Jump to content

Template talk:Policy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Removal of important caveat

Slimvirgin recently removed the link to WP:COMMON (a common restatement of our policy WP:IAR). She states that this is part of "tightening up the wording".

In my view, this instead completely alters the semantic meaning of the template. Slimvirgin, would you care to explain?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the word "normally". The BLP policy doesn't "normally" have to be followed, but always. Ditto with NPOV and the other core content policies, as well as NPA and so on. It's true that we apply those policies using common sense, but that's not the same as saying they need only "normally" be adhered to. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
No. Requiring rigid adherence to rules (any rules) is not a productive strategy for this organization.
We can make an analogy to braking in a car. Locking the brakes (analogous to rigidly adhering to a rule) will cause you to lose control. Therefore, many modern cars have an Anti-lock braking system (analogous to WP:IAR or WP:COMMON), which effectively stops the locking of the brakes.
The correct approach is to be flexible at all times. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A good analogy shouldn't just have a similar beginning and then a similar end to the outcome that you predict. It has to be analogous from start to finish. People don't drive around with locked brakes. Neither is IAR something that 'kicks in', you have to actively do the ignoring. The community expects rigid adherence to BLP and CIV and V, policies specify the exact details. One can be both strict and open-minded. Policies can be firm while remaining open to change.    M   01:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The analogy is that when you apply rules too hard without thinking, it's like you are locking the brakes. Don't do that; and if you *do* do that, someone has to come along and tell you to stop doing that (like ABS intervenes with the brakes of a car).
Humans should not be rigidly following rules all day. That's a waste of time, because we have machines to do that for us; and those machines will do so more rapidly, more efficiently, and with less faults.
Humans are there for where flexibility and intelligence are required. In that sense, they are not following rules all day, they are instead being creative, and applying their IQ and EQ to do things that no mere rule or machine could do.
The standard mode of a wikipedian is/should be to ignore all "rules". Only when there are questions or issues that need to be resolved, at that point one can check our documentation to get a rough idea of what the current consensus is. If that is insufficient, one can check archives, talk with people, or one can even act boldly, depending on one's sound judgment. You are quite right, while it's stretching the analogy somewhat, we certainly do not go around with our foot on the brake all day. That would be incredibly inefficient.
"We have nice firm policies" sounds all nice and warm and pleasant to certain ears. And it is pleasant, to the bureaucrats who make their nice cozy beds in them; but only for a while. The use of firm policies is downright disastrous to an online community; for reasons that do not quite fit in this margin right now (but which I can expand on in detail later or elsewhere; also, we have articles with references to get you started: Soft security is a good place to start).
Actually, it can be disasterous to offline organizations too. I once worked at a division of a particular multinational that was being torn down. Why? They followed policies firmly, but forgot that following policy is not the same thing as serving the company. No individual had done anything wrong (all "just following policy"), but collectively they were all wasting large amounts of the company's money. I wonder if they sold off the building too? I should go and look, sometime.
Now, if big century-old multinational organizations do *NOT* accept use of a system of firm policies in the sense we are talking about, then I don't see why we should do so here. Especially since we don't have the multi-billion dollar budget to burn on that kind of system in the first place.
Looking at the example policies:
  • Strict adherence to BLP when there is an actual situation has tended to blow up in people's faces. That's the point where I've been called in a couple of times. First step towards resolution? You guessed it, IAR: also known as "it is now time to stop 'following policy' and time to Turn Your Brains On instead."
  • Strict adherence to WP:V sounds like a good plan in theory, but in practice I think we'd need to delete over two million of our pages, since only our FA are 100% verifiable (and there may be issues even there, if you've ever read a rant by User:Ottava Rima, for instance). I therefore conclude that we are probably not going to be adhering to WP:V strictly anytime soon.
  • How do you strictly adhere to WP:CIV? Or strictly enforce it for that matter? The beatings will continue until morale improves? In reality, some (large!) amount of EQ is required there, I'm pretty sure!
--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely think we need to distinguish passive and active policies. It's one of my goals to reduce active policies. These include the 3RR, many notability policies and guidelines - in general, things new editors have to know to avoid trouble. That is what new editors worry about; you can see it in the original IAR formulation (now rather obscure). There are some things that the community considers binding, though. If you want to write an article on fluffy, your fameless pet cat, you fundamentally can't. Editors have had this sort of cat-discussion before, and the consensus that developed is valuable. And binding. Avoid portraying policies as much more strict and active than they are: WP:V doesn't state 'all info must be...', but rather 'in cases where info is challenged reasonably and in good faith, it has to be backed up'.    M   17:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree with Kim Bruning here, but perhaps the previous caveat wasn't the best. I tried to create a new one emphasizing the descriptive nature of policies, and got reverted. My point was that a written policy won't always be 100% accurate in describing the community consensus. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many details like that, but we can't hope to cover them all. We're simply summarizing, not writing policy. If we add provisos, it sounds less like a description of what the page is, and more like some sort of attempt to establish policy. Ideally, this would copy verbatim from WP:POL the sentence that defined policy, and leave it at that.    M   23:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the fact that policies are descriptive rather than prescriptive is fundamental to what a policy in Wikipedia is. Somehow it should come across in the template. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The template is meant to inform users, in the clearest possible way, that they are at an official policy and what that entails. There are plenty of things that are fundamental to what policy in Wikipedia is. These are covered in WP:POLICY, which is linked.    M   06:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Until we eliminate IAR and make policies prescriptive, it's simply inaccurate to say that all editors "should follow" all policies. This is particularly true because policy pages are often inaccurate or outdated. Looking at this thread, there is not consensus for removing all mention of this from the template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that there should be a caveat along these lines in the template. I'm not sure that the current one is the best. My thinking is that it should link to WP:NOTLAW and somehow allude to the fact that policy aims to describe. Maybe even link to WP:CREEP when mentioning potential changes to the page. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Linking to WP:NOTLAW instead seems fine to me; as part of WP:NOT it is in some sense more controlling than many of the other pages decorated with the policy template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Changes made should reflect consensus

An RFC over the inclusion of a sentence on the policy template. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For anyone coming here from the RfC, the question is whether the template should say:

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

or simply:

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow.

