Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:48, 2 April 2010

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Policies and guidelines page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Policies and guidelines page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:Archive box collapsible

"Do not summarize, copy, or extract text"

Does this really match practice? A lot of our policies make direct reference to statements in other policies, and they often quote each other. It seems to me that this is the best way to ensure that they all say the same thing and do not conflict. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't match practice, agreed. Do we want to be more careful in some way to keep track of the overlapping text? I'm not sure; this might just add an extra level of things to argue over, but I've often been attracted to the idea. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be removed, or perhaps re-worded to explain the problem (bad summaries badly maintained).

Additionally, most of that bullet item is exactly counter to both common practice and effective practice. I've personally added "Except for citations" repeatedly to WP:EL, and I plan to go on repeating the fact that WP:Reliable sources are not WP:External links until editors finally quit asking whether EL has banned their reference. So far, I think we're up to half a dozen separate repetitions, most of them involving bold-face text. It seems to have been a mostly successful strategy: We get many fewer such questions now, although we haven't quite eliminated them.

The bottom line, IMO, is that pages need to be useful, and if repetition makes them more useful, then we should repeat things (especially for sections commonly linked separately, like WP:ELNO or WP:HANDLE). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I think the current language is wrong is that I see a lot of policy statements that are based upon statements made in other policies... and they often end up being slowly edited to the point where they no longer agree with eachother. I think direct reference and even quotation is the best way to resolve that. If a statement at WP:NOR is based upon something said at WP:V, we should note that fact (using language such as: "As noted at WP:V: <quote taken from WP:V>"... This tells editors "this is based on another policy... please don't change this unless you also change the policy where we took it from." Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If we quote them then even a minor change makes them no longer agree with each other. It's not like these are static documents. I don't think it's bad advice, I think that people need to understand that all policies and guidelines don't exist in a vacuum. "Newbifying" the policies by making them very redundant with each other seems like a bad idea to me, which is why I do think this line is sound advice. Obviously we shouldn't slavishly follow it. But would any of you disagree with this recent edit? Extensive quoting or summarizing of other policies is something I believe we should avoid. Gigs (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes... exactly right... even a minor change will make them no longer agree... which will mean it will be far easier to catch and correct discrepancies before they become significant. If I am reviewing a change, and notice that it involves something that is a quote... I would immediately check both policy pages, figure out where the discrepancy originated and highlight it to the other editors on both pages in an effort to sync them back together. This isn't about "Newbifying" polices... its about ensuring that our policies don't contradict each other. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's what we've got: == Content == Policy and guideline pages should:

• maintain scope, avoid redundancy. Both purpose and scope must be clearly provided in the lead, and not merely as an aside. Content should be within the scope of its policy. Policies should not be redundant with other policies, or within themselves. Do not summarize, copy, or extract text. Avoid needless reminders.

1. Suppose that some of the content from a dispute resolution page was copied into Misplaced Pages:Consensus as a great example of consensus building. Though it may be a great example, it is not a general community standard – yet several clarifying edits later, it may seem as if it were being presented as such. Or perhaps an edit is made to Misplaced Pages:Notability to clarify how it should be applied within a notability guideline on music. Perhaps Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is 'summarized' and reworded (non-substantively, of course!) in a guideline, so that editors don't have to check the longer (official, carefully-worded, more-rigorously maintained) version. All of this is scope creep. Keep policies to themselves.
2. The same redundant statement may change in one place and not in another, and though this is often not a problem in articles, with policy it lead to confusion, contradiction, and verbosity.
3. Example

So that's one sentence fragment (in bold, and without the grammatically necessary conjunction), followed by five sentences. IMO, the whole thing needs to be re-written. Here are my thoughts, by numbered sentence:

1. "Purpose and scope must be" in the lead? Nonsense.
2. This sentence effectively prohibits placing advice in the proper context (e.g., WP:EL saying that different rules apply to WP:CITEd sources, or WP:BLP and WP:V pointing to each other). The first footnote is a dreadful examplefarm.
3. The third sentence has the same problem with contextualizing as the second. It also forgets (again) that this advice is supposed to apply to guidelines and essays, not just official policies. Additionally, it (and the second footnote) are widely flouted; actual practice is exactly opposite this advice.
4. The failings of the fourth sentence are outlined above.
5. In addition to assuming that an editor can magically know exactly what each and every editor "needs" to be reminded about, the linked example in the third footnote does not provide any indication of being a "needless" reminder.

