Wikipedia talk:Practical process

IAR

Seems like there is a lot of overlap with WP:IAR? How is this intended to be different? Thanks, Gwernol 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

IAR is policy. This is an essay, meant to show why caution as to process is a good idea - David Gerard 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it

I like it. I added a note that seemed apt, I recall quoting it at someone, somewhere. I support it. Hiding Talk 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What I like best are the sections on how to deal with.... Even if you get rid of everything else, those should be kept. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it too. Good job! --Kbdank71 18:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Well thought-out. FeloniousMonk 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I love this essay. -Toptomcat 14:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too! Thought-provoking! I just found out about this page, and I like it. I know some editors think I've been a bit of a dick about some processes, but I will try to keep this essay in mind in future discussions. -- Donald Albury 13:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a brilliant essay that captures the nuance and subtlety of Wikipedia philosophy. I am recommending that this get more attention. --causa sui ^talk 20:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate it

Obviously. Is this for real? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The "blow it up" bits were only for humor, I assume. :) Everything else seemed more or less reasonable and common-sense, and I struggle to understand how you might disagree with everything, but what's new? --Interiot 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it's such a struggle, honestly. I feel like I'm speaking another language sometimes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be the best possible explanation of why no one here understands you. Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's for real, it's got references. Please be as specific as you can - David Gerard 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The essay makes the following points:

• Process bloat is an ever-present danger.

  I would counter-propose that "process bloat" is a manifestation of poorly written policy and guideline.

• Process is added on the spot as needed.

  I would counter-propose rewriting the more basic policy and guideline so as to be difficult to misunderstand.

• Process must be pruned and sanity-checked regularly.

  I would counter-propose basic policy and guildeline be pruned and sanity-checked constantly. There has been no successful organization, ever, which has proven scalable from a small beginning to a large organization. In every instance "bloat" (such as this essay) has crept in. It ruined the Romans, it stultifies the U.N., and it manifests here on Wikipedia where everyone managed to get along and hammer out difficulties for some while. Now the community has grown large and all of the manifestations of any larger organization are rearing thier ugly head. We find people wishing to "punish" and to include the word "punish" in guildelines. We find every sort of difficulty, but the answer is not essays like this one. The answer is very well worded basic policies which are adhered to. Terryeo 15:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say you and I pretty much agree, and that your points are what I'm trying to get across. Suggested rephrasings? Call the five basic rules and the mission statement the 'constitution'; everything else must be changeable as needed to scale from "hey, let's start a wiki" to "ohmygoodness, we're in the top 20" to "we left Google far, far behind." I'd like the essay to aid editors of good will in rewording the malleable process on top of the 'constitution' - David Gerard 15:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, the plain wiki method has actually scaled just about perfectly in the ideal case. See Articles distinct histo.png - that's a graph of how many editors have edited each article. Note the peak is waaay over in the single digits. Most articles are not controversial and don't need a ton of process, and letting edge cases write process for us is arguably letting hard cases make bad law - David Gerard 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the problem too much process or no effective way to change process?

I don't exactly disagree with anything you've written here, but I'm not sure it's a productive response to what I see as one of the two fundamental issues now facing Wikipedia. New processes, and indeed significant changes to existing processes, are supposed to be made by consensus. I believe Wikipedia has now achieved a sufficient size that for all intents and purposes this is impossible, with the consequence that any new process or significant change (including simplifications!) cannot be implemented following process. No one can implement new processes unilaterally except Jimbo (IAR doesn't really pertain to process changes), so my conclusion is not process is dangerous but consensus as a mechanism to implement processes no longer works. Encouraging folks to ignore rules when their common sense says the rules are wrong without providing an effective way to change any of the rules will almost certainly lead to more wheel wars, more banned users, more arbcom cases, more people leaving. We are not a community of like-minded users anymore. Ignoring rules, although perhaps necessary in some cases, is extremely perilous and I suspect nearly always feels horribly wrong to some set of users. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's blockages all the way down. I think an attitude of recognising that any process that's in place is almost certainly a quick hack made of cheese and string rather than a robust and shiny piece of plumbing will help. The best way to unblock stuff is I find to go "um, this sucks, for these reasons. How's this quick workaround?" - David Gerard 12:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What problem does this address, exactly?

You already have WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. How many excuses for doing whatever the hell you want do you need? Laughable is the contention that we lose editors because of having too much process, as if bullying and my-way-or-the-highway mentality isn't a greater problem. But whatever. Herostratus 03:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is in no way an excuse for "doing whatever the hell you want" or meant as one. What would it need to make it not one? Apart from, e.g., the very first sentence - David Gerard 09:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What it's "meant as" and what it is are often very different things. Certianly, IAR wasn't built to allow for egregious abuses as we tend to see when it's invoked. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the answer to that is similar to the answer to a blocked vandal or POV-pusher complaining "But you said anyone can edit!" - David Gerard 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it's a good thing we have that dangerous process to keep them at bay, no? d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is! Process is fantastically useful stuff. It's also dangerous - David Gerard 17:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

