you know what I mean; I'm not sure where the actual disagreement is here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And you really think that "fewer exceptions" is a good definition? What if I wanted to upgrade guideline X tomorrow to policy status, I would have to say that I want to promote it to "fewer exceptions"? And you really think these are good working definitions? Crum375 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a perfect definition, but it has the benefits of being (1) the longstanding definition on this page and (2) not incorrect. On the other hand, while "mandatory" has the benefit of being clear, it isn't accurate. So I do prefer the more vague term over the incorrect one. In practice, promoting a guideline to policy reflects on the gravity with which we view the guideline, but not much more. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Carl, I see what you're saying, but I still think there's something worth salvaging. We want to explain the difference succinctly for newcomers. Is there anything wrong with saying (in effect): "If you want to edit Wikipedia, you must not add your own opinions, must adopt a neutral perspective, must not add insults about living people, must not sockpuppet etc etc?" The "must" signals that these issues are mandatory.

I'm trying to think of a word softer than mandatory, but stronger than advisory. No luck so far. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is something wrong with that; we shouldn't use the term "must" in policy documents. This is because our policies are not intended to be prescriptive. Even the policy banner says "should" instead of "must". — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - many of our policies and guidelines would be improved by being written in more descriptive language. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, I think of it this way: "Policies define our project; guidelines are rules of thumb for working on it." That's thirteen words, but it's still succinct, and IMO accurate.

I still think the best answer is "Don't worry about it". Why would anybody ever read WP:CIVIL for example? Does any of us need a page to tell us what "be civil" means? The only reason to study the words of that page is if you're planning to lawyer them. Furthermore, who cares whether it's a policy or a guideline? Just edit in good faith, communicate with those around you, and everything will be fine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That may help some people, not someone like myself, who would like to really understand the clear concepts before editing. I think if you come up with a simple, clear and concise way to explain the difference between policy and guideline, you'd have the solution. I don't see the word 'mandatory' as so problematic, especially if we explain the exceptions to the rules, if any, with examples. No law is without exceptions. Crum375 (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a wording (on this page or via edits to the policy) that would offer newcomers a simple and correct explanation, but avoid characterizing policies as "mandatory", as that is considered incorrect by a large number of respondents here. Good sense comes first, rules come second, and that is why none of Wikipedia's rules are mandatory. They are agreements, not mandates.--Father Goose (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what's unclear about "policies define our project; guidelines are rules of thumb for working on it." What's a situation in which more clarity than that is required? Isn't the difference between a definition and a rule of thumb clear? At the same time, my strongest recommendation is, "really, really don't worry about it. Find a way to stop thinking in terms of rules." That's difficult for some people, but very worth it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum375: Hmm, a small, concise answer would be (depending on who is asking) "Policy, guidelines and essays are all practically the same thing, the terms are a ranking, in order of level of support and/or importance". If you just want 7 words or less "Don't worry about it, just write!" (which ~= WP:IAR, as applied to beginning authors. (Darn: I wrote an essay about beginners, admins, and seasoned users someplace, where did it go now? ^^;;)). --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC) (see also: zen version, Haiku version)

Hmm: Wiki:ThreeLevelsOfAudience, but that doesn't cover complete newcomers on wikipedia. Perhaps I could extend or ReFactor that page as well <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Random break

With all the understanding about IAR, have you been editing Wikipedia lately? Without some kind of strong wording about the need to comply with content policies, the disruption resulting from it will be massive. It is hard enough to inform new editors of the need for compliance with NPOV, NOR, V and BLP; without such strong wording/caution, it will be even more difficult. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a sneaking suspicion here. :-) Hmm, in which manner have people been informing new editors? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If the choice is between "advisory" and "mandatory" when describing policy, I'm still falling very strongly on the side of "mandatory". Our guidelines are advisory, our policies are clearly not. The problem I'm having, is the same one SlimVirgin notes above...I have not been able to find something softer than 'mandatory', (maybe editors are obliged to follow policy"?). This entire dispute began because a handful of editors wanted to use IAR to ignore policy, and write policy to fit their estimation of what "all Wikipedia editors are doing.." and not really taking into consideration at what they should be doing. And as Jossi rightly points out above, without strong wording for compliance with our policies, we're in for massive disruption. There are disputes everywhere over this, and they're getting worse...with editors making uncivil remarks and personal attacks, edit warring...it's getting worse in my estimation. Dreadstar † 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We could use neither of "advisory" and "mandatory" - it's a false dichotomy. We got along perfectly well until the middle of December without the word "mandatory", so I think the risk of sudden massive disruption is exaggerated. The source of this discussion is that the term mandatory was added to the policy page a couple weeks ago, but there isn't much support for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a false dichotomy at all; those are the two ends of the spectrum being discussed here...IAR and Mandatory... And it's not "sudden" massive disruption, it's been building for months now, and really caused huge issues on other policy pages and in article disputes. We're working on trying to find consensus on this issue, there seems to be no consensus in either direction right now. Dreadstar † 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Our policies are "strong" because we enforce them, not because they are worded rigidly. The disruption you're complaining about is called wikilawyering, and we enforce the policy against that, too. We gain nothing by trying to make our policies uncontestable except more wikilawyering.

Here's my advice to you: ignore the rules. All of them. Really. Just enforce good sense and disregard wikilawyering. Increasing the rigidity of the wording to an inappropriate/inaccurate degree will just diminish our ability to enforce good sense, which is all that the rules should be.--Father Goose (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl, just to address your point about descriptive//prescriptive, the policies and guidelines are both, not just descriptive. We describe best practice and we prescribe that to others. With guidelines, we recommend it gently, and with policies, editors are required to stick to them if they want to continue editing (or if they don't want to see their edits reverted). IRA is seldom invoked, and all the policies are anyway meant to be applied with common sense -- that's built into them. But where you wrote that's why we say "should," not "must," there really isn't much difference between the words in this context. Both are prescriptive words.

The basic difference is with policy, we are saying "If you don't do these things, there may be a consequence for you and your edits." With guidelines, there is never going to be a consequence -- they are just advising that "some people think this is a good idea -- you can do the same or not, as you see fit." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, but more strongly: If you truly believe that violating guidelines never has consequences, I invite you to deliberately and openly violate WP:POINT, to errr, prove your point. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Point is a bit of a strange one, and I think it did used to be policy, didn't it? I remember looking at this before and finding something weird about it. But yes, you're right -- the line is not hard and fast. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Father Goose: Yes, I understand that. It isn't wikilawyering when policy is being changed to match the view that one doesn't have to follow policy, essentially just saying "do as you see fit." I can handle the usual wikilawyering and the invocation of IAR, that's not the issue. And no one, afaict, is saying make our policies uncontestable. Dreadstar † 20:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying to higher comments: my opinion here is that the situation is more nuanced than 'polices are mandatory' or 'there is no obligation at all to follow policies'. I think that the longstanding wording does an adequate job of explaining the situation: policies are like guidelines, but considered more important and having fewer exceptions. I would be willing to find new wording, but I don't think we should aim to precisely define here the distinction between guidelines and policies, since the distinction is not sharply defined in practice. One defining aspect of Wikipedia is that we are not a legalistic system with precise definitions and regulations.

Regarding guidelines. Editors are expected to follow guidelines unless there is a good reason not to do so. Guidelines aren't optional any more than policies are mandatory. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good. I think "Guidelines aren't optional any more than policies are mandatory" is a much better explanation. Dhaluza (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The longstanding wording explained it correctly. Wikipedia is community-driven, not rule-driven, which means the rules must obey us, not the other way around.--Father Goose (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Another excellent point, but a concept that probably causes cognitive dissonance to someone with an authoritarian personality. Dhaluza (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A lifetime ago (2 or 3 years), I explained the difference as: Policies are things you should always try to follow (NPOV, V, etc.), and guidelines are things you should follow unless you have a good reason not to (style guides, etc.). There is a lot of talk about IAR above, but IAR as written circa 2004 really expressed a different sentiment than it does today. At the time, IAR might have been paraphrased as: Even though you should follow these rules, don't worry about them if they make you uncomfortable (because eventually someone will fix the problems if anything is wrong).

Today it seems that we've fallen into this weird space that policies don't need to be correct because IAR encourages you to ignore them if they are "wrong". Personally, I think we were better off when policies were "mandatory" (in the sense that they described the standard that everything should shoot for), and policies didn't have "exceptions" except where the spirit of such exceptions was explained in the policy documents themselves.