I've never been very fond of this section. It has always struck me as a collection of a single editor's theoretical notion of the "right" way to write these pages. While I think this could be re-written to accurately reflect the community's practices, I wonder whether wholesale removal might not be the better choice. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that policies should be able to state their purpose for existing, without constantly adding caveats that they don't negate every other core policy. How many policies have some summarized form of WP:BLP in them now? Most of them? Same with WP:V. It should be implicitly understood that no policy exists in a vacuum. Instead of creating this tangled web of cross-referenced summaries and digests, we should just have each policy talk about its own core message.

I think WP:V is a good example of a policy that avoids excessive summarizing and quoting. We could have a section in there talking about how we have higher standards for WP:BLPs, or how even verifiable information might violate WP:UNDUE, but we don't. Those other policies are quickly namechecked in a sentence at the bottom, but it makes no effort to summarize or quote or defer. I think that's a good role model for policies that we should aspire to. Gigs (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason why WP:V avoids excessive summarizing is that it was one of the first to be created (I believe NPOV actually came first, but V came shortly there after) ... so WP:V tends to be the one that most of the others quote. The fact is, you are correct in saying that our polices don't exist in a vacuum... they overlap and influence each other. This is especially true for the core policies. I think we would do better to acknowledge and draw attention to where they overlap, and where they influence each other... because a change to one can mean we need to change others. That isn't always implicitly understood. Blueboar (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK... to get the ball rolling, I have been bold... I think this is more in line with practice. Your thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be that many policies summarize other policies but I've seen it lead to problems. If they are summarizing or copying a bit because it is not straightforward then it is liable to be changed. If it is summarizing a bit that is straightforward people will be aware of it or infer it from the five pillars anyway so it is redundant padding. However I'm a bit ambivalent about this point as it is covered by be brief and I believe this policy itself should follow its own advice.

On the business about the lead must give the scope and purpose of a policy I fully agree and fail to see why that is nonsense. Even this policy was racked with problems till recently because the scope wasn't clearly stated. The nutshells in particular have I believed saved a lot of trouble. In ordinary articles I've also noticed editors battling over the contents whilst leaving alone an anodyne leader that anyone can read any way - they haven't figured out what the topic or scope of the article is. A policy is not a policy if it cannot summarize its scope and purpose. Dmcq (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a policy should clearly state its scope and maintain it... my pet gripe about the PSTS section of NOR is based on scope (I don't disagree with what PSTS says, but I think it moves the policy beyond the scope of "No original research" - and no, I am not trying to reopen that particular debate... just using it as a personal example). I think the real issue at hand is how to deal with policy overlap. What to do when a particular policy sub-topic falls within the scope of two different policies. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Anybody happen to notice that the entire paragraph Blueboar put up and that is being discussed violates just about every point that it itself is trying to make? The bolded sentence fragmant is a summary, but it tells you to avoid summarizing; it states to avoid repetition and needless reminders, yet the three footnotes pretty much are repetition and have needless reminders. I know this particular paragraph/section has been around for sometime and maybe it was written seriously but it seems almost like it was a joke the way it is written. But anyways- there shouldnt be a "right" way to write a policy or guideline and there should be quite a bit of leeway and latitude (needless repetition!) in how each should be written based on what problem it is that the particular policy is addressing. I agree however that perhaps codifying into policy regarding what to do about overlap between policies is a good thing but I hope that we can avoid setting down strict "rules" about how policies should be written like the particular section Blueboar correctly pointed out.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone's curious, it was added on 30 July 2009, and has been shortened significantly since then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, I don't actually object to your changes -- it's a bit of an improvement, I guess -- but we're still writing it as if only the four big-deal content policies (BLP, NOR, NPOV, and V) exist, and that no guidelines or essays exist. Did you really want to tell the folks at WP:RS that they're only allowed to "briefly" refer to WP:V?

