Template talk:Experimental

Trouble

There's something about the way these are presented and/or worded that makes me uncomfortable. I see some value in having a category for policy or procedure brainstorming outside of "promote or reject", but these templates, despite saying "these are not official in any way", go too far in saying "let these experiments run their course". If a given "experiment" is a bad idea and is causing problems, users should feel free to end it promptly.--Father Goose (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea. If this is ever to be used, I think it should only be used as a sub-type of {{proposal}} -- otherwise, there is no clear idea of when the experiment can end. Furthermore, the tag should indicate that consensus has developed to experiment with the idea -- otherwise, there's nothing to stop people who want to experiment with bad ideas, even against community consensus. Mangojuice^talk 06:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are some conflicting concerns to balance. On the one hand, the enactment of some good policies (such as prod) has been sped up as a result of people taking the initiative to go ahead and start applying it without waiting for the policy debate to conclude. It worked out OK in those cases because it turned out to be a good idea and no one raised any serious objections. The experience gained from trying it out helped the community be more certain it was doing the right thing in making it an official policy.

In other cases, the community has taken action to halt experiments because of concerns about their harmfulness. So, it appears that we are currently in a grey area, of not explicitly requiring community approval of experiments, while not explicitly authorizing unapproved experiments either. It's basically a variation of WP:BRD; you can go ahead and try it, but if people tell you to stop, you stop until a consensus emerges through discussion that it's okay to continue. As the community grows, at some point we will probably want to have a process similar to Wikipedia:Bot requests, except it would be for proposed experiments. Perhaps WP:RFC could fill that role. And then a tag saying that community consensus has been reached to conduct an experiment scheduled to terminate on _____ would have more meaning. 129.174.91.111 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Experiments that are a good idea don't need a template announcing their experimental nature; that's like BRD with an apology. Ones that are a bad idea should be {{rejected}} outright.

At this time, I would vote to just redirect this page to {{brainstorming}}. The very concept of an "experimental policy" (unofficial or otherwise) is wrong. If you're trying out a new idea, {{brainstorming}} says so without any uncalled-for pomp.--Father Goose (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

129..., just so you're aware, WP:PROD didn't start as a unilateral experiment. There was discussion of the concept elsewhere before the actual page was started, and even then, it was proposed and open for discussion for several days before the experiment began, and it was highly publicized and definitely had adequate input to confirm support for the experiment before the experiment actually began. (I mean, it couldn't have possibly worked otherwise, since the whole experiment needed widespread administrator support to even function.) Mangojuice^talk 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Double trouble

So. I don't want to be a dick and nominate this template for deletion, but at the present time, it just looks like a bad idea to me.

What is the need for, and purpose of, this template that isn't handled by {{brainstorming}}?--Father Goose (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think {{brainstorming}} is unnecessary; there is already {{underdiscussion}}, which can serve the same purpose. This template, however, does seem to have a place, but it should be written to imply that consensus exists for the experiment. I'll take a stab at rewriting. Mangojuice^talk 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a little better. But what I fear is a template people can smack on a project that has a consensus amongst its supporters and then use that to push aside people who disagree with the "experiment".

When a project really does have a lot of support, a declaration of "preapproval" isn't necessary. I participated in the {{ambox}} project, for instance; we discussed it for a while, had some differences over some details but worked through them, and met with very little opposition to the idea overall. Some very vocal dissenters showed up when we finally started to roll it out, not surpisingly. But it was still very broadly supported, and in the end, Wikipedia was made a bit more tidy and colorful.

When an idea is supported, it's supported; when it's opposed, it's opposed. If it continues to be supported while the experiment is run, it'll be adopted: the proof is in the pudding. It's at the very moment of implementation -- experimental or otherwise -- that people should feel most free to oppose an "experiment". So what if there was a consensus to "try" it? Consensus can change. If people hate an idea when it's being applied, the experiment should end right then, and no banner should tell them otherwise.

Like I said, I have no problem with {{brainstorming}} (or {{underdiscussion}}, although that implies more of a dispute than an idea being workshopped). They do not declare that the project has any kind of special permission; this template does, and for the reasons I expressed above, I don't like it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, just like {{guideline}} or {{policy}}, anyone could add the tag to anything improperly, and that can be reverted if the status isn't correct. This status of a proposal does really come up sometimes: WP:PROD was once an experiment, for instance. Mangojuice^talk 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But prod did fine without the template; people discussed it, decided to implement it, and there were no problems because it was a good idea. Nonetheless, having had this conversation, I won't prod this thing unless I see it actually causing problems. Nothing worse than a busybody in the middle of a moral panic (cf. WP:UCFD).--Father Goose (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly. Appropriate uses of this are so rare we may not need the template. But if we're going to have it, it should be worded correctly, that's what my concern is. :) Mangojuice^talk 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the reason for lack of need for the template that (1) experiments that have consensus can proceed without the need for an explanatory template; (2) we simply do not have much need for experiments on Wikipedia; (3) not many proposed experiments are likely to get consensus; or (4) a combination of these? 129.174.2.205 (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In my view, it's that consensus-backed experiments are really really rare. They do need an explanatory note, though, and this template might as well serve. It's just, if we didn't have this we wouldn't really miss it. But since we do, I see no reason to fuss over having it. Mangojuice^talk 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Brainstorming, by the way, more specifically denotes that one is encouraging new ideas to be raised, as opposed to criticism of those ideas. That is to say, the creative process can often most productively go in stages. (1) Brainstorming, in which everyone contributes as many thoughts/ideas as come to mind, and (2) the advocacy and criticism of particular ideas, which helps mold them into more acceptable forms. And then you have (3) decision as to which to adopt. Sometimes you have an experiment in there somewhere as well. Theoretically, one might want to have the experiment before step 3, but often it ends up being after. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)