But that's just my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with making policies mandatory is that while the principles may be immutable, the expression of them is always imperfect. Since WP strives to be comprehensive, there is no way to anticipate and cover all possibilities. So we judge contributions on their specific merits, and use policies as a guide toward that end. So policies are guidelines too, they just carry greater weight. Dhaluza (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I realize many people see it that way, but I believe that leads to bad governance. You agree that (at least some) principles are immutable. Good. But if there is a problem with their expression then we ought to be fixing that expression rather than making lots of exceptions that are often hard to understand after the fact. Dragons flight (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Or in the alternative, we should be explicit about which bits are judged on a case by case basis. That NPOV is mandatory is not inconsistent with the fact that following the policy often requires discussion and careful balancing. Dragons flight (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No doubt we need to work on keeping policy consistent with consensus--WP:IAR is not an alternative to that as you point out. We just need to keep in mind that no matter how long we work at policies, the work will always be unfinished, just like the encyclopedia. Dhaluza (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Policies are things you should always try to follow, and guidelines are things you should follow unless you have a good reason not to may be a good way to put it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the best view of policies is not to think of them as "rules with exceptions" or as "rules without exceptions", but not to think of them as rules at all. They don't regulate, they define. Thus, it's not about "following" them, but about our actions being informed by them. Does that make sense? For example, the policy NPOV means that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and not some other kind. It's not a rule, it's part of a definition. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it doesn't make sense. Either you are drawing a meaningless semantic distinction (i.e. one that makes no practical difference in how we act), or you are implying some practical difference between "rules" and "definitions", and it is not at all clear what you are suggesting. Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh. It makes sense to me. I certainly am suggesting that there's a difference between a definition and a rule. A rule is something that people "follow" or "break" or that "has exceptions" - in other words, it carries with it a lot of legalistic baggage. If you think of a definition, none of that baggage is there. You can't "break" a definition. You can consider what sort of actions might be consistent with it in a given situation, and that is a much better paradigm for thinking about one's behavior here.

Practically, you'll do a lot of the same things, but without looking through a legalistic lens, you won't get bogged down by distracting questions about whether a rule is broken or not. Instead, you can talk about how to achieve Neutrality, Verifiability, Civility, etc. It's a more open way of thinking about what we're doing here.

Thinking of "rules" invites lawyering. Thinking of definitions keeps us more on task. People get hung up on thinking about "rules", and it's good to avoid those hang-ups. It works for me, anyway. Your mileage may vary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I like Jossi's suggestion. Or "Guidelines are optional; policies are not." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there not two possible layers for policies - those that should be followed, but failures to follow will likely be tolerated as they are generally in good faith (eg, adding unsourced content with {{cn}} due to lack of sourcing as to not yet meet WP:V and WP:NOR), and then policies where failure to follow will result in certain immediate actions (WP:BLP, WP:NPA for a start). Some of these latter type are almost rules that are necessary to prevent legal trouble for WP, and are mandatory, but not all policies fall into this. --MASEM 03:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true. I still think "mandatory" sums it up. It's not as draconian a word as some people are thinking, and it doesn't necessarily mean failure to do them leads to a block. It just means "this is the thing to do." The idea that the basic policies are questioned is just false -- some details within them might be, but the spirit of NPOV, NOR, V, and BLP is absolutely solid. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mandatory" is not draconian, it's just inaccurate. Wikipedia's rules, even the "core ones" are not commandments, they're agreements on how we want Wikipedia to be (or want it to be edited). They have power because we are willing to enforce them to achieve that end.

None of the rules are mandatory because you can't enforce a rule on Wikipedia in the absence of the principle that underlies it. "Mandatory" could only be accurate if it were permissible to enforce them by the letter without regard to the underlying spirit.

Thus even the policies are a form of guidance, not writ. And biggest distinction between policies and guidelines is pretty much that guidelines are (usually) less based on principles and more on practicalities or conventions. But even then there are plenty of guidelines that cannot be flaunted without getting banned. This is because all of the rules are the way we want Wikipedia to be (or be edited), and that is what we enforce. We enforce our shared view of how we want Wikipedia to be. The rules are representations of those views, not commandments or mandates. They're negotiations. We enforce only the ideas behind the rules, using the rules as written only as guidance to gauge what the community does and doesn't want.

This is unusual, as rules go, but Wikipedia is unusual as well. The rules that we write down are an approximation of the rules that we enforce. They can be changed or ignored spontaneously, when good sense prevails, and that is how it should be. This is why it is not accurate to speak of them as "mandatory", and why the existing language -- "they have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow" is correct.--Father Goose (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GTBacchus that having solid policies invite wikilawyering, but what is the alternative? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the alternative is to write the policies more descriptively than prescriptively, and to work on educating Wikipedians that there is an alternative to thinking in terms of rules. Most of that educating takes the form of leading by example. It's rather a radical break from the way we often think (people expect things to run according to rules, ever since Hammurabi), which does make it difficult, but it's not impossible. Providing the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet is a radical idea too, but we're working on making it real. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you see any possiblity of achieving policies written more descriptively than prescriptively? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... I hope so. The last time I tried to make a significant edit to a policy page, I got rather burned, and I haven't even read a policy page since then. I think reading those pages is a bad idea, in general. It's not as if we need to read them to know what they mean. I'd be willing to help with some rewrites, though. I wonder, which one might be good to start with? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A system based on policy may lead to detailed disputation, but a system based on IAR leads to anarchy and inconsistency. People have a right to know what to expect when they come here. Readers have a right to know what sort of material will be found, and what its status is, and we have a responsibility to tell the, Contributors have a right to know how they should contribute & what will make an acceptable article and we who have been doing this have a responsibility to tell them. Editors have a right to know what is acceptable behavior. Telling someone: write, and see what happens, will lead on one side to unacceptable articles, and on the other to brutal rejections.

Policy in the generalities, and the guidelines are the details. The essays are helpful interpretations. In term of US lawmaking, the policies are the statutes, the guidelines are the precedents in court cases, and the essays the advice from textbook writers. DGG (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's little anarchy that has resulted from IAR. IMO, Far more harm has befallen Wikipedia from its bad rules, or bad enforcements, than from its absent or ignored ones. When a rule isn't in place, we still act in the right manner to preserve the encyclopedia. It's when we apply rules thoughtlessly that we run into trouble.--Father Goose (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah... the lovely gamut of opinions... I feel almost as to saying, yes Father Goose, you are right, and yes DGG, you are right too. And to the one that asks "how can they be both right? That is a contradiction", I would respond : "and you are right as well". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like another submission for Wikipedia:The Zen of Wikipedia.

In other news, note that we're not discussing the status of IAR here. Here, it is a mandatory, non-negotiable policy. Deal with it --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Ut oh, I wonder if that made someone's brain go "pop" O:-)

IAR is not separate from the other policies. The more I think about this, the more "mandatory" makes sense. As a group, all the policies together are mandatory, You can't ignore IAR, it's mandatory, yet IAR does not provide a 'trump' over its fellow policies - it merely describes situations where policy is extended to cover areas where the letter of the rule seems to trump the spirit of the rule - not truly ignored...I think ignore may be a misnomer, or at least misunderstood. IAR is an extension of the other polices, and is meant to cover unusual situations. Dreadstar † 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

IAR is a meta-policy--a rule of interpretation. there is unfortunately no consensus on how to use it in an argument: I have argued a good deal about different things, but I have never once found it necessary to use it since the different policies have so many incompatibilities that it is always possible to find one to justify any reasonable position on. I regard its use as almost always a sign of lack of skill or of desperation. We need it as a safety valve, but some use it to justify whatever they want to justify, reasonable or not. DGG (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you disagree that WP:WIARM gives detailed information on how to apply IAR in an argument? The last time I applied it was at: [1].

I believe that there is a requirement to be able to report on your personal reasoning for any action at all, not just for those that happen to occur outside guidance that we have already written. This can sometimes be trivial things: Why did you sign your last post, why did you use that exact wording for your last edit summary, why did you support or oppose that candidate? Up to things that have quite extensive consequences, like blocking whole ranges of ip addresses. (eg one such request for info).

The reason I believe this is because I think the combination of WP:IAR and Consensus applies to all actions. (where you ignore all rules upfront, by being BOLD, and your actions get santiy-checked post-hoc with the consensus process). Our written guidance then is where we maintain up-to-date documentation on the current best-known-outcome of this process, on a day-to-day basis. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC) well, that's the theory, anyway :-)

In essence, what you're saying is that all policies apply to all actions. IAR and Consensus aren't working by themselves; e.g, NPOV is "mandatory and non-negotiable" and so are elements of BLP. If an action is reverted or modified, this is "all policies" in action. You can be bold and ignore all rules up front, but the rules still apply to your actions. It's very difficult to separate them out. Consensus may have put a lot of policy in place, but the underlying principles of every policy are non-negotiable and mandatory. Dreadstar † 05:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The underlying principles are negotiable; they were arrived at by consensus, and can change just like any other consensus -- expanded, tweaked, or even abandoned. Circumstances may change, the makeup of Wikipedia might change, or the existing editorship might change its mind.

The word "mandatory" only has meaning in the context of enforcement, and any given enforcement of any policy, if contested by enough editors, is generally overturned. So again, the rules are just guideposts signifying what is hopefully the consensus position on any given issue -- but it's that consensus that has teeth, not the guideposts. When the words fall short of the actual consensus position on an issue -- and they do, not infrequently -- they don't get enforced (or enforcements get overturned).

So, again, policies aren't mandatory, per se. The most apt thing we can say is that they are likely to be enforced when it is sensible to do so. Perhaps we could add language to that effect to WP:POL, if you feel it would be better than the current explanations.--Father Goose (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar: So what is the underlying principle of all Wikipedia guidance. Is it some mysterious ancient vaguely-oriental-sounding force that moves us all? ;-)

Um, well, no. The underlying principle of all wikipedia guidance is the same thing in each case, and that thing has a very familiar, boring, down to earth name:"Consensus". :-) so previously, you assigned consensus the wrong place in the puzzle, and perhaps it didn't seem to fit?