Try thinking about the content of a related set of pages -- say, WP:TE, WP:APPEAL, WP:VANDAL, and WP:BLOCK -- and seeing whether a literal interpretation of this section would actually improve those pages. Personally, I don't think that APPEAL can be made intelligible without its frequent re-capping of BLOCK, but perhaps other people would come to different conclusions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Essays and guidelines tend to be a bit looser and more explanatory than policies, TE is an essay and APPEAL is a guideline. If editors don't like something in a guideline they are a lot freer to just ignore it. And if they do check up and find a difference it is normally pretty obvious which one takes precedence. However with policies like VANDAL or BLOCK one needs to be a bit more careful. Have you any particular cases where you think they obviously don't try an be brief in their references or don't make it obvious what takes precedence? Dmcq (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "they". Does "they don't try to be brief" exclusively refer to policies, or is it an inclusive term? Verbose essays are a dime a dozen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant the references from the policies to other policies. I think they should all aspire to brevity but it doesn't really matter as much for the guidelines and essays. Dmcq (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

re: "Did you really want to tell the folks at WP:RS that they're only allowed to "briefly" refer to WP:V?"... No, of course not... but I would like to tell them to "be brief" (or at least as brief as possible) when referring to WP:V. There is a difference. Blueboar (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So why are we saying something different from what we supposedly mean? The section says, "Policy and guideline pages should:", not "Policy pages should do this, but other advice pages will have to look elsewhere for stylistic suggestions". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nutshell

Any thoughts on Wolfkeeper's edit today? One thing I like about it is, we're not looking for the "best of all possible worlds" (is that from Candide?) here, we're looking for rules which seem to work on Misplaced Pages as it actually is ... and saying that we're trying to expand on 5P rather than saying that we're trying to do what's "right" may help to get that across. OTOH, I don't remember anyone saying that we're limited to the goals in 5P on our policy pages. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would be a better phrasing I think if policies actually were limited to developing the five pillars. However some procedural ones in particular seem to have little to do with anything except being an agreed way of doing things. I didn't like the old sentence but I'd never figured out anything better. Needs someone good with words I think. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not trying to develop the pillars, we're trying to follow the principles that are the pillars. The Wiki is at the end of the day, just a server with some software on it that could be used for anything, it's the principles that we follow that make it an encyclopedia, and the policies and guidelines are there to help you follow these principles, including sorting out interactions between people and so forth.- Wolfkeeper 18:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we rather overexaggerate the would-be fundamental nature of these "pillars". They're a reasonably successful summary of our aspirations and methods, but they aren't some god-given mission statement.--Kotniski (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They're certainly not god-given, they're laid down by royal proclaimation as a charter. I think if we as editors decided that we were going to be, say, a TV company or the next YouTube instead and deleted all the articles, then I think the monarch would be unhappy about this.- Wolfkeeper 13:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No they were set up by wikipedia editors. I think you're thinking of the foundation principles Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(The foundation principles don't meet this description either. I don't know where these myths sprang up - perhaps it's a symptom of some inherent human need for a belief system based on "ancient wisdom". Where ancient in the Misplaced Pages context means 10 years or so ago.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Partly it was written by wikipedia editors, but it has considerable royal backing, and he employed people like Larry Sanger that did a lot of the heavy lifting.- Wolfkeeper 13:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the history, we had several of our core policies in place well before the five pillars were conceptualized. That does not diminish the 5P... but let's not rewrite history. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup. But if you compare the five pillars with: User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles, they're actually quite close, pretty much the same thing.- Wolfkeeper 13:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Check the edit histories; this is partly right and partly wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter at all. The point is whether they constitute a value system. If they don't then what is our value system?- Wolfkeeper 15:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's like the British Constitution - unwritten.--Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Bit of a myth, the British Constitution is at the very least, mostly written down.- Wolfkeeper 15:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, in many different documents, not in a centralized "five pillars".--Kotniski (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that ultimately the Misplaced Pages is held together by values; and you have to point to what the values are when you formulate policy. It's not enough to 'do good', you have to say what good is, and 'good' is defined here by the five pillars. It doesn't actually matter where they came from, so long as they are being followed here and are influencing policy/guidelines/editing.- Wolfkeeper 14:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Good is not defined by the five pillars. What has spurred you do engage in this edit war when you can see that people don't agree with you? I won't revert any more, but if someone else does, I hope you'll have the good sense to leave it alone.--Kotniski (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just no idea where you're coming from. What are the values of the Misplaced Pages? If they're not the values, what things are considered to be good?- Wolfkeeper 14:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the "community" decides by "consensus" what's good. 5P does a pretty good job of summarizing the main points, but it isn't the source that defines "what's good". A policy can quite reasonably have motivations that aren't set out in the five pillars; in fact, since 5P seems to consist mainly of links to other policies and guidelines, I presume its wording has tended to follow other policies and guidelines rather than the reverse; that's why it does its job well.--Kotniski (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The community decides what's good, and writes it in the 5P. 5P isn't a policy, it's principles, it's a value system. If the motivation in a policy runs counter to 5P, then it would presumably be removed from the policy; the motivations are supposed to follow the principles.- Wolfkeeper 15:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Or can you give me an example of something that is a generally agreed Wikipedian value, that isn't in 5P?- Wolfkeeper 15:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything about, say, avoiding unreasonable harm to living subjects there. But we don't say that WP:BLP doesn't apply because WP:5P doesn't explicitly endorse the values behind that policy.--Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO that comes under NPOV. It's not that we avoid unreasonable harm at all, it's just we're particularly tough on NPOV when the subject is BLP. I mean if something was true, but caused hurt, we still cover it. That might be worth adding to NPOV though; but that's the point, even if you found something, we would just add it to the principles.- Wolfkeeper 16:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's basically my point as well - we update the principles page to keep up with the policy. The former is not always the source for the latter. --Kotniski (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think BLP comes under NPOV. It is done more for legal reasons than anything else. Dmcq (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP just says you really, really need to employ NPOV and verifiability on BLP articles. It's not generally considered to be purely legal reasons, there's also moral considerations.- Wolfkeeper 16:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Principles always come from people thinking them up, writing them down and other people agreeing on them.- Wolfkeeper 16:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar has offered an edit as a compromise ... I think it's pretty accurate, in addition to working as a compromise, that is, a statement recognizing important points on all sides of the debate. Just my opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