Responses

  • Keep that sentence. I feel it should include "changes made to it should reflect consensus," or something similar, in order to signal to people, particularly new editors, to take care before steaming in with new edits. The template has said something like this since 2005 e.g. 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and I can see no good reason to remove it now. It helps keep the policies stable. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove the sentence. There's no evidence provided to suggest that it is effective in preventing these edits. It's possible that it doesn't have much effect at all, whereas two negative effects are likely. The first is the encouragement of vandalism as per WP:BEANS ("here's an important page that you should not edit"). This seems likely, and vandalism for policy pages is much higher. The second is a chilling effect: it may be discouraging editors from cleaning up our policies (which are a bloody mess). (If its removal results in a sudden jump in these unconstructive, careless edits, then I do agree that we should change it back.) .    M   02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the sentence, in no way does the sentence create a "chilling effect", nor does it invoke WP:BEANS any more than does the first sentence, or even by the mere existence of any policy at all. Consensus is a key aspect for changing negotiable elements of Wikipedia Policy. It doesn't say "you should not edit this page", it identifies an underlying principle of editing that is itself a core Policy. We do need to make a statement like this in order to help keep policies stable. And yes, changes to Policy should reflect consensus. Dreadstar † 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • polling is evil (So I'm putting a full statement instead :-) ) My preference is to remove the sentence. But if you want to restate core policy on every policy template, well, fine, as long as we also refer to WP:IAR or WP:COMMON too. Either both stay (for political reasons) or both go (for reasons of brevity) . That seems fair enough to me! --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem with policies is not that people edit them too much. For example, as recently as July 31, the text at WP:SOCK was blatantly and prominently wrong. We do not have a system set up to carefully vet and then approve fixed text for policies; we can accept imperfect text, or allow others to edit policy pages, only because we know that we can also edit the pages when they are wrong. The text in question is a halfhearted move towards a model where policies are drafted, discussed, and then ratified. I would support a full move to that sort of system, but not this pale imitation of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the sentence or something similar. Vandals target policy pages because they're policy pages, the importance of which is obvious with or without the wording in question. I'm also unconvinced that there is any sort of "chilling effect," and as SlimVirgin noted, the wording can be tweaked to convey that there is implicit consensus (barring subsequent objections) for minor edits that improve the page's text without substantially altering its meaning.
    M has noted that this information is contained within Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, but we include this sentence in the template for the benefit of editors who don't read that page before attempting to substantially modify policies as they deem fit. When such an individual is editing a policy page in a manner contrary to consensus, it's easier to point out a tag at the top of that page than it is to convince him/her to read another page. —David Levy 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the sentence I think we have to decide this based on the function of the template. Were this 2002 or 2003 or 2004 I would have voted against the template and in favor of being bold. But in the past few years we have taken stubs or short articls or even longer articles with no citations - articles on controversial topics - and have turned them into relatively stable NPOV articles. This did not come easy and right now at evolution there is a problem with an anon IP making weird changes to the FAQs. When something was achievd through LOTS of discussion, this is depressing. The function of this template should be to get newbies to slow down, check things out a bit. I think that is fair and reasonable. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the sentence or something similar. It points out a noncontroversial reality, and is helpfully informative to new users. Of course it won't prevent all bad behavior, but what will? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove the sentence Even though it says changes must reflect consensus, it seems to invite editors to change policy. Without that sentence many editors will assume that policy is stable and should be left alone. It's just like telling a little kid "don't touch the wet paint", they're all the more apt to do it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the sentence. Encouraging the use of the talk page is not a chilling effect. People who are established and know when bold changes are needed will also know that IAR can apply to this sentence. Lara 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the sentence just as there should be a compelling reason to change a policy, there should be a compelling reason to change this template. I haven't seen one. Smallbones (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that people !voting might be missing the (rather long) discussion below, so I'm repeating here that it's been policy for a while now to consider edits to a policy page acceptable:

(From September 2008) Updates to a policy or guideline page are typically discussed on the associated talk page, but it is acceptable to edit them directly.

At the very least, the sentence would have to be substantially modified from its current form. Or this discussion should be moved to the policy page so that we can determine what the community's position on policy change is.    M   01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep the sentence per SlimVirgin et al. causa sui× 12:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that some of the opposition have confused 'consensus' with 'formal written permission obtained in advance from whoever's watching that page'. Changes to policy should make the policy more accurately reflect the real, everyday, practical consensus of the many thousands of experienced editors; the verbal agreement of a couple of editors on some under-watched policy page is not (always) the same as the community's real consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

