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.
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.
* 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?
* 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).
** 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.
* 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.
* Of course, the editor may well be a troll or a dick. But don't
make that your first assumption.
Now, a question for you:
Q. The above looks good to geni.
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Much longer and detailed answer, which geni will give below:
- d.