More seriously, it's mostly meant as a description of things - David Gerard 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So, rather than the title and signficant portions of the essay focusing on reasons for ignoring processes, how about retitling it "Processes are far from perfect" and focusing on how they can be simplified and improved? My point from above is that given the current requirement that significant changes to process must be done only by consensus there is no effective way to significantly change them. I don't think you disagree with this, but if we accept that our current processes are far from perfect either they should be changed or there are cases in which they should be ignored. If we can't change them, we must ignore them. The essay as it stands pretty much ignores the "change them" alternative. This makes it sound like a rationalization to ignore them. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Yeah, the actual problem is that process is kludged together quickly then sets solid and immovable. Perhaps a better title. "Process is useful but dangerous" is the right concept but too many words - David Gerard 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

pedophile userbox wheel war

Soe of the wording here is ironic if you look at some of the reasons given for the unblocks arbcom aparently supported.Geni 03:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything particularly egregious? The basic message I got from that kerfuffle was "process is not an excuse for stupid", which of course it isn't - David Gerard 16:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

look at the reason given for pulling Carnildo's blocks. In any case we only ended up in that mess in the first place because people ignored policy and process.Geni 17:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather, they claimed to be following it and defending it and certainly seemed sincere in claiming so - David Gerard 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Relisiticaly there was no way we could have got where we did if people had stayed within policy.Geni 17:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Or process, anyway - David Gerard 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what side you're on in this conversation, but I do know for sure that trying to drive off pedophiles is certainly not a good thing. I have worked with pedophiles who are good editors and have been very useful in keeping ignorance at bay on articles related to this issue. Yes some pedophile editors have pushed POV, but much of the problems related to articles in this area are simply from young people who lack worldly experience are unable to think with subtlety. I judge an editor by his edits, and to do otherwise is both wrong and counterproductive. Anyway I do know this: while I appreciate that an actual userbox is highly problematical at best, the attempt to drive off pedophiles via block or harrasment was almost certainly harmful to the 'pedia and to the extent that it's seen as good example of ignoring process, that's just nuts. Herostratus 05:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You did see the userbox on my user page which expresses my opinion of userboxes, didn't you? - David Gerard 10:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, this link confused the hell out of me - there was a lot of jargon and in-reference that, despite being a long-time editor, I was unable to fathom. It is a _long_ page. By all means link to a summary, or explain the relevance in the text, but as it is it is just confusing. --HappyDog 23:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

see also

All the see-also are against excessive process, which looks unbalanced. But it shouldn't have links that are already in the essay. Others welcomed - David Gerard 16:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

better name

Rick Block nails the problem with this title: it's an anti-process title. Needs a more neutral title. Suggestions? - David Gerard 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Process is useful but dangerous - too wordy
• Process control
• The use and control of process - hmm
• Practicality?
• Process is not perfect - ?
• Process and pragmatism or Pragmatic process - ?
• Process in its place - ?
• ...

I've moved it to "Process essay" for the moment. I have ambitions to a succinct guide to process that will solve both sides of last year's "rouge process fetishist!" vs "rouge IAR!" problems nicely. A Grand Unified Theory of process on Wikipedia. After which, of course, everything will be perfect. Yeah. - David Gerard 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Process creep" comes to mind... FeloniousMonk 19:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Making progress with process
• Progressing process
• The evolution of process - fairly NPOV. Could suggest either the current evolutionary path (the path toward an overbearing process set) or the hopeful future evolutionary path (toward a more streamlined and transparent process)

--Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Process is impotent - I know you have one picked, but it was too good to resist... Hiding Talk 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

New Section

I've added a new section, aimed primarily at those who, in defending process, might be directed to this essay. I hope I've maintained the spirit of things, and of course I welcome criticisim. --InkSplotch 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you! - David Gerard 10:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The "approaches that don't usually work" usually do work. Unfortunately. 192.75.48.150 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to "convince" - David Gerard 10:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Actually, I think that the "wrong" approaches under "how to deal with a bad process" in fact don't work. I actually meant the section under "how to deal with a disregard for process". It may be true that the "wrong" approaches described often won't exactly convince someone that something is right. But my feeling is that they usually will convince someone that something is the way it is going to be. The person either defers to the "consensus" and conforms, at least grudgingly, or maybe even proceeds to impose the "consensus" on others; or else becomes disaffected and leaves either the area in question, or the project as a whole. Am I out to lunch here? 192.75.48.150 14:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It "works" by driving away the outsider. Yeah. Hmm. How to word this as bad - David Gerard 16:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Process is Important — or we'd all kill each other.

Then how on Earth did our species survive long enough to invent processes of the kind we're discussing, fairly recently? Before that, something kept us from killing each other. Something... something that process sometimes makes people lose sight of. I think this is a great essay, but the first sentence undermines a key point: When we can actually do something naturally and organically, instead of within the strictures of an artificial process, things work better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More succinctly: Process is important - because we've forgotten how to live. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add a note how, on Wikipedia, excellent process is the process you don't notice as process, and the very best process is the process a newbie doesn't notice as process - David Gerard 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Have we got an essay yet explaining the whole "policy is descriptive, not prescriptive" argument? This idea is linked to that one. It's like, somewhere, in ideal-land, there's a best possible process for doing Wikipedia, and it's what I keep wanting to call "organic". Our policies, guidelines and processes are just the best description we've yet worked out of that ideal, and it's a description with lots of approximations and errors. When IAR is used correctly, it's an editor doing something closer to the ideal process than what we'd previously described. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that I'm not one of the "smart people" David invited to hack at this essay, but I'd like to add a simple observation that relates to GTBacchus' point --

Process works when it is used to promote:

1. Transparency -- everyone (or at least, everyone who is interested) can participate (or at least, follow) what is happening
2. Predictable outcomes -- if someone wants to nominate an article for FA status -- or deletion -- the steps of submission are documented & available to all.

