On 9/16/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/09/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/16/06, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The core policies (NPOV, NOR and V on the
content side; AGF and NPA on
> the community side, and I'd add BITE to the community list since the
> numbers seem to say newbies write most of the actual encyclopedia)
> aren't negotiable. Everything else is process, even if it's accepted
> enough to tag policy.
You know the foundation has a lot of explaining
to do if that really
is the case.
See, this is why you have trouble with people listening to you: you
answer things with a one-liner that doesn't actually address the
point.
Do you want to tell the foundation that WP:OFFICE and copyright is just process?
Here's one to run past you:
When encountering an editor who seems to be displaying a flagrant
disregard for process, check the process isn't flawed.
* Rewrite the process description to show how it follows as
directly as possible from core policies. Even if it isn't made
official, this helps you explain it to others better. This is one of
the best ways to resolve disputes over the value of a process.
None of our copyright policies come from those core policies.
* Reexamine the process. Does it follow obviously
from the core
policies? Do people keep complaining that it's hard to understand or
that it excludes outsiders? Do regulars express distrust of
non-regulars, or dislike the idea of any random person interfering?
How were you suggesting I rewrite IAR to deal with this problem?
* Failing to follow or rejecting process is not,
of itself, a
wrong act. The encyclopedia itself is more important than any process
designed to protect it; both intent and results should be measured
against the core content policies (NPOV, V and NOR) and core community
policies (AGF and NPA).
So you shouldn't be worried about pissing large numbers of people off?
You know working with the community and all that?
** If your only argument is "it's out of
process" or "it violates
policy" (other than a core policy), you don't have an argument.
Cool so what happened to consensus?
* Changes in process may be sudden, or they may be
gradual. An
editor who consistently disregards a particular process may indeed
influence others to do the same ... and that process is changed. Make
sure the documentation stays up to date.
It tends to.
* Of course, the editor may well be a troll or a
dick. But don't
make that your first assumption.
I try to avoid making assumptions.
Now, a question for you:
Q. The above looks good to geni.
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Much longer and detailed answer, which geni will give below:
It's okish for editors and a really bad idea for admins. Editors
actions can be undone by pretty much anyone. Admin actions cannot. An
editor doing something annoying will merely result in them being
reverted. Admins actions can affect far larger numbers of people. Most
people accept WP:OWN applies to edits. A section of admins keeps
trying to claim that it does not apply to admin actions making it even
harder to revert the things. Admins are meant to serve the community.
The powers were only given by the community in order to do what the
community wanted. They were not given for you to do whatever seemed
like a good idea at the time.
IAR is ok for content but admin actions apply to people rather than content.
--
geni