More discussion below

Stating that "changes made to [a policy page] should reflect consensus" is not the same as saying that changes must be pre-approved via advance discussion. Not even close. —David Levy 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that it was. Note the last part, "but it is perfectly acceptable to edit them directly." That is, contrary to the statements:
  • We do need to make a statement like this in order to help keep policies stable.
  • Of course it won't prevent all bad behavior, but what will?
  • it's good to have that there to make us think about what we're doing,
it is perfectly acceptable to edit policy pages. The notice should not be used to help curb certain kinds of behavior that the policy endorses as being perfectly ok. The wording clearly could imply (and many !voters take it to imply) that consensus in the form of discussion on talk should precede bold edits, which contradicts the suggestion of the policy.    M   03:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You're perceiving contradictions where none exist. We aren't saying that policy pages shouldn't be directly edited! We're referring to inappropriate edits. I see only one comment (Jennavecia's) in which encouraging users to use talk pages is even mentioned, and there's nothing wrong with such encouragement (which is far from stating that advance discussion is required). —David Levy 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Avoid the word "you", please (it's a bit personal, and "we" is a bit polarizing). That is not my point. Perhaps DGG's recent wording might make the point clearer: "but still the formal statements of pollcy should not be changed without agreement" - this is incorrect. They may be changed, though (note that the following is a description of what typically happens, not any sort of directive/imperative/prescriptive) "Updates to a policy or guideline page are typically discussed on the associated talk page". Also, where does the WP:POLICY policy actually state that consensus should be sought? (You should use this revision, which comes right before I cleaned up the page.)    M   07:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
1. No, I will not "avoid the word 'you'." I'm addressing your arguments and related actions, not engaging in personal attacks. No disrespect is intended or should be inferred.
I also shall continue to use the word 'we' when referring to a group composed of multiple people including me; that's how the concept is commonly stated in English.
2. By "agreement," I don't know whether DGG meant "agreement within the community that something is done a certain way" or "agreement for the specific edit to the policy page." I would disagree with the latter, as well as the assertion that the template's current wording conveys this.
3. "Changes made to [a policy page] should reflect consensus" ≠ "consensus should be sought"! If an editor believes that he/she is familiar with the community's standards/practices (in the area documented on a particular policy page), he/she is welcome to boldly edit the page for greater accuracy/thoroughness (with no advance discussion required). —David Levy 08:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then don't accuse me of perceiving contradictions where none exist. That sort of tone makes the discussion more difficult for both of us. All editors, not merely ones steeped in policy, are welcome to boldly edit policy. Where does the WP:POLICY policy actually state that consensus should be sought? (You should use this revision, which comes right before I cleaned up the page.)    M   09:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
1. You've claimed that various comments contradict policy, and I believe that you're mistaken. What do you want me to do? Pretend that I agree with you?
2. Yes, any editor in good standing is welcome to boldly edit a policy page, but edits should reflect consensus. Does this mean that edits not reflecting consensus will lead to pandemonium? No, of course not. (They'll be reverted, at which point the editor behind them hopefully will engage in discussion.) But edits to policy pages should reflect consensus.
3. Why did you just repost part of your previous message? I've already responded to your "Where does the WP:POLICY policy actually state that consensus should be sought?" question by noting that "changes made to [a policy page] should reflect consensus" ≠ "consensus should be sought." This might not be your intention, but your argument is comparable in effect to a straw man. —David Levy 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
1. "You're not reading words correctly" - avoid this (also, you can drop it). 2&3. I'm not currently interested in 'should be sought'. You say "Edits should reflect consensus". Is this your opinion, or are you presenting it as policy? Perhaps you can point me to where the policy says anything about "edits should reflect consensus". It says no such thing.    M   11:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
1. I haven't questioned your literacy; I've challenged your interpretation of various users' comments. Why is it okay for you to interpret users' comments, but not okay for me to do the same (and note that my interpretation differs significantly)?
2. I don't know why you've linked to that particular revision, but both it and the current revision extensively reference consensus (and its role in determining the content of policy/guideline pages). Is your point that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines only contains statements that the pages themselves should reflect consensus (and technically includes no mention that edits to those pages should)? If so, please see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. (If a page should reflect consensus, it obviously shouldn't be altered in a manner that causes it to not reflect consensus.) —David Levy 11:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

undent. A policy page does not represent consensus, it represents a policy that was arrived at presumably through consensus (or tradition), and its accurate description of that policy is confirmed through consensus. What are you basing the idea that a page should reflect consensus on? Here, look. There's actually a sentence on that linked page that flips back and fourth between:

  • If negotiable elements of a policy are unclear or do not conform to actual practice, then consensus should be found/sought in order to change the policy to reflect that practice.
  • If the description of a policy is unclear, or no longer conforms to best practice, the policy description is altered