When process is used to promote other goals, (what is often called "wikilawyering") it will almost always blow up in the face of the abuser.

If common sense is enough, then we don't need formal policy. When it is apparent that common sense has become uncommon in specific instances, then we have the opportunity to argue over whether it should be descriptive or prescriptive. -- llywrch 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of process

Process exists to defend us from stupidity and malice, not to cause internal civil wars. As long as doing so doesn't cause false, misleading, POV, or otherwise harmful material to enter the encyclopedia, it is preferable to bend, ignore, or create an exception to the rules than to cause a fight. An exception does not destroy the policy, and can be quietly ignored later. Fights are always destructive, and difficult to ignore. Phil Sandifer 14:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Process doesn't really defend us from either stupidity or malice, though. It's like guidelines - it's there to help clueful editors of good will work better. The use of process to defend against stupidity or malice rests upon the assumption that outsiders to the process are stupid and/or malicious, which is an indicator that a given process has gone pathological - David Gerard 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course process was not made to give a clue to the clueless, so much as to give a bat to the clueful. Broadly put, no process should ever be used to remove information that nobody doubts is accurate, to prevent official praising of an article that nobody disagrees is pretty darn good, to "win" fights for the sake of winning, etc. Process is not for civil war. Phil Sandifer 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying not to bring cluebats to mind too much in this one ;-) - David Gerard 17:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How to deal with fanaticism for process

This section appears to missing. Seriously I am stuggling with this. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Assume good faith and carry a big stick? - David Gerard 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole essay boils down to this...

Process is a leash, not a noose. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It could also be paraphrased in terms of a Finnish proverb about fire (with process substituted for fire): "Process is a good servant, a poor master."

The problem is when regulars see a leash and non-regulars see a noose - David Gerard 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAC

I like this a lot. One quibble though.

WP:FAC's increasingly elaborate requirements

I know, I am a WP:FAC regular, so I won't see the wood for the trees, but please could you expand: what is the problem?

It seems that you are not concerned about the atmosphere (although editors are occasionally upset when told that their opus magnus is not as good as it could be) but rather the "requirements". We ask that FAC articles do the things that any article should do - i.e. being neutral, citing sources, and following the MOS; and with images that have acceptable licences - but also that they are well written, comprehensive and stable. Which one of those criteria is elaborate or unnecessary? Perhaps it is hard work to meet that level of expectation, but then these are our very best articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC's requirements continuously increase, with the specific aim of keeping it as the very best of the best — the top 0.1%, or about one a day. WT:FAC discusses this openly, and in the current WP:100K discussion the regulars consider this a feature. I suppose I should state it as continuously increasing requirements which make it unsuitable for consideration as a status all articles could one day have - David Gerard 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but I don't see where WT:FAC discusses openly the idea that only the top 0.1% can qualify. Look at Wikipedia:Featured article statistics. The problem, as far as I can see, is that WP:FAC has not scaled with the number of articles: the number of FACs promoted each month has essentially stayed the same for the past 2 years, around 25-40 with few exceptions since July 2004, while the number of articles has grown by 4-fold. Of course, many of those article are rather stubby, but still.

Have you been through the archives? You may be interested in this discussion about whether FAC sets standards that all articles should reach, or simply identies a small number of excellent articles (in slightly less fraught days...) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The "top 0.1%" is me saying it, not anyone else. But WT:FAC right now has several people saying FA needs to represent the best of the best, not be a status all articles could reach. I followed FAC closely through 2004 and 2005 - David Gerard 20:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, that would explain why Good Articles sprang up. >Radiant< 00:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

...and yet the good article process is becoming equally byzantine, complex, and impossible to work within.--SB | T 21:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that in recreating FAC as GA, they made the same mistakes once more? Ah, the irony is just staggering. I don't suppose we'll ever get consensus to simply merge the two? >Radiant< 22:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC's requirements at least approach the goal of making sure that articles are critiqued for relevant reasons, in accord with policy elsewhere. GA appears to have passed directly from informality to bureaucracy without ever pausing in the middle. The particular example is the suppression of all mention of dissent over the requirement that all GA's have inline citations, even though this exceeds WP:CITE immensely. Anyone want to help blow it up? Septentrionalis 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent

This, along with Wikipedia:Process is Important are two excellent pieces of work. How to deal with excessive or broken process is quite interesting as is the Kudzu picture's caption. --Kevin_b_er 04:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Right. This is a good article, and so is WP:π. As long as you can hold two contradictory (or seemingly contradictory) ideas in your head at the same time, you're all set. You can achieve synthesis. Herostratus 05:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree and I've added a link to this article in WP:π. Haukur 23:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the idea, they're counter-complementing essays. --Kevin_b_er 04:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bah, it's not supposed to contradict it ... ideally I'd like it to subsume it - David Gerard 12:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A new approach

Those looking for a new way to try relating to process might want to glance at my userpage, and keep an eye on the process blog I've started. I expect that it will be a very interesting experience to see what happens when I just start applying IAR 24/7. Phil Sandifer 00:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

New hallmark of bad process: guideline vs policy

I've added this:

• Prescriptive when it should be a guideline
  • A lot of people think making things hard policy means people will actually follow them. This means editorial guidelines get phrased as didactic policy. This results in situations like WP:RS (a guideline) being applied rigidly and with no thought as to how well it applies to specific cases.
  • Policy is harsh stuff, and there's a limit to how much people will hold in their heads. Everything that can be a guideline should be, because clueless editors won't understand it and bad faith editors won't care. Furthermore, everything that can be left up to individual editors should be, for basically the same reason.