Note that a key property of consensus is that it is based on negotiation. Now in a negotiation based system, nothing may be mandatory, or the system will fail.

Do you see how the pieces fit together a bit better now? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC) When you see that some part does not fit into the puzzle, you know that you've built the puzzle wrong, and might need to work on it some more. So what we often do is show people how some part doesn't fit (for instance, by declaring a policy that says you may ignore all rules) . Unfortunately, not everyone knows about puzzles, and they get very frustrated and confused instead :-(

The concept of NPOV is non-negotiable only to the extent that trying to negotiate a new policy is likely to be a very long road (who knows though, there could be something even better), but the implementation of NPOV is anything but non-negotiable. Finding an acceptable NPOV is done through negotiation. The only reason elements of BLP are non-negotiable is that libel and slander lawsuits are an existential threat to WP, and so it is a necessary response to an outside force the same as copyrights. So the only mandatory rules are simply internal enforcement of external rules. Our internal rules are based on consensus, which means it's only mandatory if people agree it should be, not simply because a policy page was edited to say so. Dhaluza (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy pages are created to reflect the consensus and current practices in applying the core principles of the project, principles which all users need to abide by —and if they do not, someone will revert them, let them know of their violation, or report it at a noticeboard: just give it a try...:) — Policy pages do not exist in a vacuum, and those that do get edited and changed as needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that we enforce the letter rather than the spirit of the policy, then I think you are wrong. We should be judging the results of an action (like an edit), and only taking further action (like a revert) if we can make a cogent argument to support it (not just a snarky edit summary). Generally, our policies and guidelines should provide the collective wisdom of the community to support your cogent argument, and thereby weaken any counter argument. But our policy documents have not suddenly evolved to perfection--unfortunately, they have occasionally devolved. As the encyclopedia expands, we are likely to find further refinement necessary. So it is always important to use common sense in applying policies and guidelines. The construct of characterizing policy as "mandatory" would give those lacking common sense a sense of entitlement to override those not deficient in this area. Dhaluza (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

These are the five general principles of Wikipedia, which are firm rules: The Five Pillars. This is very clearly stated in the fifth (red) pillar; "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. <added emphasis is mine> While editing decisions are by Consensus, consensus is always "'within the framework of established policy and practice'", it does not trump policy. Even consensus editing decisions on a page can be superceded by "Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status.." So, no, consensus is not the all-encompassing, ruling factor.

So, yes, indeed there are Wikipedia Principles and these principles are firm, IAR Policy does not provide a 'trump' over its fellow policies - it merely describes situations where policy is extended to cover areas where the letter of the rule seems to trump the spirit of the rule. Policy describes what Principle is, thus together they are mandatory. We can't go beyond the spirit of the policies, and since we cannot go past that boundary - what is in that boundary is mandatory.

The Force is strong in my family. Dreadstar † 01:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It bears highlighting: "Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status.." (Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions). :This alone seems to put policy into the realm of "mandatory". Dreadstar † 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you have this completely backwards. Policy comes from consensus, not the other way around. The things you cite are existential threats to WP, where compliance is mandatory due to outside forces like laws of man or nature. These are the specific exceptions to the rule of consensus. Everything else is governed by consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Look at who was involved in writing the 5 pillars. :-P And thanks for pointing out pillar 5. Fixed. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, sorry but I had to undo your "fix". See Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars#Firm_rules. The wording in WP:FIVE: Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. has been there since the start of that page, circa May 2005 and represents current practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Dhaluza, I do not have it backwards. Most of what you’ve just described is actually just a side issue to the main point I was making, and is basically irrelevant to the core issue; which is “why policies/principles are mandatory”. I think anyone who reads the references I’ve provided, and carefully follows what I have outlined above will see that I am right.

As for mandatory compliance, it seems to me that you’re taking a very superficial look at the way Policies work. My view and description goes much deeper than that, to the very fundamental forces and concepts that created those policies, brought forth by the creators, foundation members, and the owners of Wikipedia. They set a foundation in place, we are merely players on that foundation.

Policy actually springs forth from the basic underlying principles of Wikipedia, the concept and policy of WP:CON flows from that very same source. WP:CON does not create or bring about that source. One does not even use WP:CON in isolation from the other policies…none of the policies are to be used in isolation. That’s one of the main problems of this entire discussion, isolating various policies, such as IAR, and using it to try and tear down an argument. Policies and the principles they come from need to be considered together, as a whole…and as a whole, they are mandatory.

What you’ve described and have been involved with so far, doesn’t even come close to truly changing the core principles or the base policies that spring from them. None of what we’ve done on NOR or the other policies have truly changed the core underlying principles or even the basic policies – all that has been done or suggested, has been little more than just superficial tweaks helping to explain those core concepts.

But, what the hey, I may be totally wrong...;) Dreadstar † 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond Dreadstar, because I am having trouble following your logic. Are you now saying that the exceptions you highlighted, and I responded to, were actually an irrelevant side issue?

Let me try to refocus the point. You used a statement from the Consensus policy saying that the consensus process for developing policy has exceptions. I agree with that--there are existential threats to WP that are not going to be neutralized by discussion, and we just have to deal with them. But then I think you engage in a logical fallacy by using this example of mandatory rules to say all rules mandatory by example. That's a leap I am not willing to take with you.

The distinction I think you are glossing over is that this is a consensus community, and you can't enforce the rules without consensus, whether they are characterized as "mandatory" or not. For example, try nominating an otherwise good article at AfD based on some technical violation of some policy. Or try to get a user banned for writing otherwise good articles that do not fit your interpretation of some policy. You're not likely to get the support needed to achieve the end goal in either case. The community is generally going to judge the results for themselves, and will be very non-receptive to attempts to wikilawyer some technical point. If on the other hand, the articles are really bad, you don't need technical arguments to make that point.

The real challenge comes in the huge grey area in between these two extremes. The only way we have to deal with these issues is through discussion. So in light of this, does characterizing policy as "mandatory" facilitate dispute resolution through discussion, or does it invite self-righteous editors to cut off discussion and unilaterally implement their interpretation? I submit that it is the latter, and this is ultimately more damaging to the project. As was pointed out above by Father Goose, "IMO, Far more harm has befallen Wikipedia from its bad rules, or bad enforcements, than from its absent or ignored ones." We do not need to characterize policy as mandatory, but this does not necessarily make it optional. Dhaluza (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry I can't make it clearer for you. To me, it seems to be a simple concept - you cannot go beyond Wikipedia principles and policy, so since the policies and principles all work together, they are indeed mandatory. I can't see how you go beyond IAR, BLP, content guidelines, making a better encyclopedia, etc....there are definite boundaries. Neither WP:CON nor WP:IAR trumps the other polices, all the policies must work together. We can change and tweak within those boundaries and we are given wide latitude within those boundaries - but if you go beyond them..like it says below..boot-city.. I think the problem is that you are still considering policies in isolation from one another - which I think is apparent by the use to which you just put WP:CON. And nobody is talking about technical violations - we've clearly been talking about the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law... The "grey areas" are exactly why we need firm rules..the extremes take care of themselves. Dreadstar † 01:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In practice, yes. Try violating any of these principles consistently, and let me know how long you can do that before you get booted ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly...sounds pretty mandatory to me...unless you want to get the boot...;) Dreadstar † 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi: A:Deliberately violate, or B:Merely ignore? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merely ignore: you may get away with it, unless challenged by a fellow editor about lack of compliance. Deliberately violate: you never get away with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You get booted for producing bad results for the encyclopedia, not simply for technical violations. It's important to maintain that distinction--it's the fundamental difference between our system of consensus, and a wikilawyering bureacracy. Dhaluza (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has said or implied that, Dhaluza. Dreadstar † 01:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You get booted for producing bad results for the encyclopedia Really Dhaluza? Show me one place in Wikipedia in which you are booted for that reason. See WP:BAN, and WP:BLOCK, in case you have missed it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The question that begs an answer is "what is a bad result" for the encyclopedia. And that question can be answered quite easily as follows: "The principles upon which the encyclopedia stands are reflected in current practices as described in Wikipedia official policies. Follow the spirit of these policies, and as a result, your contributions will produce the expected results. Ignore these and your contributions may not be accepted. Ignore these to the point of disruption, and you may temporarily, or permanently lose the editing privileges extended to you." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We had a chance to compare our views recently, in a situation which I used to demonstrate what I believe to be the optimal approach.

In the initial situation everyone was attempting to use policy to get an edge over the other, and at least 2 people (including at least one subject matter expert) were set to leave wikipedia, ultimately leaving very little to work with. The situation was clearly damaging to our mission on the small scale.

This situation was corrected by negating each policy in turn, including the "non-negotiable" NOR policy. Once policy was out of the way, people were forced to negotiate with each other to achieve consensus, or they would not be able to get anywhere at all.

At this point, relations between participants started to normalize somewhat.

No miracle was involved, just several hours of hard work. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC) * The situation was slightly more complex than this, but this is a fairly good summary. it took quite some time to research the situation before taking action; * Did you notice the application of the more detailed description of our ignore all rules policy in dealing with a spurious deletion request?; * Also note the complete lack of use of admin tools, even though at least one episode of deliberate vandalism did occur during this situation; * Situation has not been 100% resolved, but only been taken one step closer to resolution. I think other people have picked up the tempo and can solve the situation on their own now.