Note that one suggests the way policy is changed, even minor bits of policy, is by seeking out consensus (the proposed wording). The other states that it just gets changed. A point of contention! The point here is that the two sides are arguing about what policy is via changes to the policy page, and I'm pretty sure that consensus was lacking over on talk while this was going on. Those terrible editors, (probably) violating what's clearly stated in the template! Who would ever do... oh, I see that the "culprits" are none other than Kim Bruning, SlimVirgin, and Dreadstar. Oops. The real point here though is that the wording is impossible to follow. What are you going to do, wait 2 months on an RfC every time you need to change something? No, you change it. Then, if it comes under fire, someone figures out where it came from, if it had consensus, and removes it, or not. Stable policies? No thanks, there isn't enough effort being put forward towards making them accurate, and people who are bold in editing policies, even if it causes conflict, should be praised.    M   14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course a policy page should reflect consensus. This is not widely disputed. The disagreement to which you refer merely pertains to how we should go about determining when consensus has changed and modifying the policy page accordingly. That has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of the template's claim that changes made to policy pages should reflect consensus. —David Levy 16:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not true that changes should "reflect" "consensus" - though of course ideally the product of those changes should represent the widespread community's standards. For the same reason that you don't have to worry about 50 semi-concretely-stated rules before you edit your first page, you do not have to worry about what the majority of Wikipedia thinks in their heads about your first edit to a policy page. That's one of the reasons, but the important point here is that the policy is very clear about these sorts of bold edits (they are perfectly acceptable), and the proposed wording is against that policy.    M   22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I strongly disagree that the template's wording conveys what you claim it does. —David Levy 05:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, let's try to get our interpretation of what the meaning of this template is straight:
  1. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.
  2. Detail: Changes such that are made to the policy page should [should applies to an agent; the change itself is not agentive; the agent is the editor] be (made/ensured/verified) (by the editor) to (reflect, be characteristic of, not contrary to) consensus (ambiguously: widespread, local?)
  3. Simply: An editor has a duty to ensure that changes that they apply to a policy page are representative of, and not contrary to, consensus
Is this what the template is saying?    M   06:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I interpret the wording to mean that the desired outcome is for changes made to policy pages to reflect consensus. There is no mention (or even implication, in my assessment) of a requirement that an edit's consensus-reflective nature be verified in advance. —David Levy 06:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
In your interpretation, is it the policy pages, or the changes, that should reflect [be representative of] consensus?    M   07:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Both. (As I noted above, a policy page should reflect consensus, and it therefore should not be altered in a manner that causes it to not reflect consensus.) But again, this is a desired outcome, not something that editors are required to verify in advance. —David Levy 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
When I tell you that you should not tread mud through the house, am I telling you that you are required not to tread mud through the house, or am I saying that a good house should not have mud in it?    M   08:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You're telling me that if I'm aware that my feet or footwear are stained with mud, I should not proceed to tread said mud through the house.
Lacking a specified degree of diligence (e.g. "you must consult fifty semi-concretely-stated rules for detecting the presence of mud"), there is no expectation that I will do anything more than look down. —David Levy 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Suppose I stand in front of a group of guests, and say that in my house footprints should not be muddy and steps should be careful. Am I saying that by my moral/aesthetic judgement, a good footprint should not splatter mud and that a good step is careful - in the way that a good dog is loyal or a good window is transparent - that is, am I making a value-judgement about what sort of footprints and steps I think are morally or aesthetically correct, in and of themselves? Am I saying that a good house is one where muddy footprints do not occur? In your view, what am I saying here?    M   11:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You're saying something that isn't analogous to the template's statement. —David Levy 11:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I might be entirely aware of this. I'm trying to figure out how you'd interpret this. What am I saying there?    M   12:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not interested in branching off into an irrelevant side topic. If you wish to discuss rewording the template's actual statement, I'd be more than happy to do so. I've suggested a possible alternative sentence, on which you have not yet commented. —David Levy 13:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Please answer the question. It is directly relevant and is the source, I believe, of our disagreement. Your answer will greatly help me understand you. I stand in front of a group of guests, and say that in my house footprints should not be muddy. Am I making a value-judgement concerning footprints (like "the walls in an old house like mine should be wallpapered"), a value-judgement concerning houses ("old houses should have wallpapered walls"), or am I saying something else?    M   21:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Presumably, you're saying that you want your house to be clean. What is the relevance? —David Levy 19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It's important to be able to distinguish what something is saying apart from your general impression of what it's saying and the various implications, since other people usually have different impressions. Do you actually think that I'm saying "well, I want my house to be clean, [but I get so busy sometimes, so excuse the mess]"? Do you understand the difference between (above) value-judgments concerning: houses (contexts), footprints (things (nouns)), and footprints (actions (verbs))?    M   21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what the heck you're getting at anymore. I just know that I've offered to work with you to reword the template's statement (hopefully addressing your concerns in the process), but you evidently prefer to quiz me on hypothetical muddy footprints and the ramifications thereof. —David Levy 21:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Changes made should reflect consensus" is not a statement about changes (as in things, "prints"), which as you assert is transferrable to some sort of product of those changes. It's a statement about actions, which have a responsible agent. As in "you guests should not tread mud through my house". If we talk about things, nobody is responsible, and you would be correct that no obligation to do a thing is imposed on anyone. But we're talking about changes (as in actions). When you talk about what actions, you impose obligations. However, the imposition of obligations on editors is against policy. Do you understand my position now?    M   22:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your position and disagree that the sentence in question (which you authored) imposes any such obligation. Nonetheless, I'm mindful of the fact that my interpretation isn't sacrosanct, and I've repeatedly invited you to work with me to improve the template's wording. Please let me know when you're willing to do so. —David Levy 01:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That sentence is from September 2008 and earlier, I certainly did not author it. Please don't merely repeat your disagreement, and try to explain why you disagree, otherwise this becomes very difficult. When I tell you that you should not do something, you seriously think that this does not impose an obligation? Which rewording do you propose? Here is my proposal:
"As on any other Wikipedia page, editors should be mindful of introducing inaccurate statements, but are encouraged to edit all parts of policy, including substantial parts, as part of the consensus process."
Thoughts?    M   02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
1. I've repeatedly explained why I disagree.
2. Despite several requests, you've yet to comment on the wording that I suggested at 11:51 on 6 August 2009 (UTC).
3. In response to "That sentence is from September 2008 and earlier, I certainly did not author it.":
How about "Changes made should reflect consensus"? [17:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)]
Also...
Nobody here is disputing that changes should reflect consensus. [02:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)]
No, it is not true that changes should "reflect" "consensus"... [22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)]
Before we continue, please explain the above. —David Levy 02:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
What you are witnessing there is someone learning more about the facts of the matter and coming to understand why something is a very bad idea. It is a wonderful experience that I can only hope to share. It freaks me out a bit that you think this actually needs explanation, but I remain brave and optimistic. Your wording, "Users should edit in a manner consistent with consensus", contradicts policy - I've stated this numerous times now. How exactly is an editor supposed to ensure that their edits are consistent with (widespread) consensus? What do you think of my wording?    M   03:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
1. There's nothing wrong with changing one's mind. I've done so during the course of many discussions. What fascinates me is that you've criticised my position with such resolve and fervor (attempting to dissect it at the philosophical level and demanding that I cite the relevant policies) as though it's utterly preposterous and indefensible. And no matter how many times I explain my reasoning, you act as though I'm merely shouting "I'm right!" and you have no idea why I'm ignoring the blindly obvious truth. And the part that fascinates me is that you're behaving in this manner five days after you expressed the same viewpoint that now baffles you (while inexplicably denying proposing the wording in the first place).
2. "Users should edit in a manner consistent with consensus" is not my wording. You've altered my suggestion in a manner that omits key phrasing that I included specifically to address your concerns (despite not even sharing them). I've gone out of my way to cooperate with you, and frankly, I'm insulted.
3. I oppose your wording. It's true that users are permitted to edit policy pages (and should in various situations), and it's true that they shouldn't be actively discouraged from editing policy pages, but there is no consensus that they should be actively encouraged to do so in such broad terms. In fact, there appears to be strong consensus to the contrary. —David Levy 03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
1. The viewpoint doesn't baffle me. I'm baffled that "changes made should[this usually implies some onus] reflect consensus" does not translate to "you should ensure your changes are consistent with consensus" for you, and why this is. 2. Was it the 'otherwise maintaining' part? I was just killing redundancy: "Editors and maintainers should try to edit and maintain in a manner consistent". Is the word "attempt" there to say "try, but if you don't no big deal?" If so, then it's a bit unclear. 3. I don't understand - is it your position that WP:BOLD does not apply to policy? We could replace "edit" with "improve": encouraged to improve all parts of policy?    M   08:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
1. Precisely. You're baffled that I don't share your interpretation. Thank you for acknowledging this.
And of course, this follows you proposing the wording nine days ago and advocating its removal (but still expresing agreement with the statement) five days ago.
2. Killing redundancy? You removed significant elements (which I included specifically to address the connotation that you're complaining about, despite my disagreement with that interpretation) from a sentence that you could have simply copied and pasted. You referred to the resultant text as my wording, which was flagrantly false.
My actual wording is as follows:
"Users editing or otherwise maintaining this page should attempt to do so in a manner consistent with consensus."
Firstly, you changed "users editing or otherwise maintaining this page" to "users should edit," thereby eliminating the inclusion of users "otherwise maintaining this page" (e.g. by monitoring edits or expressing opinions on the corresponding talk page). I included this to convey that the onus isn't solely on those changing the page to behave reasonably.
Secondly, you omitted the word "attempt." Yes, I included this in response to your claim that the current wording implies that editors are required to verify consensus beforehand. You actually removed this element from my wording, quoted the resultant text, and reiterated that complaint. This is outrageous.
If my wording was "a bit unclear" to you, you could have stated that, requested clarification, and perhaps suggested a suitable means of revision. (You know, like a collaborative discussion?) Instead, you threw out everything that made my proposed wording differ in meaning from the current wording, misrepresented the resultant text as mine, and nonchalantly dismissed it.
3. My position is that there is consensus (and I agree) that via this template, we should not actively and broadly encourage the editing of policy pages. This is not because users aren't permitted to boldly edit policy pages (which they are); it's because this isn't always the most constructive approach (and we realistically cannot convey all of the relevant information via the tag).
In other words, nobody here is disputing that users are permitted to boldly edit policy pages. This is not a policy page, so the removal or inclusion of that clause has absolutely no effect on WP:POLICY (which is linked). The question is merely whether it is prudent or necessary to include this encouragement. Does this seem familiar? —David Levy 10:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I only used your "baffled" wording out of convenience. I'm not actually confused :) 2. Ok, my bad - didn't I admit and correct and explain this? And then go on to respond to your actual proposal in detail? Let's focus on: 3. When you say "the onus is not just on the editor", that means that there is an onus on the editor. This is the objection, and that's against a broad consensus that applies in all cases, even if a group of editors vote, and especially when they do so without participating in the discussion (as through "Hey guys, can you sum up where the discussion is at this point? I'd like to make sure I'm up to speed.") As for inserting "attempt" - no, editors are not required to try to verify consensus. This is crazy! :) You can't verify consensus for a policy without calling on a huge RfC. If your implication is that some single editor can in any way verify consensus out of their head (without an RfC available), then this is incorrect, no editor can do that. I mean, if we want to protect against anything, it should be against editors who think they understand global consensus. Imagine this:

There is no way that this would pass, even if it were unobtrusive. Same applies here. Unless I'm mistaking your position, which I think is clear, you think that there is an onus on the editor of policy to do something. Say, check up with others on the talk page before making an edit that might be substantial (so, any edit), or to check up on our long history of RfCs. This is too much work. No wonder people complain about our policies being stagnant. Policies represent consensus. But without a pointer to a discussion, individual changes (unless it's the insertion of widely-debated and approved rewording) never do.    M   20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Astonishingly, you've once again misquoted me. I did not write "the onus is not just on the editor." Why do you continually claim to quote me while altering my words?
My statement was that "the onus isn't solely on those changing the page to behave reasonably." You reworded my statement to omit the "to behave reasonably" part, and then you attacked the nonexistent claim that editors are obligated to "verify consensus" (which I have repeatedly and unambiguously explained is not my position, including in the message to which you just responded). —David Levy 20:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've amended it. (I'm finding your current argument is responding to tone and correct formatting more than my main points.) If you'd like to reword it to say "Editors are expected to behave responsibly", then I'd lean towards that, though I still don't like it because it implies that there's some good-faith way to edit irresponsibly. And there isn't, all editing is welcome. My arguments above work just fine even without the quote marks. Would you mind responding to them now?    M   01:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done assuming good faith on your part. I regret giving you the benefit of the doubt in so many instances. Good night. —David Levy 02:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