WP:RS (and WP:BLP) are written in good faith for good reasons, but as written they are consistently overapplied. WP:RS in particular is proving a disaster both in terms of encyclopedic content and in public relations, as overapplied by editors whose logins appear to have been taken over by insane robots.

Now. Can someone please rephrase the above better? - David Gerard 13:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Phil Sandifer 16:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. I think CAT:P is too large as it is, and should be reserved for the obvious things (no legal threats, no copyvios, and such). >Radiant< 17:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Important questions about a process

1. Does it follow logically from the guiding principles of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation?
2. Can it be easily and succinctly summed up in one or two sentences such that every element in the process follows logically from this summary?
3. Will it make sense to someone who is not familiar with wikiculture?
4. Is it flexible enough to handle unusual and special circumstances?
5. Is it transparent enough that following process does not create unnecessary strain on editors involved in the process?
6. Does it show good common sense in general on the part of the Wikipedia/media community?

--Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Winnah! - David Gerard 10:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The two "hallmarks" sections and the above are redundant. If you want to keep the above, then a summary statement should probably replace those sections. Something like, "If a process can answer all the above questions in the affirmative, then it is a 'good process.' If it answers one or two in the negative, then some minor tweaking is probably in order. Less than half in the affirmative suggests that the process in question may actually hurt Wikipedia more than it helps." --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just left it at the last coupla lines - David Gerard 12:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that "good process...very best process" line could be rephrased with the "makes sense" question: "Is the process so intuitive that someone unfamiliar with Wikiculture, especially new editors, will pick up on the process by seeing the process in action, without ever reading the process text itself?" A little verbose, but I like the intent of the question better than the "makes sense" question. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see how it looks there - David Gerard 16:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Userbox wheel war example

“ In the pedophile userbox wheel war arbitration case, following process with no regard to good sense got several admins de-adminned for egregious stupidity.

Anyone who says "out of process!" may be forgetting this. Anyone saying "but I followed process!" should be referred to the abovementioned arbitration case and treated gently as someone who is sincere but doesn't understand yet. (Everyone reading this essay should read that arbitration case page and try to understand what happened and how, and why the ArbCom decided what it did.)

”

I followed this case closely at the time but this still makes no sense to me. Who exactly got desysopped for following process? Carnildo for his multiple out-of-process blocks? El C for his out-of-process retaliatory block? The people who wheel-warred over the deletion of the userbox instead of taking it through the process (DRV or whatever)? Haukur 13:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact the only reference to 'process' I can find in the ArbCom ruling is this:

“ Dispute resolution

6) In conflicts where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.

Passed 13-0

”

The wording is rather weird - I would have thought that the dispute resolution process is a way of achieving compromise, rather than a substitute for compromise. Nevertheless the message is that people should have followed the process for resolving their differences, not just duked them out in a wheel-war. If people had followed process the conflict would never have gone so far. Haukur 14:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's not a clear example then. It was a golden case of process compliance not covering anyone's ass for being stupid, though, and a really good intro for a new and fearsome 2006 ArbCom - David Gerard 10:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how one's worldview colours one's perception of reality. I followed this case at the time and thought to myself: "What a mess, but at least it'll teach people that it's important to follow process." You followed the case at the time and thought to yourself: "What a mess, but at least it'll teach people that process is dangerous." Haukur 11:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't follow a process other than "wtf. KILL.", didn't present much evidence or justification for my actions and it worked for me. Maybe it's just hopelessly corrupt cabalism, or maybe I was right. - David Gerard 12:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I sat back and did nothing even though I followed this in real-time and could have joined in with you and applied an admin action at any time (deleted something, undeleted something, blocked someone, unblocked someone, protected something, unprotected something). I did consider such actions but refrained from them as they would have been out of process. Worked for me, maybe I was right. Haukur 12:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"out of process" or "I couldn't think of a process"? In any case, yes, you were, because admins aren't obliged to act! - David Gerard 12:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Process is Important, by the way, did actually convince me process was important. If this reads like an anti-process essay, then it needs fixing. (If people who really hate process think it's a pro-process essay at the same time, OTOH ...) - David Gerard 12:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking more closely, it seems to me to have largely been zealous defence of process without considering the wisdom of the results of doing so. Does that make more sense? - David Gerard 13:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking even closer, yeah, you're right. I've killed it - David Gerard 13:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How to deal with a disregard for process

Interesting but a solution that takes up rather less than a week of my time would be nice.Geni 17:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you like a pony with that? - David Gerard 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, to expand on that: you come up with something that might actually work quicker, then - David Gerard 10:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)r

Well to start with 1. Make sure they know what the process is. You currenty first option creates the problem that the sucess rate of those trying to inforce a process/policy that they have just rewriten is a aprox 0.

moveing on to 2 pointing them in the direction of wikipedia:Process is important, Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules] and Wikipedia:There's no common sense is generaly helpful since it means there is the posibility they will start useing arguments beyond IARs and "common sense". ::Your step 2 rather runs into the problem that I know where most of our process comes from since I was there when it appeared.