Sorry for the late reply--I've been busy and missed this first time around. Anyway, what I am talking about is the common sense "no harm, no foul" principle embodied in WP:BURO. The basic principle of "no harm, no foul" is that if a rule infraction does not affect the outcome of the game, then there is no point in enforcing it. WP:IAR takes this one step further by saying that if the rule adversely affects the outcome of the game, we should ignore it as well. Both of these are more than sufficient to show that characterizing policy as "mandatory" is inaccurate. That does not mean policies are optional, because to the extent that they embody the collective wisdom of the community, you will generally get better results by following the rules rather than breaking them. So we are basically saying the same thing, but I disagree agree with the taking it to the absolute extreme. Dhaluza (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Innocent Until proven guilty Policy

I hope that Wikipedia can adopt this policy in their guidelines, because there many articles on Wikipedia which are subject to speculation and assertion rather than academic accuracy. I would like to refer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Assumtions_are_unethical_and_a_disgrace_to_acedemics_which_use_wikipedia

Here I argue that we cannot post in the 9/11 article that Al Qaeda is guilty of 9/11 when no judge has ruled this in a court of law. Ignoring for a second the political implications of making such a change to the article at hand, I believe it should be general policy for us not to allow half-truths to be passed off as fact. In this article the guilt of Al Qeada is taken as a fact as if it has been subject to ridicule in court, when it fact it has not. If it was any other article where someone is the main suspect in a crime we state it clearly that they are merely suspects and not guilty of the crime. I think this type of article can degrade the intergrity of many wikipedia articles into the future unless we have a policy to protect us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talk • contribs) 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No academic publication would ever adopt such a policy, as it would render useless any statement not backed up by legal findings. Since academia does not subordinate its ability to discern truth from falsehood beneath the judiciary, neither should Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In authored academic publications, it is implied that statements are “true in the opinion of the author(s)”, unless explicitly stated otherwise with the use of grand words such as “incontrovertible” or “unequivocal”. In other reputable publications (NPOV publications!), care must be taken to not assume as true anything that not demonstrated or proven. Care must be taken to ensure that such statements are attributable to their source (like WP:ATT), and that accuracy is not to be simply assumed or implied. Wikipedia should always take this position, if it hopes to be considered reputable. I see no reason for Wikipedia to adopt a new policy in its guidelines on this subject, when it is already at the heart of its core policies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should not itself make such accusations, but attribute them to others. The court of law is then no longer applicable. This procedure is already in the guidelines, it's just not being adhered to regarding 9/11, which I find a shame.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wording from WP:NPOV

This is from the lead of WP:NPOV. My highlight:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the wording exists on the NPOV page, we're not adding that text here, as that would be kind of silly. We could go the other way around and remove the text on all pages at once and demand people get consensus here first to put it back, but that would be equally silly, ne? :-)

As for my reasoning for removing: logic demands that a statement that denies consensus can never have consensus, so I'll I'm removing those lines for now. Can you provide arguments why they should be kept? --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that "consensus" here refers to local consensus. While there may be consensus on one page to present a particular POV, it does not override the overall consensus in favour of NPOV. Perhaps this could be made clearer - "local consensus" for example.

I'd prefer to keep it as it is, as I think that if anything, on at least some pages, editors still view NPOV too weakly, preferring to embrace the sections of WP:NPOVFAQ that ameliorate NPOV and sideline WP:NPOV itself. I'd rather not weaken it further. TSP (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is precisely the "non negotiable" text which weakens wikipedia guidance so much. It's a bit of a long story why. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh. Any chance you could suggest where someone might start reading to find this long story is? Because to me the wording with that clause is stronger than without it, and I'm not sure what could leading to the long story other than the wording itself. TSP (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not state that policies are non-negotiable. In simple terms, the statement will be false. There are many ways to negotiate, and there is a history of negotiation. With sufficient explanation and caveats, it will be too complicated. It also implies a belief in a superior wisdom of founders, superior in that it out-weighs any future objection. This quasi-religious behaviour is patronising, non-empowering, unwelcoming and short-sighted. The intent seems to be to highlight the importance of certain policies. A more constructive approach is to be evidence oriented. Why are these policies important? If it is true now, was true previously, it will probably be true in the future, and evidence based decision making will repeatedly find it to be true. Let important policies stand on their own merits. There is no need to enshrine truths in language that is supposed to be immutable (non negotiable), and in the wiki way, it cannot be done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe here. there are some principles more basic than others, but all of them are subject to change. There is also the question of emphasis: Of those mentioned, NPOV is much more important than V and NOR. In particular, one can have a reputable encyclopedia with some degree of OR permitted, and the meaning of the term is subject to continuous debate here. Dont enshrine the actively disputed by saying it is not subject to change. DGG (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with that wording, please discuss at WP:NPOV where it comes from.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand why people would feel the need to word WP:NPOV in a way that presents it as non-negotiable, but one of Wikipedia's principles is that our principles are arrived at (or reconsidered) through discussion -- and are therefore very much negotiable. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.--Father Goose (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly stated in the relevant policies, is a core principle and a Foundation issue, and should be reflected here, where the all the policies are described. If this concept is not correct, then each one of the relevant policies must be changed - and the matter should probably be addressed at the foundation level - but it certainly should not revert-warred out of this policy. Dreadstar † 07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue, as I see it, is one of tone, of subtle implications of power and authority. The words “are non-negotiable” are not the same as “are essentially considered to be beyond debate”. While the two have the same immediate practical effects, the differences are significant. The first is absolute, confrontational, dismissive of a newcomers objection. The second, with a non-zero degree of softness, implies that there was some past consideration (not a divine fiat), and that debate is possible, even if change is improbable. I think that the wording “are non-negotiable” should be abandoned in favour of the actual wording “are essentially considered to be beyond debate”, referenced by link to the source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely confortable with the “are essentially considered to be beyond debate” phraseology, but this is much more accurate than the “are non-negotiable” door slammer. Everything is negotiable, even proposals to dissolve the entire project. Such a proposal would receive essentially zero support at this stage in the grand experiment of Wikipedia, but in the future, who knows? I agree completely with SJ that tone is important, because it reflects on the community as a whole. Would a community that appears to be "absolute, confrontational, [and] dismissive of a newcomers objection" attract the type of people we need to sustain the project? I don't think so. While this sort of lies to children oversimplification may appear to be an expedient means of prevailing in the present set of minor skirmishes, it ultimately sets the stage for loss of the larger campaign. Dhaluza (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me to sy that, because the language is in the NPOV page, it has to be here as well. It would make more sense to rephrase it from NPOV, since it isn't really correct. I have reworded the sentence on this page to point out that NPOV is a foundation issue, which I believe is the motivation for the sentence anyway. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's important to note that the Foundation issues page is edited by everyday users, and, being on Meta, is probably less scrutinized than the policy pages here on Wikipedia. It was originally authored by User:UninvitedCompany with no apparent mandate save his own (fairly sound) sense of how Wikipedia functions. So you're building a house of cards by leaning on that particular page as the ultimate authority on Wikipedia's rules.

I do accept what is written on that page as mostly true -- though "essentially considered to be beyond debate" overstates the case. Others have taken fault with that statement as well on the talk page. It is also partly contradicted by the opening note:

TODO: Over time, the opinion of the community does evolve slowly. Some changes have occurred which still need to be integrated in this document.

The contradiction is no particular problem, though. We do have several rules and/or principles that are quite firmly embraced, by both the community and the Foundation; it is just a misstatement to say that they are "beyond debate". Our position on these issues may evolve over time (semi-protection puts the lie to point #2, for instance), and we are always free to discuss and reevaluate them.

So, I am afraid in your quest for bright lines, you have wandered down another dead end. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not by authority. Please come to terms with this. You are of course free to dispute that: debate is an integral part of the consensus process.--Father Goose (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

can only be edited to ...