  • To Dreadstar: nobody here is disputing that changes should reflect consensus. This is not a policy page, so the removal or inclusion of that clause has absolutely no effect on WP:POLICY (which is linked). The question is merely whether it is prudent or necessary to include this sentence. If not, then it should be removed.    M   02:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
And I'm saying that consensus is so very important and key to changing a Wikipedia Policy that it needs to be stated right in the Policy Template. It is prudent and it is necessary to include that sentence, IMHO. That's one of the reasons I added that last bit to my comment, because it's just that important, not because I felt others here were disputing the need for consensus in editing policy. Dreadstar † 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, but from its importance, there isn't a sudden jump to needing to include it. One case where we clearly do not need to include it is if in fact nobody goes around changing policy without adequate consensus. Do you agree? Further, the wording lacks the important qualifier that non-substantive clarifications are extremely welcome. The WP:POLICY page currently states "Talk page discussion typically, but not necessarily, precedes substantive changes to policy. [...] Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time."    M   02:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean about a "sudden jump" to include it? Something like that sentence has always been there. That changes need to reflect consensus doesn't rule out minor edits or copy-editing, because if they're good, they'll have consensus, but we can make that explicit if you want. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, I really wish nobody went around changing policy without adequate consensus - editing would be a truly utopian experience then.... :) The importance of consensus when changing Policy, and a short statement of such in the leading template certainly isn't a "sudden jump". I don't agree that the sentence gives the appearance to an editor that minor edits for grammar, clarity, or formatting aren't allowed, nor does it say one can't apply WP:BRD, nor does it force talk page discussion before making any changes. Dreadstar † 03:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
By jump, I mean, if the sentence is removed, and there is actually a higher number of such edits, then sure. The real problem here is editors changing important parts 'recklessly'. The fake problem is with "it's a core part of policy", which is just turning this into a battleground between this and IAR, as Kim tactfully points out above.    M   03:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out, again, that this isn't a policy page. We don't need consensus before we change this wording. It's meant to tell the reader where they are, and the implications, not to establish policy, which I think a lot of people are getting upset about. We don't need to see silly compromises between two sides, we just need to clearly inform the reader where they are.    M   03:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You do need consensus if there are objections to changing something that has been on the page almost since it was created. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
How about this: we copy the exact wording that defines what a policy is, from WP:POLICY. People can argue about which of their favorite policies should be central to its definition there. Then, we modify this template to look like two boxes, much like our article talk page headers do, so that we can include "Changes made should reflect consensus", but keep it away from the core definition of policy.    M   03:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The claim that this does anything to prevent weird edits to policy is starting to seem ridiculous: Just now I removed a deletion of a CSD by someone who seemed to have a good contribution record, a few hours ago someone added "info pages" as being neutral and having strong "tie-in" or somesuch. This does nothing to stop reckless editors from trying to change policy page. The only ones it seems to stop are the careful ones, as clearly evidenced by how carelessly our policies are written.    M   05:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
People who edit the policies a lot have said that it does make a difference. I know from my own experience that it has helped to stop inappropriate editing by newbies who often turn up to change a policy because its application thwarted them somewhere. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Do these newbie editors tell these experienced policy editors, "damn, you know, I showed up here, but saw that policy notice and I guess I shouldn't edit this page". Of course not. Who exactly are these experienced editors, and do they have any facts or evidence to back up their claims? (Note that there's no way of judging frequency, since as you say, this notice has been there a long time.) I just gave two examples of editors blatantly ignoring that notice in the last few hours.    M   05:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I've not looked through your contribs, so I don't know how much policy editing you've done yourself, but I'm pretty sure lots of policy editors have seen newbies having the template pointed out to them to stop them restoring changes. Also, given that you've said you don't disagree with the sentence, I'm having difficulty understanding what your strong feelings about it are based on. If you think it's useless, that's fine; having it there is doing no harm, in your view, if I've understood you correctly, so why not keep it, given that others want it? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I know that, and that's what policy is for. If the template fails to be noticed, and somebody points an editor to it, this isn't evidence that the template is helping. Pointing the wayward editors to WP:POLICY is just as effective for correction (more effective, I think). I feel strongly about it for the same reason I feel strongly about cleaning up policy. If we left every little harmless thing in we'd have... well, something similar to the condition of most of our policies. Another reason, though, is that it opens the door to the addition of other little clauses to policies that people want linked. Do you like IAR? let's link it. How about Consensus? Maybe some essay you wrote that encourages editors to be careful when editing policy? If there's no demonstrated need (and there isn't), it doesn't need to be there.    M   05:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, it's easier to point out a tag appearing on the very page that the user is editing than it is to convince him/her to read another page. And as you have noted, the tag links to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, so anyone referred to the tag will find that page if they so choose. (And of course, there's no reason why we can't direct said individual to both the tag and that page.)
Regarding your "slippery slope" argument, there is neither evidence of such a phenomenon at this template (we've experienced no difficulty discussing the individual elements and evaluating them on their respective merits) nor consensus that the sentence has no demonstrated need. —David Levy 06:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Look at Kim's very legitimate comment, stating that for "balance", we should add a mention of IAR. How's that going to work out for you when you're pointing people to a template that says "be careful, but ignore this rule if you really want"?    M   06:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As I assume you're aware, that's a bad misunderstanding of WP:IAR. Granted, it's one that often occurs, so there certainly would be a significant downside to linking to that policy from this template. That's why we discuss proposed links individually and evaluate their respective merit. You seem to think that the inclusion of one inevitably results in the inclusion of others, and I see no evidence of that. —David Levy 07:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you enlighten us as to how IAR should be interpreted? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:WIARM —David Levy 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I helped write that! :-) Doesn't that say something about ignoring the rules whenever you want? Just not to make a mess of things?
Is there any part of WIARM you particularly disagree with?--Kim Bruning (talk)
You and I have made our respective feelings regarding the policy abundantly clear on many occasions over the years. Please consult its talk page's archives if you're so inclined. —David Levy 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
M: It has not been claimed that no inappropriate edits occur, and it's rather silly to cite such instances as evidence that the sentence does "nothing" to prevent them. (Drivers sometimes ignore stop signs, so does this mean that stop signs do nothing to prevent car accidents?)
It's been noted that it often is necessary to point out the tag to users after the fact (when advising them not to reinstate their non-consensus changes), which is easier than trying to convince them to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
And again, while I disagree with your contention that the sentence discourages appropriate edits, the wording can be tweaked to address this concern. —David Levy 06:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't just link them, point out the specific part of WP:POLICY that says this. Your claim is that this is useful for preventing edits. My response, which is that you may as well tell me that it keeps elephants away too (you don't see any, do you?), is not quite analogous to the stop signs thing, since we have evidence that they are followed (just go stand beside one, to verify this).    M   06:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
And editors who work on policies have similarly seen the template be effective. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. —David Levy 07:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I was responding to your citation of inappropriate edits as evidence that the sentence does "nothing to stop" them. This is quite different from your "elephant" analogy, which SlimVirgin has properly addressed above. —David Levy 07:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
How have they seen it be effective in preventing edits? Please note that 'pointing them to the template to settle disputes' is moving the goalposts, and it seems that policy would do an equally good job. Saying that 'it seems to them[who?] to work' is like the farmer saying 'my scarecrow sure does seem to keep elephants away'.    M   08:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
M, it is a simple fact that the policies, in order to be policies that people can rely on, must remain relatively stable. Editors can't just arrive and make whatever changes they fancy. Therefore, it is only sensible to inform newbies about this succinctly on the page (newbies in terms of Wikipedia generally, or in terms of policy editing). That is why it is on a template. We don't want to have to refer them to another page to hunt down that one sentence. Please take that point. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It's only sensible if it works to reduce such edits. You claim that this ability to link increases stability, but then you go on to say that it's a matter of convenience (which I contest, since a link to an official policy seems much more effective). They shouldn't have to hunt down, it's your obligation to explain policy to new editors, rather than throwing them a link or a template.    M   10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, it's common to see comments from inexperienced editors along the lines of "The tag says that consensus is required, so here's what I propose..." and "The tag says that consensus is required, so I reverted these major changes that were made without it...". I don't recall encountering such statements about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (which inexperienced editors are far less likely to have read). —David Levy 09:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This might be some great evidence against this point! Do you have several such cases available? I tried doing a "says+that+consensus"+intitle:Wikipedia+talk google search for that sort of wording, but couldn't find any actual cases of what you say (though I did find one that pointed to the notice).    M   10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I plainly stated that I've seen comments "along the lines" of those (which are summaries, not direct quotations). I have neither the time nor inclination to track down examples, so feel free to disregard my claim if you don't believe me. —David Levy 10:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you recall what the wording could be like? This would be a lot easier if I could see reasonable number of such comments, since this would make me agree with you on this issue.    M   19:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Quoted bits of the wording as it existed at the time, perhaps? —David Levy 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact is that in practice we don't allow editors to change policies in a material way without a consensus. Encouraging new editors to BEBOLD or IAR with respect to policy pages only gets them reverted and breeds resentment. Informing people that a consensus is required seems completely appropriate and unobjectionable to me. Some editors will, of course ignore the warning, but I believe it cuts down on time-wasting disputes, and makes those that occur easier to resolve.--agr (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked, BRD still works just fine with policy pages. What makes you think that that has changed? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (Incidentally, IAR and BOLD work best in conjunction with consensus. They aren't some of our oldest policies for nothing!)
My experience is quite different. I find that the editors who guard policy pages are far more likely to be dismissive of a bold unilateral change than one which is first presented, along with evidence of need, on the talk page. Have you seen recent success with BRD on policy pages, particularly on the part of new editors?--agr (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not a policy discussion. Whether or not changes to policy are allowed as per BRD belong on WP:POLICY (in fact, we're carefully discussing the definition and meaning of policies and guidelines right now, likely in preparation for a wider RfC). The question is only whether it helps to deter people from actually making such changes, and we've seen no real evidence of this.    M   19:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • To LK: What does this have anything to do with edit warring on policy? Stop pointing people with legitimate concerns to WP:SHORTCUTS and pink boxes, and actually help explain policy to them. It's way more effective.    M   19:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Box should be reworded "Policy should reflect consensus."