Your step 3 runs into the problem that I do in fact have an agument. The ignoreing process/policy argument is generaly a shortcut for "you are ignoreing community consensus" you are ignoreing the arguments we made when putting the thing together.

The problem with your step 4 is that blaentently ignoreing process is not a good way to change it.Geni 11:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno, show don't tell has worked before. But this is just the stuff I was after, thank you. I was previously unaware of Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules. Rework imminent - David Gerard 11:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Your step 3 runs into the problem that I do in fact have an agument." Yes, but note how it completely failed to convince anyone on wikien-l recently, let alone the person you were saying should quit their ops. This suggests it may not have been a good one. Note that consensus comes below the hard policies - editors can't form consensus to violate NPOV on a page, but consensus can be formed that a process is in fact no good. I've rewritten slightly in any case - David Gerard 12:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I found geni's arguments for the resignation of that admin to be convincing. We should not have admins who refuse to refer to policy and process pages and want everything explained to them from first principles because they are clev4h and have a d3gr33. In my opinion that's a childish and petulant position. Haukur 12:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't spot yours. Now, why wasn't the admin in question convinced? And what disaster has ensued? - David Gerard 12:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because I didn't post them :) I don't know precisely why he wasn't convinced, it's hard to see into other people's minds and generally it's hard to convince people to resign. I don't think any disaster has resulted. It's annoying, though, when he doesn't provide log summaries for his admin actions so people have to work out why he deletes stuff from first principles without a hint in the right direction. Haukur 12:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit the reason more bad things haven't happened is that he's still largely following process, whether he admits it or not, because that's the most practical way to get things done here. And even if he's not looking at policy pages now he did in the past and so has a reasonably good idea of what they say. Changes happen fairly slowly and he may be able to keep up with a sort of osmosis. Haukur 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

i.e., he's applying IAR sensibly so far. i.e., it's not a problem unless it's a problem - David Gerard 13:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put it that way. Yes, it's not a problem until it's a problem and I don't know whether it's a problem at this point because I haven't really followed what he's up to. I'd like to let this go now; I meant to say that I agreed with geni but I ended up rehashing the whole argument and got a little meaner than I intended. Sorry. Haukur 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So far I'm taking the lack of a lynch mob as a good sign - evidently it is possible not to get into (much) trouble just going by experience and one's feel for Wikipedia. Which means that our pile of process isn't terminally counterintuitive. Of course, I may be shown wrong tomorrow - David Gerard 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt a large number of people are going to get upset by a single user namespace deletion.Geni 14:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, to simplify: precedent isn't binding, so knowing the history of the process doesn't automatically beat someone else at all. But knowing the histories of lots of processes may let you work out what will work and what won't, then you can write a pompous essay on the subject - David Gerard 12:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas for the excessive process one? - David Gerard 12:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Process cruft

"Process cruft" - useful phrase or problematic phrase? - David Gerard 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Useful. I like it. -Toptomcat 14:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Query

I believe that ideally all our processes should boil down to "slap on a tag, discuss for a few days, get consensus". That should be all most people need to know about the process. So my question is, are there any processes in particular that fail this KISS principle? >Radiant< 16:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends. That presumes watchlist use, for example - David Gerard 16:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand that - you mean that participating in process requires a watchlist? >Radiant< 21:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't use a watchlist it would be posible for an article you care about to be adfed without your noticeing.Geni 01:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Amd if you do use a watchlist, it still can be; depends on the size of your watchlist. However, this is a real problem only for deletions; other decisions can be reversed more easily. Septentrionalis 05:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is then that Wikipedia has grown too large for everybody to be involved in everything they're interested in. While true, I don't see how that can be solved. >Radiant< 07:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggested that AFD should require a note on the author's talk page. The regulars were outraged and treated it as a plot to obstruct the deletion process with unnecessary red tape. As opposed to the thicket of subpages the deletion process is now, presumably. Severe pressure of dealing with a firehose of crap has turned AFD into a strange place in many ways - David Gerard 11:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. A solution might be to change the javascript AFD helpers that people seem to use to automatically drop a message on the talk page of a page's creator. Another solution might be to expand criteria for both speedy keeping and speedy deleting; repetitive debate tends not to be very useful. >Radiant< 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe notifying the creator is or was somewhere in the list of things to do when filing an AFD. WP:PROD has been useful for keeping stuff off AFD that doesn't really belong there - and off DRV, since you can recreate an uncontested PROD at will (though good sense suggests you should fix whatever the problem was) - David Gerard 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Malign use

I'm here from WP:RS. I see you mention it as being used robotically and gutting articles of content. It also goes the other way, but might interfere with your point here, that it can also be used to gut articles of perfectly valid content which is contrary to an established editor's PoV; the content is usually being contributed by a new editor, who has never heard of WP:RS or <ref></ref>. Septentrionalis 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And more than that, who may be greatly taken aback by the fact that we have a one-size-fits-all sourcing policy instead of a flexible one that allows for editorial judgment. Phil Sandifer 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