'Expressed' sounds unspecific enough for me. I like having the five pillars up front so newbies click on it rather than reading through this policy. Dmcq (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, it's better than what was there before.- Wolfkeeper 18:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

All right, if it has the effect of preventing newbies reading this page, I suppose that makes up for the other failings.--Kotniski (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

HA!  :>) Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not contradict each other

As a side note about this change, I have deliberately not made any statement about policies taking precedence over guidelines. I have three reasons for this:

1. The community's actual view takes precedence over everything.
2. There is nothing magical about a policy page that makes it immune to getting screwed up on occasion (and if this clause is relevant, then something is screwed up).
3. WP:Article titles explicitly works the other way around. (The specific naming conventions, which are "guidelines", normally take precedence over the general rules, which is a "policy".)

Consequently, I think that a label-neutral "y'all fix it", rather than "blindly accept whatever's on the policy page" is the right approach here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the edit, but I do think something needs to be added either on this page or at WP:ADMIN, and I'd appreciate input. In any organization that relies on volunteer labor, there's conflict between the volunteers and the people who are perceived by those volunteers as calling the shots (who are also volunteers, here). I get the sense that some guidelines pop up and wither like weeds, and some are regularly and deliberately flouted ... which is sometimes okay, that's how an adhocracy works, but I often think that we don't pay enough attention to the downside: uncertainty is very bad for training and retention of volunteers such as newpage patrollers because the answer to the question "Which pages should I report?" is "It depends on which admins wander by"; it changes the job from one of doing stuff you're comfortable with to one of attempting to understand and follow the opinions (sometimes the whims) of the people you perceive as "above" you, and that's not something people like to volunteer to do, that's the kind of thing you put up with at work because you're getting paid to put up with it. Content, deletion and enforcement policies all seem to me to be stable enough to help with the job of retaining our volunteer labor force; guidelines, sometimes yes and sometimes no. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would go about addressing that concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I was originally thinking of some edit at WP:ADMIN, but now I'm realizing that admins are likely to want to treat different areas differently and there's no one-size-fits-all solution. I'm currently most worried about WP:UAA, so I'll keep an eye on WP:U. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Need some eyes

WP:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays needs some other editors to watch it. We've currently got an editor who is determined to introduce wildly inaccurate statements, like "Most Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines directly contradict each other."

This has been going on for almost three days now, so it's not just an April Fool's Day issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... The problem is that the statement is only partly incorrect... the fact is, many of our policies and guidelines do contradict each other. We obviously try to fix such situations when we discover them... and doing so often leading to long and drawn out debates. For example, there is currently a debate at WP:Article titles concerning a contradiction between that policy and WP:NPOV#Article titles over using non-neutral names as a title.

Question... is the WP:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays essay really needed? Does it offer our editors a viewpoint that is not already expressed in this page? Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Same question. I have a feeling that essay is going to draw fire ... not that that's a bad thing, I don't mind arguing those questions, but the (marginally) greater gravitas of this page may (or may not) make resolution on these questions easier here. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)