I don't understand the motivation behind 'The policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and presentation of those principles.' Subject to consensus, all pages can be edited in any way whatsoever. Moreover, practically any edit could be justified as attempting to improve the application or presentation of the principles. So I am not sure what edits are being restricted, if any, nor what the basis for that restriction is. Could someone explain it to me? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It means that they can't be edited to change the spirit of the policies, only the letter. You wouldn't be able to edit the NPOV policy to say that NPOV sometimes doesn't apply; and even if you did, it would only make the page void. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No edit can change the spirit of a policy. I am interested in hearing a more convincing justification for this sentence, since as I pointed out it seems either vacuously true (that you can oly edit a policy to improve the policy) or vacuously false (in the sense that all pages can be edited in any way subject only to consensus). — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits can definitely attempt to change the spirit. We had a group of editors try a few months ago to add to V that only peer-reviewed material could be used in articles about certain subjects - science, medicine, and history, as I recall. Given that a lot of criticism is found in non-peer-reviewed (but still high quality) sources, that edit would have contradicted the NPOV policy. Therefore, even if it had been allowed to stand, it wouldn't have counted. It would simply have made the page null and void, or that part of it anyway. That's what that sentence refers to -- that the written page must be in keeping with the spirit of the policy, and edits to the page should aid the expression of that spirit. In other words, the policy pages are not open for editing that would undermine the principles behind the policies. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If consensus changed to require peer reviewed sources, that edit would be fine. It is perfetcly possible that consensus might change significantly in the future, in that way or other ways. So the problem with the edit you describe to WP:V is not the spirit of the policy, it's the lack of consensus for the edit. The problem with the language you re-inserted here is that nothing written here could prevent the addition you describe if there was actually consensus to make the change. The spirit of our policies changes as consensus changes (that is, if there is a difference between them), and the language of the policies lags somewhat behind. The entire system is predicated on the ability to rewrite policy over time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "If consensus changed to require peer reviewed sources, that edit would be fine." No, it wouldn't, because it would violate NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's at least conceivable that consensus could find a way to fit NPOV with peer-reviewed sources, as the understanding of NPOV and sourcing changes. You're assuming that the current interpretations are permanent, it seems. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so -- the interpretations can change. This would be bad if it undermined the primacy of NPOV, but okay if it merely modified the specifics of the idea (either the principles or the rule itself). WP:ATT is a good example of both a rule and the underlying principles being modified (or at least tweaked -- but of course not discarded). That initiative didn't succeed, but under different circumstances it might have; the ideas behind it were not necessarily wrong, even though the whole thing represented major changes to core content policies.

If for some reason the consensus for having an encyclopedia-wide neutral point of view ever disappeared, Wikipedia would be doomed, and it wouldn't matter what rules we retained, on paper or otherwise. We'd have to close the site and become Citizendium. But I'm not too worried that'll happen. Consensus is the driving force for all our rules and their enforcement, and we should emphasize that as much as we can.--Father Goose (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The underlying principles weren't modified at all in ATT, FG, and it wasn't any kind of major change to the core content policies. Which principle do you think was tweaked? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I changed the sentence to "Edits to these pages should be made carefully, to ensure they agree with the spirit of the policies as interpreted by the community." I think this matches the motivation given by SlimVirgin above. The previous language seemed to suggest that it would be impermissible to rewrite WP:V into WP:ATT; it said that WP:V could only be edited in certain limited ways. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The changes made by Slimvirgin had already been tried before by Jossi, and they had been discussed and ultimately consensus was to reject that change, afacit: see #Wording from WP:NPOV, so I have undone that wording.

Just to re-iterate, I believe the wording in question violates the foundation issues (preamble/notes, #1, #3.) , secondly there are inherent problems with defining a policy as being non-negotiable, (such as for instance making it impossible to refactor items into things like a more general Attribution policy) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus you speak of. The place to reject that wording is in NPOV and the other policies wherein the statement is made. And just where did that wording originate from? Dreadstar † 18:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your points are completely answered by the first two comments in the "see" anchor link provided in the comment above. References are an integral part of a wiki-based discussion, and it is often important to check them, else you may miss very large portions of the discussion. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have been unclear; my second 'point' was a rhetorical question, the first was to identify where the consensus was that, 1) strikes the NPOV wording from this article, and 2} strkes the wording from all policies, which would be a defacto consensus that covers #1. Dreadstar † 03:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The opposite question is when there was consensus to add the NPOV language (which I, and others I believe, hold is simply incorrect) to this article. I have not advocated removing the language from NPOV yet. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is an overview of Policy and Guidelines, so I wouldn't think including or summarizing some of the more interesting language that is common to other policies would be a problem. Dreadstar † 03:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll grant you that that language is interesting, but not that's it's correct. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? The wording in NPOV about the negotiability of the Principles of Wikipedia?

"The principles upon which they are based are strongly supported; with the NPOV policy regarded as non-negotiable and cannot be disregarded by a consensus of editors on a particular article or policy talk page. Edits to these pages should be made carefully, to ensure they agree with the spirit of the policies as interpreted by the community."?

or the actual core content policy statement in WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR?:

"The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles."

Dreadstar † 04:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If so, then this isn’t the place to dispute those statements, this article should reflect the important aspects of the other policy articles. And those statements are surely important parts.

I’m not so sure that any size group of editors on Wikipedia has the power to change the Wikipedia core principles any more than they have the ability via consensus to change the name of the project from Wikipedia to something else. Dreadstar † 04:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I generally try to use diplomatic language, but I think somewhat plainer langauge might help;-):

Some fine-as-in-RTFM nomic-playing mentally-deficient-person decided that it might be a fun idea to declare certain policies non-negotiable, thereby making it impossible to ever fix them again in future, if read by naive people who actually would believe such bovine-waste-product to be true.

This fine-as-in-RTFM person never considered that maybe such tactics might propagate throughout the project namespace and mess up other aspects of wikipedia. After all, they were playing nomic, and all they cared about was winning their point.

Now it seems silly to force this page to start pushing this lack-of-sense just because some nomic player won a round elsewhere. Also, we are not advocating removing this language all at once. And we are not demanding that everyone editing other pages should come here to establish a consensus to put it back either. See? We're even being nice to the fine folks who got us into this fine mess.;-)

Those core principles are totally negotiable, especially when they contain language that contradicts the foundation issues. (now good luck negotiating those... though otoh, you can certainly try, at least!). But we need to fix that one step at a time.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(←) Re Dreadstar. I do think this talk page is the place to object to language being added to this policy page. It isn't the place to complain about language that is already in other policy pages, but I am not removing the language from other policy pages (yet) (or rephrasing it, which is all that I think would be necessary). As Kim says, it isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. I do believe that we (Wikipedia) have the power to change our core principles, and to change the name of our project, given broad enough consensus.

SlimVirgin's explanation of the importance of this language does imply why it might have been added (I don't know who added it, and haven't looked). If a policy already says that it can't be edited, that makes it much easier to brush off "well-meaning" editors who try to change things from the status quo. The problem is that we are supposed to change our policies over time as our understanding changes, and take the time to discuss issues with those well-meaning editors rather than brushing them off. The "no editing" clause is bad because it limits the ability to develop policy through discussion and consensus building, which is a foundation principle. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, this talk page is certainly the place to object to language being added to this policy page. But what is the very purpose of this policy? To give an overview, a bit of history and provide understanding of all the policies and guidelines. To leave out something that is a key element of the core content policies from this page seems to be an odd way to dispute that language. I think it's interesting that the explanation for the wording being in WP:V, NOR and NPOV to be that some rogue editor 'got his way' against what should be the 'real language and meaning' presented there. And now, we've gone from Policy based on Principle to Principle based on Foundation Issues. It's a strange and wonderful path we examine here, even though so many bovine appear to have littered it while lowing their way along it...;) Is there a listing of the Foundation Issues?

I don't think Jossi, Slim, or I have suggested a "no editing" clause, the issue is whether the principles behind the three core content policies are negotiable by editors. I don't think they are, at least on the level of Wikipedia editor consensus. If we want to change NPOV to say, "only critical comments about subjects will be allowed in the 'pedia henceforth"...does anyone really think a consensus of editors would override that core, key principle? Nor could we rewrite policy to that effect. While certain things can be changed by consensus, that consensus must follow the principles. Heck, I don't want to appear to be bucking the system, I'm just trying to gain a better understanding and present what I'm seeing. I'm not sure if I'm going around and around the same circle..so I'll leave it off and see what the others have to say! Dreadstar † 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The specific sentence at issue is "Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles." This has been reinserted on this page several times, despite concerns of quite a few editors higher on this talk page.

I don't believe the overall purpose of this page is to give an overview of other policies. We have other pages (WP:5P, for example) to do that. The purpose of this page is to explain how policies and guidelines are regarded by wikipedia editors, and describe the (informal) process by which pages become policies and guidelines. I do think that the specific section on policies could give a more thorough overview of our policies, so I'll expand it. That will also decrease the strange weight that the section currently gives to NPOV. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the disputed language is correct. I may have been referring to Foundation issues as principles, but since they are considered "beyond debate", for me, this seems to have the same meaning as does "non-negotiable", and as things that are not subject to consensus. Unless it means "beyond debate until consensus changes them"...but, consensus sorta has a debate component..so.. Dreadstar † 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and our policies have authority only to the extend they reflect consensus. So no policy or principle is beyond debate or permanently enthroned. It is more accurate to say that things reflect current consensus to varying degrees. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't exist in a vacuum, ruling all it surveys. I highly doubt consensus will override the principles behind NPOV, BLP or V...just to mention a few. If it does, the 'pedia won't be the same project - an extension of what SlimVirgin pointed out above. She's absolutely right about this. Dreadstar † 22:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can, has, does, did. The guidance on biographies of living persons and guidance on verifiability are not essential to wikipedia, as we have done without for the longest time. BLP is only important because of our google rank. People used to use more discussion, instead of strict verifiability, and this allowed for a slightly different balance of information, that was not much worse than it was today. NPOV has several flaws, that will need to be fixed, sooner or later. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Different angle

Let me try to explain what I mean from a slightly different angle. The principle behind NPOV is that Wikipedia presents all significant views fairly and without bias. Can consensus change this principle so that articles can be totally biased, giving only one point of view? Can WP:V be changed by consensus to say that the only direction on verifying a source for content is to give a general disclaimer on the main page saying something along the lines of "go to your local library or buy a newspaper"...essentially, find your own sources for what we're saying here. Can the principle behind WP:BLP be changed by consensus of editors to allow unsourced libelous material? To my view, those principles and the basis for those policies are truly non-negotiable...and mandatory. Dreadstar † 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This applies to the principle only. BLP at present goes far beyond unsourced libelous material to unsourced contentious material. A change to restrict it to material libelous in the US would not be disruptive and would be negotiable--nor would a proposal to extend it beyond those who are recent dead, as is the case in some countries. a change to NPOV to require the inclusion of even fringe viewpoints similarly would be negotiable. A change to V saying we could use unpublished but available sources would be negotiable. (I do not necessarily mean to advocate any of these--I am just providing examples). None of these affect the core of the principles. DGG (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In essence, that's what I'm saying. While we can change some of the more superficial apects of policy, the core of it must remain true. Perhaps I was unclear in my "library" example, but right now we do have to identify the source - whether it be online or offline, library, web site, newspaper, etc. The situation I'm trying to convey that goes against WP:V is one where we don't provide any sources at all..and just say "go find it yourself, Mr. Reader, we don't have to prove or show anything in order to add this content per policy". Same for the BLP example, tweaking the surface isn't the same as saying "add whatever content you like, regardless of laws or morality". Dreadstar † 01:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem sentence

In the lead, we have "There is disagreement between those who believe rules should be stated explicitly, and those who believe that written rules are inadequate to cover every variation of problematic editing or behavior."