At least WP:RS is, thank goodness, still a guideline, which does supply some flexibility; at least when people bother to notice it. Septentrionalis 22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Some people though treat it as if it were policy though, which I think is a big contributor to these sorts of problems. JYolkowski // talk 02:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is precisely the point about the problem with didactic phrasing - David Gerard 11:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Implode the rules

You can't in fact implode the rules by turning them against themselves. The recent DRV of DRV was a rather amusing attempt at this - it might be worth mentioning in the essay. Haukur 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the AFD of AFD? (or the FAC of AFD, but that was april fools). Maybe the SNOW of SNOW, and didn't we have a page "ignore ignore all rules rules" at some point? :) >Radiant< 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need examples, I think - I mean any attempt to use the structure of rules to bring down the structure of rules by adding something that does not compute - David Gerard 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Red tape

You know how Wikipedia was having a funds drive recently? they should open a shop selling spools of Wikipedia branded red tape This is a pretty good quote but when I go and read the actual episode that seems to have prompted it I'm left surprised. That episode, as amusingly described by David, seems to have been a model of Wikipedian efficiency. Haukur 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he was talking in general, rather than in the context - David Gerard 11:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is inconsistent

This useful phrase isn't in WP:POINT anymore. Should we put it back? Septentrionalis 05:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in there after noticing it had gotten lost along the way - David Gerard 11:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravo!

This essay lines out some very serious problems and how to deal with them. I think that (though having a snowballs's chance in hell) there should be an attempt to actually make it policy. It needs more rewriting and careful wording lest such an attempt fail outright, and I think the agenda should therefore be: rewrite, review, condense, rewrite, review, let sit, circulate among those in the know, start over again. Ask high-profile experts on common sense (Raul, Kat, ...) for help. Then, and not before, submit to the community and try to make it official. Just a thought. 91.64.174.21 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC) (and no, I will not divulge my username)

I'm loath to push for it to become even an official guideline - see the robotic application problem with WP:RS. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - tha`t's an essay, but just because you'd be a damned fool not to take it very seriously indeed doesn't mean we'd benefit from it being made an official guideline ... and not doing so makes it a useful Darwinian mechanism ;-) - David Gerard 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone really does want to push it to a guideline, it'd be best to give it a few months' practical use first - so that it proves it really does work. Otherwise it'd just be more text telling people what to do - David Gerard 20:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think one should take a good essay and try to "promote" it or get it some official status. Much more powerful are essays that people read and internalize because they make sense, not because they have some kind of official seal. It's good not to be hung up on official seals, and to encourage others not to be hung up on them either. Based on the form of this, it's an essay. It's a detailed and thoughtful reflection on the relative roles and values of different policies and guidelines. There's no need to make it more than that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What it really needs is an easy-to-remember shortcut and for people to start dropping references to it into conversations all over the Wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:PRO - David Gerard 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a random thought

Possibly as a result of process wonking, we now have a rather excessive amount of policy and guideline pages, many of which are slowly eroding as a result of constant edits by people who disagree with, or misunderstand, the basic premise. As such, would it be a good idea to get some antiwonks to trim all policy pages down to a useful size, and protect them to prevent this process? >Radiant< 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why I just put the "this is not a guideline - I want you to think" notice at the top. You just know that the moment this goes live, someone is going to use it in a Wikipedia Chainsaw Massacre, and the victims are going to blame this page. Yay.

InkSplotch did a nice job on the restructured simplified blocking policy and I rewrote the text of that using this essay as my guide - be descriptive, phrase as a guideline, hard bits few and very important, etc. It seems not to have had anyone really pissed off at it yet, which is good!

I have asked various editors from the process wars - those who didn't find it themselves - to come by (some I really wanted don't seem to have) and have put a note on the talk page of the process pages that got a negative mention (AFD and RS). I'd like this to be something sensible everyone who's thought about process on Wikipedia could generally agree with the sense of, though it's possible the people who really disagree have just gone "that idiot" and will ignore it until someone else gets it in their faces. *sigh* - David Gerard 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved!

I've given it a name and stolen WP:PRO from somewhere else. *cowers for incoming*

Here's the title proposals :-)

title ideas: (none really work yet, but food for thought)

* Process is Dangerous	* A practical guide to process on Wikipedia	* Process is Perilous	* Process? What Process?	* Process Mustn't Pessimize
* Process Mustn't Ossify	* Process, not Prescriptivism	* Process, not Prescription	* Process is Only a Tool (aka: WP:POT)	* Process is a Living Thing
* Process is not a Way of Life	* Don't Process For Its Own Sake	* Process versus Progress	* Process and Progress	* As Little Process as Possible; as Much Process as Necessary
* Process Is Provisional	* Process on Wikipedia	* Process creep	* Process is a mess	* Do not bless process
* Process, make your guess	* Process: no or yes	* Confess to process	* Process, my - ah, never mind	* Fluid process makes solid content
* Less process, more progress	* If it's too hard, I can't understand it!	* Fewer steps for greater distance	* Process is to serve, not to rule	* Progress without process
* Clue not glue	* Practical process	* Process is not the point	* Making progress with process	* Progressing process
* The evolution of process	* The paradox of process	* The content, stupid	* Process is Impotent