Some people seem to think that the progression is first, discuss desired change to policy; second, obtain consensus, third, change policy, fourth, change practice. That's not Wikipedia, it's Nomic. Why the big emphasis on "policy must be stable?" Policy should change when practice changes. Descriptive, not prescriptive, and all that. Mike R (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. It's actually not true that changes made should reflect consensus. From WP:POLICY:
  • (newer wording) Editors should take care not to avoid making substantive changes, but are encouraged to boldly make policies clearer. Talk page discussion typically, but not necessarily, precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change.
  • (September 2008) Updates to a policy or guideline page are typically discussed on the associated talk page, but it is acceptable to edit them directly.
The people !voting are basically ignoring the discussion under the poll, and taking this to be a matter of simple convenience. Personally, I want it gone just because I don't want to see this template turn into a battleground, with a bunch of people waving their WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMON SENSE and WP:IAR around like banners.    M   00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It's 100% true that changes made to a policy page should reflect consensus. "Consensus" ≠ "discussion demonstrating consensus"!
If someone notices that a policy page is inaccurate/outdated, editing it to reflect the community's current practices = making changes that reflect consensus (even if no specific discussion about modifying the page has occurred). And if the editor is mistaken or there is disagreement, someone will revert, and then discussion can take place. —David Levy 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If you think you need to explain that to me, then don't you think that the statement should be explained to editors who see that notice? That's a perfectly valid interpretation. But if you'd like to say "Changes made should reflect what the community at large considers best", I'm going to have to say that this contradicts policy, and I'd like to discuss this with you at the appropriate talk page. One of the big reasons for that method of policy change is that no single editor can ever know what global 'consensus'(ie, attitudes towards a policy) is, and if that was the requirement for policy change, we'd get nowhere. But again, this is not a discussion for here.    M   04:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
1. I was surprised to find myself explaining that to you. I don't recall ever having to explain that before. I've encountered many misconceptions about what "consensus" means (most often that it's synonymous with "unanimity"), but I'm not aware of a widespread belief that it refers to "discussion demonstrating consensus").
Note that we link to Wikipedia:Consensus. And before you again point out that we also link to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I'll explain the distinction.
We want editors to be familiar with both of those policies (and others), of course, but we can't realistically expect everyone to read them before editing (which certainly isn't a requirement). So if the choice is between having some editors believe that policies can be arbitrarily changed by editing policy pages or having some editors believe that they shouldn't edit a policy page without unanimity, the latter is vastly preferable; either misconception can be alleviated by reading a policy page linked from the template, but the former is far more disruptive (particularly given that someone lacking a basic understanding of what "consensus" means probably shouldn't be substantially editing a policy page yet).
2. What is "a perfectly valid interpretation"?
3. Are you saying that policy pages should be edited in a manner not reflecting consensus? —David Levy 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
"Significant changes should reflect consensus" ??? There will always be a problem about what is "significant" but at least this makes it clear that it is possible to edit directly when appropriate. I agree with SV (and almost everyone else) that some version of this is necessary to assist some slight degree of stability. I certainly think that policy reflecting practice is one acceptable general approach, but still the formal statements of pollcy should not be changed without agreement, or the muddle will get even worse DGG (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
(replying to both) No, I'm saying that policies may be edited in a manner not reflecting consensus (because, among many other reasons, saying "you should watch out for the consensus, it's gonna get ya" on any page is against WP:BOLD and generally a Bad Thing). Policy clearly states, and has stated for a long while now, that we prefer editors to be bold precisely in the editing of policies. If you'd like to state "Changes to this page do not immediately change policy", this might be ok, but that's not what the proposed wording is. And as usual, if you're going to argue that its removal makes pages unstable, provide evidence.    M   06:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
1. When you say that "policies may be edited in a manner not reflecting consensus," do you mean that "policies might be edited in a manner not reflecting consensus," "users are welcome to edit policies in a manner not reflecting consensus," or neither of these?
2. I unreservedly agree that "you should watch out for the consensus, it's gonna get ya" would be a poor choice of wording for the template.
3. I dispute the premise that the wording "changes made to [a policy page] should reflect consensus" discourages or prohibits boldness. You seem to believe that it's tantamount to saying "you must not edit this page until you are certain that everything you type is in full compliance with predetermined talk page decisions," and this simply isn't true. The statement, literally interpreted, is simply that the changes should reflect consensus (in other words, that the a user editing the page should attempt to do so in a manner consistent with the community's actual standards and practices). If a user notices that a policy page's wording doesn't accurately and thoroughly describe reality, it's appropriate for him/her to boldly edit it in a good-faith attempt to fix that (with no advance discussion required). It is not, however, okay for an editor to unilaterally decide that things should be done differently than they are and modify a policy page to prescribe this. It also is not okay for an editor to seek leverage in a dispute about a particular consensus (what it is or how it applies) by changing longstanding wording in a manner known to be controversial (for the sake of being able to point to the policy page as evidence that his/her position is correct).
As has been noted several times, the wording can be tweaked for greater clarity. The above discussion is about whether to retain a sentence along these lines, not about whether to retain that specific wording (which you came up with, incidentally). —David Levy 08:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
1. I mean exactly what I say. Might is descriptive; welcome to is encouraging; may is permissive. 2. :) 3. How does an editor go about making sure that their edits to a policy is " consistent with the community's actual standards and practices"?    M   10:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
1. In the respect that editors in good standing are permitted to edit pages in good faith (which is no guarantee that a change is beneficial), yes, policy pages may be edited in a manner not reflecting consensus. But edits to policy pages should reflect consensus, and users are not permitted to knowingly make changes that defy consensus.
2. (:
3. I'm not asserting that an editor is obliged to "[make] sure" that every edit is consistent with the community's actual standards and practices. I'm saying that editors are welcome to perform edits that they believe to be consistent with the community's actual standards and practices (short of edit-warring to force through a contested change). —David Levy 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Being welcome to is different than should. Are you proposing that the wording be "You should not knowingly make edits that defy consensus"?    M   11:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that seems like a needlessly negative slant.
Off the top of my edit, a possible wording is "Users editing or otherwise maintaining this page should attempt to do so in a manner consistent with consensus." —David Levy 11:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can sincerely put my trust in David Levy and M to figure this one out. As long as they both stay patient with each other, they should be able to figure out a good compromise. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here, I'm going to tune out, but if another vote is needed, please let me know, someone. DGG's idea was interesting (adding "significant"), but what's lost in the discussion I think is how policy is stable in most cases from month to month, and the changes usually make sense. I'm not anxious to fiddle with things that have worked. - Dank (push to talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
vote? <gives you That Look> --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New template