It doesn't really make sense because everyone on WP believes some rules should be stated explicitly (even if it's only IAR), and no one believes that written rules are adequate to cover every variation of problematic editing or behavior.

I went to copy edit it, then realized I didn't understand what it was trying to say. Any ideas? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people believe that written policy is be prescriptive, some think it is descriptive. For example, the extent to which deletions must follow the deletion process is up in the air. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that what it's saying? Ok, thank you. It's a strange dichotomy, because of course they are both descriptive and prescriptive. If they were either one or the other, they'd be useless. If prescriptive, but not descriptive, it would mean everyone was ignoring them. If descriptive, but not prescriptive, there'd be no reason for anyone to pay attention.

Anyway, the language -- e.g. "advisory," and "a standard that all users should follow" -- is clearly prescriptive. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The ordinary meaning people attribute to "prescriptive" is not "advisory" but "mandatory". — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never known anyone to understand the word that way. A prescriptive statement is something like "oranges are good, eat oranges." A descriptive statement is "oranges are round." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that mandatory statements are, of course, prescriptive, but prescriptive statements need not be mandatory. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

All wikipedia guidance is either descriptive or it is meaningless. This fact is stressed by Ignore all rules, which (as I constantly need to remind people) is policy. "It's not just a good idea, it's the law!".

Even if that were not the case: If something is descriptive you should ignore it *less* than if it is prescriptive. Which of these are you more likely to ignore?

• "Please do not cut this rope, even if it is in the way"
• "This rope is holding up an anvil, if you cut the rope, the anvil will fall on your head, and you shall die. It is recommended that you do not cut this rope."

Or compare (hover mouse over sign for interpretation):

Which sign are you more likely to obey? :-P

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's no doubt, at high-speed on the autobahn, the sign on the left with the Big Bold Red Circle. The "blue informative" one is likely to get lost amongst all the other blue-informatonal "guidance/advisory" signs that tell us about the next rest stop or gasoline station. Dreadstar † 18:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, they actually tend to show up pretty clearly on high-speed roads.

Even so, I'll grant that they actually do appear to use the red signs for both meanings on the actual german autobahn. (although my most favoritest speed limit sign EVER does show a blue square. {"Welcome to Germany. Please observe the following speed limits: Within city limits: 50 km/h; outside city limits: 100km/h; autobahn: We advise 130 km/h"})

On my way to wikimania in frankfurt, I saw one such sign with "80" on it, and assumed the system was the same as in .nl, even though all the Germans were braking[*] without any police in sight (big clue!). As it turns out, Germany is not really a country of obedient people; rather, they were all slowing down for some dangerous road works. At that point I empirically confirmed that my ABS worked just fine at 160 km/h ;-). This is also where I learned why the majority of germans DO tend to go 130 on the autobahn much of the time.

In the Netherlands, the blue square is used on freeway off-ramps on rare occaisions when there is a sharp turn ahead. Even when I was rather cheekier than I am today, I still always slowed down for those signs, even though I occasionally "forgot" some of the red ones. ;-) And that's where my argument stems from.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC) [*] Just across the border to the west, fuel is more expensive, and people generally coast down to the speed limit, rather than apply brakes.

lol..! (oh, no, what have I started??) Too funny, Kim..! Dreadstar † 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Defining consensus

The following was added to this page today" "Wide consensus does not need to be declared as such, in any official capacity. Acceptance and performance of a general practice over time by many people indicates de facto consensus, unless challenged." Why do we need to redefine consensus here? We already have a page which describes our consensus process; that should suffice. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent summary of how consensus operates. We could expand on it at the consensus policy page, insofar that it isn't covered yet. At any rate I am SO keeping it! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"I am SO keeping it!" What does that mean? Is this your page? Maybe we should have a discussion. Adding this was bold and now it has been challenged; this is how we currently form consensus at WP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Wide consensus does not need to be declared as such, in any official capacity. Acceptance and performance of a general practice over time by many people indicates de facto consensus, unless challenged."

This is almost a dictdef, or a trivial derivation from such. If it is nowhere else on wikipedia, then this is only because everyone thought it too obvious to write down. It explains or at least clarifies where over 90% of our written guidance comes from, in just two sentences. That it was not on the page before is a horrible omission.

Is there any reason not to correct that omission now?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, but for now let's get some other input please. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the place for KB's proposed language is WP:CONSENSUS, not here, and only if consensus to add is reached on THAT talk page first. This page is supposed to be a summary. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it because from what I've seen, we don't ever have to have some special declaration that "Policy is live when people agree theres a consensus for it". It's "Policy is live when someone writes down the practice that nearly everyone has been already doing," or "Someone wrote a great idea, and everyone began doing it." Do we have a policy consensus-meter that I don't know about? :) My entry here was to make the description of how policy forms accurate. Lawrence Cohen 06:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

. . . and again, I think the place to do that is at WP:CONSENSUS, not here, and refer to that page from here, which is already being done. In other words, the change is one that this page does not need. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. All pages are descriptive. We don't need to first edit one to change the other, or first change the other to edit the one. All pages should reflect the current consensus. It doesn't matter which gets updated first.

If you do not agree with the wording itself for some reason, please come forward and provide your reasoning. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, please don't invent new procedures on the spot. --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Consensus is a page about consensus. This is a page that describes how policy forms. I just described how policy forms. Lawrence Cohen 06:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning why I don't agree with the proposed wording is that the following wording is sufficient: "Wikipedia policy is formed by consensus." UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that wording sounds less accurate to me. It is Consensus that has primacy. Lawrence Cohen's wording explains that in a very clear way. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The reasons I reverted

I just reverted the good-faith change made by User:CBM. Other than my strong belief that Process is important and so for policy pages a significant edit like this one should have its language pretty much agreed to on the talk page first, I have several specific issues: 1)I don't like the introduction of a hierarchical "most important policies" concept, 2) I don't know what "global consensus" and "local consensus" mean - I have a guess, but I think we need to define such amorphous concepts if we want to start using them (or better yet, not start using them), and most improtantly, 3) the text that was added does not address the fundamental problem with the text that was removed: a confusion between the Neutral Point of view foundation issue (a nine word phrase), and the specific NPOV policy page in English Wikipedia. I hope people agree we can continue making consensus-based changes/refinements/improvements to the NPOV page in English WP, and still have the page be consistent with the foundation issue. Hope this helps as an explanation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Several of the concerns you cited can be resolved by just editing the text to improve it. I'll try to do that, and everyone else is as always able to continue improving it. Editing rather than reverting is the fastest way to find compromise language. My impression is that the only reason that NPOV is specifically mentioned at all here is because the person who added that language feels it is particularly important. I think it's very odd to mention just one polisy, but none of the others.

