| Revision as of 00:50, 7 June 2007 editCrockspot (talk | contribs)8,746 edits comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:35, 7 June 2007 edit undoBlaxthos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,596 edits →Initial discussion: this essay is perfect for you, crockspot :)Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :A great idea, even if it remains a non-policy opinion essay. Arzel certainly isn't the first time I've watched someone go policy shopping. I'd suggest reserving the page ], and shortcut ]. I see ] is already taken. ] 00:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | :A great idea, even if it remains a non-policy opinion essay. Arzel certainly isn't the first time I've watched someone go policy shopping. I'd suggest reserving the page ], and shortcut ]. I see ] is already taken. ] 00:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| I think the premise of this essay may be flawed. And why are you focusing only on removal, and not inclusion of information, or other editorial actions? Many editors like to keep their arguments short. I often will think of a number of applicable policies justifying a particular action, but rather than go on and on stating them all up front, I will choose the one that seems the clearest and easiest to state. If that fails, I may start piling them on, depending on how strongly I feel about the action. The policies are also dynamic. Unless you read them all every day, you're bound to miss some new nuance, and often in the middle of a debate, I will reread a policy and find a new argument. I recently had a disagreement with another editor who was using a poorly worded line of ] to justify something I didn't agree with. So I went to ], got consensus, and clarified that point in the policy. That is how we build a better encyclopedia. You start out saying that we must AGF, but by the end of your intro, you are implying that anyone using multiple arguments should be viewed as suspect. That doesn't sound like good faith. Gamaliel (which is how I found this essay) and I have many disagreements on interpretations of policy, and my debates with him can be like a roller coaster ride. We see things from different points of view, but we're both good capable editors, and we both make good arguments. Often it comes down to a stalemate, or a compromise, but we usually work it out eventually. That takes some tap dancing. It shouldn't be viewed as something nefarious. - ] 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | I think the premise of this essay may be flawed. And why are you focusing only on removal, and not inclusion of information, or other editorial actions? Many editors like to keep their arguments short. I often will think of a number of applicable policies justifying a particular action, but rather than go on and on stating them all up front, I will choose the one that seems the clearest and easiest to state. If that fails, I may start piling them on, depending on how strongly I feel about the action. The policies are also dynamic. Unless you read them all every day, you're bound to miss some new nuance, and often in the middle of a debate, I will reread a policy and find a new argument. I recently had a disagreement with another editor who was using a poorly worded line of ] to justify something I didn't agree with. So I went to ], got consensus, and clarified that point in the policy. That is how we build a better encyclopedia. You start out saying that we must AGF, but by the end of your intro, you are implying that anyone using multiple arguments should be viewed as suspect. That doesn't sound like good faith. Gamaliel (which is how I found this essay) and I have many disagreements on interpretations of policy, and my debates with him can be like a roller coaster ride. We see things from different points of view, but we're both good capable editors, and we both make good arguments. Often it comes down to a stalemate, or a compromise, but we usually work it out eventually. That takes some tap dancing. It shouldn't be viewed as something nefarious. - ] 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Crockspot, I appreciate your input and take particular note of your observation that the current wording limits it to deletion of material. I've often found this is the most common situation in which policy shopping occurs, however indeed it's not the only situation in which it may occur. Regarding the rest, I think that it's better form to go ahead and present all your reasons for opposing something up front. By doing so, you eliminate needless and lengthy back-and-forth and you avoid giving the impression of policy shopping -- exactly what this essay is about! If nothing else, your input has helped guide the "what to do" section(s). Excellent! :-) | |||
Revision as of 03:35, 7 June 2007
Initial discussion
This essay is nothing more than my off-the-cuff thoughts (shaped by recent and long-term events on wikipedia). It's not absolute, and I haven't taken much time to codify what I mean. I'm more interested in having community input, both on the content of the essay and the validity of its existance. It's my hope that many editors will jump in and help in its composition and its intent. We're a community project, and I think this is an important topic that hasn't been adequately addressed. I encourage others to help me out on this. :-) /Blaxthos 00:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- A great idea, even if it remains a non-policy opinion essay. Arzel certainly isn't the first time I've watched someone go policy shopping. I'd suggest reserving the page Misplaced Pages:Policy shopping, and shortcut WP:SHOPPING. I see WP:SHOP is already taken. Italiavivi 00:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the premise of this essay may be flawed. And why are you focusing only on removal, and not inclusion of information, or other editorial actions? Many editors like to keep their arguments short. I often will think of a number of applicable policies justifying a particular action, but rather than go on and on stating them all up front, I will choose the one that seems the clearest and easiest to state. If that fails, I may start piling them on, depending on how strongly I feel about the action. The policies are also dynamic. Unless you read them all every day, you're bound to miss some new nuance, and often in the middle of a debate, I will reread a policy and find a new argument. I recently had a disagreement with another editor who was using a poorly worded line of WP:V to justify something I didn't agree with. So I went to WP:V, got consensus, and clarified that point in the policy. That is how we build a better encyclopedia. You start out saying that we must AGF, but by the end of your intro, you are implying that anyone using multiple arguments should be viewed as suspect. That doesn't sound like good faith. Gamaliel (which is how I found this essay) and I have many disagreements on interpretations of policy, and my debates with him can be like a roller coaster ride. We see things from different points of view, but we're both good capable editors, and we both make good arguments. Often it comes down to a stalemate, or a compromise, but we usually work it out eventually. That takes some tap dancing. It shouldn't be viewed as something nefarious. - Crockspot 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Crockspot, I appreciate your input and take particular note of your observation that the current wording limits it to deletion of material. I've often found this is the most common situation in which policy shopping occurs, however indeed it's not the only situation in which it may occur. Regarding the rest, I think that it's better form to go ahead and present all your reasons for opposing something up front. By doing so, you eliminate needless and lengthy back-and-forth and you avoid giving the impression of policy shopping -- exactly what this essay is about! If nothing else, your input has helped guide the "what to do" section(s). Excellent! :-)