Rewrite of how-to section

OK, the how-to is phrased as a usable guideline. Anyone have anything new and important to say? Does anyone have any other useful exercises for the reader? - David Gerard 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It reads more like a 'how-not-to' than a 'how-to'. >Radiant< 15:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was working from a pile of bad examples - it's way below ideal. If you can think of more good examples (e.g. ideally we wouldn't need nutshells, but they're still a great way for the writer to focus on the page's take-home message), that'd be great. - David Gerard 20:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have used the information in this essay (especially in the how-to section) to create a new draft of a Wikisoure policy. I would really appreciate everyone's comments about my efforts to make the policy more readable and useful to humans along the lines of this essay. Of course if anyone has something they must say about the actual content of the policy, it is a wiki. I firmly believe that good policy is developed through current practice. So please keep in mind that people who are dealing wtih the current practices of Wikisource on day-to-day basis may have a better insight into policy matters. So I guess I want to say please comment as anthropologists, not missionaries.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've looked, I'm still trying to think of something useful to say :-) - David Gerard 09:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting policies and guidelines

Are there any thoughts on perhaps spring cleaning all our current policies, guidelines and essays in line with this? Hiding Talk 11:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• That would be a very good idea. Only it needs careful thought to actually work - people have a tendency to revert edits to policy pages on grounds that it hadn't been discussed properly, and proceed by filibustering for a couple of weeks over formalities even if they have no objection against substance. Perhaps we need a Policy Cabal? :) . >Radiant< 11:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• We could reactivate Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Namespace. Hiding Talk 13:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A project would be a good idea. However that one seems to have a broader mission. How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy? >Radiant< 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It got redirected, did you see how it used to stand? You do realise that Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy will have no call to look at guidelines, don't you? :) Hiding Talk 13:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hm, it says "generally identifing outdated pages, making new ones where necessary, making sure all the pages are properly linked together". I wasn't involved and don't really know the users that were. >Radiant< 13:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Isn't a lot of what you do falling under that description? :) I still see no reason not to hijack it and place your new one as a child project. Hiding Talk 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Awwww, but I like making new pages :) >Radiant< 14:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Spring cleaning with a flame thrower and perhaps occasional nuking from orbit? It has its plus points.

I would suggest start gently. Use caution and note experience here before going on a Policy Chainsaw Massacre - David Gerard 09:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Awwww, but I like chains- ah, eh, never mind. I think the problem is that several pages could benefit from simplification and clarification, but that any change to said pages will be contested. Although I do seem to recall flamethrowering WP:CSD worked out reasonably well. >Radiant< 15:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd point at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy/Simplified as a workable example, except...well, it hasn't totally worked yet. But creating a subpage to work on the revision with seems to have avoided controversy so far. The big challenge will come when someone moves it over the current policy page. Then we'll see if it sticks (I'm so nervous!). --InkSplotch 16:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A reaction

Now that this essay has reached something like stability, I'd like to comment on it. I have some pretty serious reservations about the essay, both its general point and some detailed issues with how it is expressed.

It seems like the essay is built on a set of shaky premises. First it repeatedly makes the claim that process is created in an ad hoc fashion ("Process is created ad-hoc as needed, but is rarely examined and removed." "Almost all our processes are quick hacks to achieve a temporary result." etc.) But nowhere is evidence produced to show this is true. Much of our process is produced to fix long-term systemic problems in a permanent way. Calling it "quick hacks built out of gaffer tape and string" or "bodgy hacks" or "temporary hacks with more hacks on top" is inaccurate and breaches the assumption of good faith. It is no more (or less) hacky than the content of the articles themselves.

From this premise, the essay draws multiple conclusions. "This can result in a confusing mass of process that appears incoherent ... because it is". Is our process incoherent? This point would be much easier to accept if there were a set of strong examples to back it up. In fact, no examples are given. I don't agree that (in the genral case) our current process is incoherent.

Another conclusion drawn from the basic premise: "Some editors will even engage in a revert war to keep someone else from changing process, behaving as though anyone trying to fix a broken hack is introducing a loophole to subtly trash the encyclopedia." While I've no doubt this is true in a few cases, the strong implication is that any resistence to policy change is motivated by policy inertia. Not all changes to process are good, indeed I've often seen people trying to change process exactly to introduce loopholes. Are we really suggesting that process should never be defended? And are we really talking about process here or policy? My experience is that these revert wars happen a lot on policy pages, but rarely on process pages.

The essay seems to be proposing two main arguments.

One argument boils down to: "The more rules, the harder it is for people to follow them. Everything that can be a guideline should be". I don't see how this helps, or is consistent with the criticism of process that starts the essay. Leaving process as guidelines instead of policy encourages wikilawyering ("I don't have to follow that, its only a guideline"). It doesn't cut down on the "kuzdu" effect - if you want to have a few simple rules, have a few simple rules, don't make the world complex with multiple levels of rule: policy vs. process vs. guideline.