PS. I have seen this idea more and more often lately - that everything has to be hammered out on the talk page before the policy/guideline/article/etc can be changed at all. That opinion leads to an erosion of the wiki process, another foundation principle, it contradicts WP:BOLD, and it makes it very hard to tell if there is actually agreement for language, because until the main page is changed, many editors don't feel a need to comment. The policy template is part of the problem, as it discourages editors from editing on a wiki. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick note pointing out two things: The "process is important" essay documents the minority dissenting opinion against actual policy. Your statement about requiring talk page discussion first runs counter to Wikipedia:Consensus. I might cover your core points in a further comment, if I have time later. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, I've already learned my lesson - I shouldn't try contributing to this page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Contributing to the page is encouraged. You could have simply edited my text to address your concerns, however, rather than reverting it, which would have addressed your concerns much more directly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Carl, I'm really sorry to take another opposing view, but did you really think through that comment? Your premise assumes that some change is mandatory for the process to be fair. If US perceived the status quo as the best course, how can he edit your change and maintain the status quo. While your suggestion sounds polite and compromising it is fallacious. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Then the status quo has no consensus, and United Statesian will have to find a compromise. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Just because one editor believes a change is needed has no bearing on the consensus, unless you define consensus as unanimity, which you clearly refute at the Consensus talk page. So what are you talking about? US followed the Consensus flowchart, and Carl continued to follow it by discussing. I only object to Carl criticizing US following the process. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason US supplies for making the revert is that he wished to halt the process in question (as he does not agree with it). Is that correct? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate you incessantly on the minutia. You make unsupported comments, and then when confronted, you side step the issue and throw back an irrelevant question. I think that you are playing a lot of games and just trying to wear down your critics. Good day! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. as you are no longer participating, de-facto we will not take your opinion further into account any further when forming consensus on this page.--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get off with that comment? You are really a piece of work. Will you stoop to any level to win you points now? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I am stating the full consequences of your actions, so that you will not be able to accuse me of disingenuity at a later date. AKA: CYA :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why wait? I think that we are already there. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I also welcome constructive participation. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please stay, we can't improve things unless people question them. And perhaps some day we may even actually require talk page discussions before major changes. In my personal view, WP:BOLD is the way to run a sterile debating society, rather than create content (or policy). DGG (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The other way around right? If you don't make a change to a wikipage, a wikipage will not be changed, and no content will be added. Therefore, if you want to add content, and make a change to a wikipage, you must change the wikipage. Therefore WP:BOLD leads to content, and debate on the talk page does not (as, de-facto, debate on a talk page does not make changes). Um, that's very trivial, isn't it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the distinction between BRD and D. It isnt trivial, it would be a complete difference in the way we work--and in fact, on most policy pages, anyone boldly changing the policy is almsot automatically reverted. As a way of getting attention, I can't think of any way more conducive to hostility--it immediately arouse every combattative instinct.Sure, the reasonable among us know how to repress it, but I think a discussion that starts out as a discussion is more likely to succeed in difficult situations.DGG (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with you to quite a degree, in the sense that initial edits using BRD can indeed cause friction (therefore, a user of BRD needs to be very good at diplomacy)

However, BRD is not a normal editing method. You use it to find people to talk with, and you use it to break open pages that are not being edited by Consensus at that point in time. Once the normal consensus and wiki-editing are happening again, making edits to pages is quite rapid and effortless.

Note that many wikis don't have talk pages at all. If there is no editing going on on the actual wikipage, then you are likely dealing with a pathological case. (A lesser wiki would have died at that point). --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

I see this is back:

"There is disagreement between those who believe rules should be stated explicitly, and those who believe that written rules are inadequate to cover every variation of problematic editing or behavior."

The sentence makes no sense. No one believes rules should never be stated explicitly. No one believes that written rules are adequate to cover every variation of problematic editing or behavior.

It is a false dichotomy. A straw man. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Some users,including myself, believe we should focus more on principles and less on specific rules. I believe that sentiment is one of the reasons we write policies and guidelines with "should" language rather than "must" language, because they are intended to be a description of best practices rather than a list of rules. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

I don't like that new language guidelines "may typically have a weaker consensus but this is not always the case". It's sounds a bit like pushing the envelope. I'd rather just see something like "guidelines have weaker consensus than policy" maybe with an additional phrase like "but they are still agree to by the majority of editors" or whatever... but right now it makes it sounds like there are some guidelines that are *enforced* as if they were equal with policy. I just don't think that it so. If it were they would *be* policy, not just seperate but equal with it. Wjhonson (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT, vs WP:TITLE. I rest my case. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

guidelines have weaker consensus than policy is incorrect. Both policies and guidelines carry the consensus of the community. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jossi, strength of consensus seems a strange way to separate out Guidelines from Policy. Dreadstar † 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines and Policy are already two different things. The language is only attempting to clarify — how. Wjhonson (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? The division is entirely artificial, afaik. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You have two different words to describe the exact same thing? Guidelines have always been optional. We would *like* everyone to follow them, that doesn't mean we are *requiring* everyone to follow them. Even if they have consensus, they are not imposed under sanction. If any admin is imposing sanction for not following "guidelines" then they are failing to understand the nuance.Wjhonson (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

While generally a guideline does not need as much as a consensus, there is no limiting factor preventing it from gaining more. The distinction is on the enforceability rather than the consensus. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 04:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonsen: I already demonstrated that that is incorrect. For instance: it is quite possible to be banned for violating WP:POINT (Guideline), but I don't think anyone has ever been sanctioned simply for violating the naming conventions (policy) alone. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there other guidelines with the same banning potential as violations of WP:POINT? Do all conditions under WP:POINT carry the same potential..or is it when a violation of WP:POINT crosses the line into disruption and vandalism or other more serious violations? Dreadstar † 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are several more guidelines with banning or desysopping potential. If you actually care about such things, you might find it alarming that some pages marked "essay" can also lead to such trouble, if maliciously ignored. Conversely, some policies can deliberately be broken in the most disruptive way possible, without sanctions.

I admit that this mess used to be much more pronounced than it is today, but it is still that way, simply due to the way consensus works, I guess.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I have this terrible habit of actually reading what I talk about ;-)

(Outdent) if you were banned for violating WP:POINT, protest it.Wjhonson (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There definitely are pages tagged as "guidelines" that are enforced as if they were policy. I was involved in an arbitration case in which the committee made clear that if someone was found to have violated WP:POINT, sanctions could be imposed. (They ended up not "convicting" anyone, but there was no question in anyone's mind that WP:POINT was considered a sanctionable principle.) So you could "protest" all you want, but I don't you would get very far with the ArbCom, if that is who you protested to. WP:Harassment is another example; it is tagged as a guideline, but I'm pretty sure that people get blocked etc. for violating it. So in those two cases, I do not think there is much of a difference between a policy and a guideline. Or is that these two pages have the wrong tag? 6SJ7 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• My impression is not that there is less consensus required for a guideline, just a wider lattitude in the expectation that it be followed (obeyed). I think that guidelines need just as much consensus as a policy. Sadly, I think that in practice the guidelines carry the weight of policy, and that the former is a euphamism for the latter. One of the few reasons for deletion of an article is lack of notability and the notability infrastructure is a series of guidelines. What is more serious than an deleting an article? --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think guidelines carry essentially the same weight, in terms of enforcement, as policy. Just saying "But it's only a guideline" isn't a good reason to ignore one any more than "because it's a policy" is a reason to follow a policy. I don't think this is sad, however. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) The tag at the top of WP:POINT states that it's not set in stone and there can be some rare exceptions or something like that. I disagree that "it's only a guideline" is not a good argument. Those people who feel the need to enforce guidelines should offer to discuss on the talk page making it into policy. Otherwise the entire structures only serves to confuse the editors not the help them understand how to negotiate the system. If the internal system is self-contradictory, how are people who operate using logical approaches, to understand clearly how to use it? The reality is, the system is constantly in flux. Policies in general were established as non-negotiable in their generality, but obviously changeable in their specificity. That is, specifically what we *mean* by verification can change and does as we encounter new situations not clearly covered or covered ambiguously. There is one at the pump right now that may be redirected to V talk hopefully. *If* Arbcom imposed sanctions for the *sole* affront of violating a guideline that would be interesting wouldn't it? Typically an issue doesn't get to ArbCom unless many things have been violated, so I wouldn't even see it as likely that they encounter a case with only Guide violations. Wjhonson (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has banned or heavily sanctioned people for violations of WP:POINT, afaicr. That's why I used that as my example, naturally. Why else mention it?

Also, I have never heard of "policies being established" as such, and never as non-negotiable. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not so sure that levels of sanctions for violations is a good measure for judging the sameness or difference between Policy and Guideline. It's really the concepts (principles) behind them that are important. The principles behind the policies, and thus the core, central concepts and spirit of the policies - regardless of actual wording of the policies - is what is non-negotiable. That is, after all, what IAR actually means. Dreadstar † 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So "Ignore All Rules" means "You must not ever ignore the rules"? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh..now that would be a nice trick, wouldn't it. I meant that the spirit or principle behind the policy is what's really important. If the letter of the policy (even if put there by consensus) is contrary to the spirit behind it...you should still make sure to do what's right for the project, even if it means ignoring the letter of the policy. That's at the core of IAR, and why these central principles are truly not subject to consensus. Dreadstar † 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar’s last edit “this is far more accurate” is not accurate. Some guidelines, such as WP:N, are enforced firmly at AfD, in contrast to some policies, such as WP:IAR or WP:EP, which are far more “advisory” in nature. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Guidelines are advisory" is a far more accurate way of describing their nature, especially when comparing with Policies. As for this:

"Guidelines typically may have a weaker consensus than policies, although this is not always the case"

Are guidelines truly "typically" weaker in consensus? Where is that from? (perhaps Kim has the stats?). And saying that something is "typical although not always the case" seems a bit redundant. I'd suggest (if true) saying:

"Guidelines are regarded as advisory, and in general have a weaker consensus than policies."

Dreadstar † 07:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar, you’ve not addressed my examples which contradict your position. Do you consider WP:N advisory, and consider WP:EP more than advisory? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My view is that guidelines should "guide" or "advise" editors on how things should be done, giving descriptive information. Policies should do more than just advise or guide, they should make a stronger, more prescriptive statement on what needs to be done, something that should be followed. Rather along the lines of "mandatory" versus "advisory."

