[Wikipedia-l] Re: Policy

Sat Sep 28 11:42:39 UTC 2002

> On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 23:59, Toby Bartels wrote:
> 
> > My understanding is that policy is to be decided (or defined if you will)
> > by discussion on talk pages and the mailing list (and in theory meta).
> > People have said as much here before without confrontation.
> > Once that has been done, the policy page should reflect the decision;
> > that much should be obvious.

The Cunctator wrote:

> This is where you're wrong. In general, policy is decided by editing the
> policy pages. If there's contention, then it moves to the talk pages.
> Only in the rare case where this is somehow "dangerous" (because the
> policy has sweeping and immediate consequence) or the process breaks
> down horribly does it need to go to the mailing list.

That's where I disagree. A policy is first discussed, then implemented.
Implementation is done by putting it on a policy page. If I am of the opinion
that a certain thing should be policy, I put it on the talk page or the
mailing list. Then people react to it, and if there is sufficient agreement
without much disagreement, it can be stated as policy. If there is
disagreement, it is discussed and hopefully a conclusion is reached.

You don't first include a policy, then discuss it, that's the wrong way
around.

> This is how it's worked historically, and how it should work in the
> future. The alternative is entirely too hierarchical and bureaucratic.

Doing it your way would either lead to dictatorship of the most bold ones,
or to edit wars.

> > Right.  But editing the policy page is not the way to decide the issue.
> > I hope that you agree.
> 
> Nope! I hope you'll be able to understand why editing policy pages is
> (as a general rule of thumb) the way to decide the issue.

No, I don't.

> In general, policy pages benefit from direct editing in the same way as
> article pages do; where the cumulative edits on articles influence them
> towards comprehensiveness and objectivity, the cumulative edits on the
> policy pages influence them toward robustness and fairness.

Suppose I want A and you want B. You change the policy page. There are two
possibilities:
1. I decide to live with the policy even though I do not agree with it, and
   you have single-sidedly decided the issue. Not fair.
2. I change it back, and perhaps someone else who is of yet another opinion
   changes it again. Thus, we get into an edit war. Not robust.

Andre Engels