The second argument is "Excess process wears editors down and leads to volunteers disengaging and going home, which is directly damaging to the project.". Again, I want to see evidence of this. Or rather, I believe that it does happen, but is this a principle reason why editors leave? Is it a principle reason why valuable editors leave? I haven't seen any evidence to back this up, either in this essay or elsewhere. Anecdotally I know a number of editors who've left because in certain areas a lack of process has let their work be overwhelmed by the spammers, vandals and POV-pushers. If this were a widespread cause of editor dissatisfaction (I have no evidence that it is) then removing process may in fact make the problem worse, not better. We know that process is put into place to help cure specific issues that degrade the encyclopedia. We need evidence to show that this proposed cure will not make matters worse. Gwernol 12:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do wish you'd weighed in earlier ... How on earth does that breach the assumption of good faith? I really don't see it. Our processes tend to be created by people thinking "that's bad, we need a new rule against that." I see this lots.

I know a pile of editors who've cut back their involvement because of excess process fatigue and process wars.

More answers later, but do explain that claimed violation of AGF. Saying something someone did has a bad result is in no way a violation of AGF, and you will need to justify how it is - David Gerard 14:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, let me try to explain myself more clearly. If you characterize Wikipedia's process as "temporary hacks with more hacks on top" you are talking about both the intention of the process writers and the effect of their work. If I set out to craft a solid, long-term process and you characterize the result as a hack, I might be a little insulted. But if you say my intention was to create a "bodgy hack" then you're making an assumption that I was deliberatly building something bad. I believe that many processes have been built with the view to creating good, well thought out, consistent processes. The sweeping judgement that they're all temporary hacks looks bad to me.

Also apologies for not weighting in earlier. I've been following the evolution of WP:PRO for a while; early on I wasn't sure what direction it was heading in. Later I wanted to let it settle into a stable form before commenting. I remain worried by the assumptions that underly it. We all tend to work from annecdotes, but when you scale up to millions of users, annecdotes tend to be very poor indicators of the real situaiton. Of course its extremely hard to get real data, but trying to fix the whole of Wikipedia on the basis of the war stories of a statistically meaningless number of cases is a bad idea. As I was recently reminded "hard cases make bad laws". Gwernol 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity

There has been alot of talk of polices that written in problamatic ways. What do you guys believe are three best policies as judged by the concerns raised here?Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Editing policy has been pretty stable and is pretty well written. It gets the point across without weighing it down with clause after clause.
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith is almost there, it needs format tidying but other than that it again makes its points without bogging itself down.
• Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Hiding Talk 21:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia:Editing policy I disagree with your praise of this policy. After reading it, I am not sure what the policy is. It seemed to more of an "Introduction to editing Wikipedia" or a list of different philosphies regarding editing. What does it mean?
  • Wikipedia:Assume good faith I agree very nice, almost there.
  • Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. This is just perfect

--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • What do you think the editing policy is after reading it? Hiding Talk 15:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That it wasn't really a policy. It just seemed like a descirption to me. The only I can sum up from reading this yesterday is "You are allowed to edit Wikipedia."--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Does it's job then doesn't it? That's what the editing policy is, anyone can edit. Hiding Talk 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I certainly don't mean to imply it is a harmful policy. But it could certainly be clearer. I just looked and saw a nutshell was added since I last read it. I don't think it is very focused on the points in the nutshells. I am not trying to say it is a bad policy, just that I would not use it a model for brilliant policies. Whereas I think the other two you suggested would be great models.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'd say WP:PROD works pretty well. >Radiant< 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess my question wasn't really clear, I was asking about the best "policy writing" not really the policies that work the best. Wikipedia:Editing policy and WP:PROD are well developed polices that work admiralbly. But I don't think they are particulary well written. Although it definately most imporatant to have a process that works well than one that is written well. Well-written policies help newcomers to the project while poorly written one can really keep newbies from becoming full participants. I think WP:PROD is very elegant proccess in practice. However it is not the clearest of policies in writing. It starts off with a lot of shorthand and lingo. Also the reasoning of the policy is mixed in with various instructions for the process. The instructions for admins should probably be moved out to it's own subsection at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators along with the section titled "Note". Then a link can be made specifically to that subsection under "See Also". It could probably do with close look over the rest as well. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite of WP:BP appears to still be there and hasn't caused screams of pain. I think it's much more readable than the previous version 'cos I did a lot of the rewriting, of course, but others seem to agree - David Gerard 10:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that was a good idea. I would propose the next stop would be the (overly verbose) page headers for some of our processes. >Radiant< 13:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cart before the horse

The proposed guideline WP:C&E says that, before an article is written on a political candidate, there should be enough credible information for an article. It recommends that, to achieve this, the article on the election be written first, and the article on the candidate only split off when the necessary information has accumulated. Both these are quite sensible.

But Diane Farrell is now up for deletion, largely on the grounds that the election article hasn't been written. No one has questioned the credibility of the information, or the length of the article. Notability has been questioned, and may prevail; but my problem is with the argument, not the AfD. Is this page strong enough to be cited yet? Septentrionalis 03:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Don't cite it, just use arguments from it in your own words, I expect :-) It'll be a nice robustness test - David Gerard 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've just done on the talk page. I like it as a guideline for article creation, it's eminently sensible - but it can't be the whole story - David Gerard 11:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

See also cleanup

I've removed the following encrustations of cruft from the "See also" section:

• Wikipedia:Follow all rules
• Wikipedia:Use common sense; Wikipedia:Ignore common sense; Wikipedia:There's no common sense
• Wikipedia:Product, process, policy

--TS 21:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)