If we're going to shift from a guideline being advisory to something stronger, that's fine by me. Essays can be advisory, Guidelines can be standards that should be followed, and Policies can be considered to be mandatory. Dreadstar † 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we will need to work towards some compromise language on that point. I am not comfortable classifying polices as "mandatory", nor guidelines as "advisory". — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I know..I know..this has been an ongoing discussion. SmokeyJoe was asking about my position, but my position is also subject to compromise...naturally...:) Dreadstar † 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we all are in rough agreement in that: It would be nice if there were a simple difference between policies and guidelines. The confusion seems historically based. The very old policies tend to advisory. New things tend to be more prescriptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that redundant though? Aren't all Policies, guidelines and essays advice? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice along the lines of: "You’re advised to follow these rules if you’d like to avoid seeing your contributions deleted". "You’re advised to not make personal attacks if you don’t want to get banned". I don’t think newcomers read “advised” with this degree of force. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree that guidelines should be described as "advisory" if policies are not also described as such. The term suggests that users are free to ignore guidelines, which isn't right. If they were only advisory, "I don't feel like it" would be an acceptable argument for not following them, which it isn't. I removed the sentence for the time being; it isn't really necessary in the lede, and we may be able to compromise on saying nothing rather than on saying they are or are not advisory. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, why not "Guidelines serve as advisory guides to Wikipedia, and while ignoring them may lead to problems on Wikipedia, are not policy. They should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception." This is mostly lifted from Template:Guideline. I do think they should be labeled as advisory since that is what they have been since they were created. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 15:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't find them advisory, though. If you don't have a good reason, you should follow the practices outlined in the guidelines. The situation with policies is exactly the same: if you don't have a good reason, you should follow the practices they outline. I would be happy with a compromise that reminds everyone that both guidelines and policies are advisory, but not with a compromise that implicitly inflates the importance of policies by explicitly lowering the importance of guidelines. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Even the choices of the words "guideline" and "policy" give a strong indication that one is a guide, and the other is a rule. I think this is an important distinction made in the spirit of WP:CREEP where we minimize our rules, and minimize the enforcement of rules to only what is needed. I have no objection to wording the states policy can be ignored if it is done in conjunction with IAR, but guidelines are really just meant to be guides. I think the whole idea of the guideline class is to include information that while describing best practices, is not a set of rules to must be followed short of IAR. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 17:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason we spend time building consensus for guidelines is because we expect others to follow them, edit them, or have a good reason for not taking one of those two options. If guidelines were truly optional, on the other hand, nobody would spend the effort to develop them (or we would just call them essays). The historical choice of the terms "policy" and "guideline" is unfortunate, but it's too late to change I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think that an advisory guideline can do a lot of good, and that people still would spend the effort to develop them. The distinction between an essay and a guideline is that there is a consensus by the community that this is a good idea, whereas an essay need only be seen as a good idea by at least one person. I admit the distinction is a little muddy due to the influence of IAR and the fact that everything short of the m:Foundation issues are mutable. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 20:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that we disagree here, I think that finding some sort of compromise language, or compromising to remain silent on this point, is a path forward. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines can always be suggested for promotion. It's happened before. It's a slippery slope to believe that guidelines and policy are identical. Next you'll be telling me that Jimbo's thoughts and policy are identical! Ok wait... Wjhonson (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is easier:

• make an edit here to demote all guidelines
• promote all guidelines
• Ignore all rules anyway. ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I nominate Kim Bruning for my just created WP:Evil Wikipedian of the Day Award. I know all right-thinking people agree with me. On a more serious note, (*stop laughing*), I think IAR by consensus is applied *very* rarely (unless you are Jimbo). Promote all guidelines would fail and you'd probably get banned for being disruptive and trout-like. Rather we should have some RfC's for promoting *particular* guidelines that seem to enjoy more-than-adequate consensus. The distinction is being blurred *because* high-consensus has been reached on certain guidelines which haven't yet been promoted. The quick fix is promotion of those. Wjhonson (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"I am honoured to recieve this award. I want to thank my manager, my staff, and all the little people out there!"

:-P

So, like, isn't what you're proposing to do the most pessimal path thinkable (maximum resistance and minimal gain?). All you're really doing is swapping out some tags. So after months of work, and megabyte after megabyte of wikidrama, you end up changing a couple of hundred bytes(bytes!) on the actual wiki. Does that really seem like a good idea to you? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Silliness. The most pessimal (is that even a word?) path thinkable would be to start an RfC to out you as an alien shill planted either with or against the consensus of the illuminati. But I digress. So instead I shall start a new section (cf Promotion) in a second to address your most cogent rebuttal. Wjhonson (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do policies and guidelines have to conform to the manual of style?

I had someone on here tell me that the policy and guidelines pages has a much looser style requirement than actual pages. In short, that Wikipedia:Manual of Style does not apply to policy and guideline pages. Is this true? I wouldn't think it would be, but then I couldn't find anything that said policy and guideline pages had any style requirements. Fredsmith2 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The belief that we can write Wiki-space pages without the need to obey the requirements of the English language sounds awfully pointy to me. Did you have something more specific in mind? Wjhonson (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple things. 1) A lot of the policy pages look horrible and tacky, because they're way over-bolded. If the style guide applies to the policy pages, we should get rid of lots and lots of the bolding on the policy pages. In my opinion, the policy pages are some of the weakest pages on Wikipedia, as far as profesionalism in their presentation. If the policy pages were article pages, the bolding would get stripped out very, very fast, but the bolding in the policy pages seems to have persisted for a while, and may even be increasing.

2) Could we get some guideline written down somewhere that WP:STYLE applies to the Wiki-space pages as well? And, that it's somewhat relaxed for talk pages and user pages? In short, a guideline for where it does and where it doesn't apply. Fredsmith2 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a great idea to me. Why don't you start a discussion there and we'll see where it goes. Wjhonson (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For cross-wiki assist, Fred has taken my sage advice and started discussion here. Please come and contribute. Wjhonson (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Connecting the dots is not assuming, yes or no?

Although it started a little rough, our discussion [here] has come to a simple matter of considering Connecting the Dots to be assumption or not. To resume, out discussion is regarding a Continuity Issue with Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and the fact that in the series, Sarah is very much alive in the year 1999 when she should have died back in 1997 from Leukemia.

Now we know that the series takes another timelime after Terminator 2, avoiding the events of Terminator 3. The only problem is that changing the future does not change the past. In T3, John Connor stated that his mother dies from Leukemia after being diagnosed with it 3 years ago. Now for the facts:

-T3 takes place in 1997
-Sarah gets diagnosed with cancer in 1994
-T2 takes place in 1995

I don't know about you guys, but if the Sarah Connor in the series didn't have cancer in 1999, that's not a Continuity Issue, I don't know what it is. Mistake or purposely done, the writers ignored the fact that the main character was suppose to die 2 years before the series began.

Duhman0009 (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest asking this quesiton on the original research talk page instead of here. This page is for general discussion of creating policy and guidelines. Chaz ^Beckett 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Promotion

I would like to hear some suggestions for Wiki-space articles, currently marked as guidelines, which would be better to discuss as candidates to promote to policy. I will ignore silly responses. Thanks and have a great day!Wjhonson (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't say I didn't warn you. --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Experimental

Please see Wikipedia:Experiment, Template:Brainstorming and Template:Experimental. I was thinking that some of this content could be moved into Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals, and some of it could become part of the template documentation. On this page, we might briefly mention the optional Brainstorming and Experimental stages, which are intended as predecessors to a formal proposal which will be accepted or rejected after a period of debate. The rationale is that some new ideas might be immediately exposed to withering criticism and have the {{rejected}} slapped on there prematurely. These other templates basically say, "Chill out, we're not about to adopt this as policy, right now it's just a partially-formed idea that we're trying to get in an acceptable shape to where it could be a useful addition to policy. We'll put the {{proposed}} tag up when it appears ready for prime-time." It's kinda like how you wouldn't put an article on WP:FAC before subjecting it to WP:PR first; it would get shot down and you'd be wasting everyone's time. Ron Duvall (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with {{brainstorming}}, but {{experimental}} in its current form makes me very uneasy. I've commented further at template talk:experimental.--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Foundation policy

Recently in a feisty debate on Wiki-en, someone mentioned that our policies must conform *under* Foundation Policies. I have never heard this, in all the time I've been here. I've always been under the impression that we set our own policies by our own community consensus. Can anyone point to the exact area where this is state or contradicted? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Namespaces of policies & guidelines

I notice that a couple of User pages are tagged as being guidelines. I assumed that all "real" policies and guidelines would be in the Wikipedia namespace, but I can't find anything to that effect. Is it appropriate for pages in non-Wikipedia namespaces (User, Talk, Help, Template, etc.) to be tagged as guidelines of policies? Libcub (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked into it. They appear to either be drafts of guidelines or accidental inclusions into the category. I corrected a few of them, but I don't think there's much danger of people treating "guidelines" in user space as real.--Father Goose (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What has been lost

This line was taken from the edits back in 2002 "Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia--indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to become a reliable resource." I feel that we have lost this spirit, and we re-incorporate the above line back into policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Anti-Trivia

Hello if you hate Trivia sections on Wikipages you should support Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Anti-Trivia --Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)