I've created a new version of the template, namely {{official policy}}, to be placed on those policies to which the "editors should normally follow" wording just doesn't apply. This would mean we could revert the change to this template that makes the text dependent on PAGENAME. Any proposals as to which policies should take the "official policy" wording? So far I've identified WP:Reusing Wikipedia content and (though they redirect to Wikimedia policies) WP:Terms of use and WP:Privacy policy). (How about WP:Copyrights?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so some policies are "official" and some are "unofficial"? This doesn't make any sense. Powers T 13:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't mind what you call them, but there are a few policies of which it makes no sense to say that they are a "standard that editors should [WP:IAR|normally] follow". I think official is a pretty good word for them, until someone suggests something better.--Kotniski (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
All of our policies are official, so you're drawing a nonexistent distinction (at least in that respect) and conveying the potentially harmful idea that most of our policies are unofficial (and therefore unimportant).
Setting aside the terminology, what distinction are you attempting to convey? Do you wish to separate policies in which you see wiggle room from those that you perceive as 100% inviolable? Are you separating Foundation-level policy from Wikipedia policy? Or is it something else? —David Levy 14:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Foundation vs. Wikipedia, basically, though I'm not sure what the status of WP:Reusing Wikipedia content is, except that it makes no sense to use the standard wording that it's a "standard editors should normally follow" on it. (It's not addressed to editors at all.) I don't know what you mean by "all our policies are official" - again, this isn't a use of the word "official" that I recognize (they're just pages whose past edits have included placing a tag on them saying that they're policy - no official process is involved). --Kotniski (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
1. In that case, a suitable name would be {{Wikimedia Foundation policy}} or something similar.
2. Your belief that our policies are "just pages whose past edits have included placing a tag on them saying that they're policy" is simply incorrect. Please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Life cycle. —David Levy 15:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy with that name if you want to change it. As to the second point - there's little point in referring to a page which is one of these pages to try and prove a point about these pages; it's a bit like saying the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it's the word of God. In any case, the point is that there's a difference between a page written by Foundation lawyers (I suppose) and a page written by random editors. They're not even close to being of the same type - I don't know really why we use the same name "policy" for both of them, except that this word seems to have taken on some kind of magical meaning in Wikipedia circles.--Kotniski (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
1. Let's wait for additional input before proceeding.
2. I'm not citing the text because it appears on a page tagged "policy" (as though that magically makes it true); I'm directing you to information that I know (via first-hand experience) to be accurate. I could have copied and pasted it here (placing it on the same page as your assertion that our policies are "just pages whose past edits have included placing a tag on them saying that they're policy"), but it was more practical to provide a link.
Are you claiming that the aforementioned information is false? —David Levy 16:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well... it says "policies always require wide community support", which is more an aspiration than a true statement. There certainly isn't any "official" way of deciding whether something has wide enough support for it to be written in a policy (it quite often comes down to who wins the edit war - or at least, to what compromise can be achieved between the two or three editors who are interested enough).--Kotniski (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
1. Criticising (and adjusting) the specific wording is fine. I'm addressing the disparity between the claim that Wikipedia's policies are labeled as such via a process (or processes) and the claim that "they're just pages whose past edits have included placing a tag on them saying that they're policy."
2. Actually, there is an official way: Wikipedia:Consensus. Of course, you can now reiterate your belief that our policies (including that one) aren't official.
3. Please cite the pages tagged as "policy" as a result of someone winning an edit war or as a result of agreement between/among a small number of editors. I wish to join you in challenging (or at least questioning) the validity of these outcomes. —David Levy 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say it applied to the page's being tagged as policy (though as far as I can tell most policies were so tagged a long time ago, according to quite different standards than we now have). But changes to a page that's already tagged have just the same effect as tagging of a new page - they introduce alleged "documentation" of standards that are claimed to have wide community support without any test being made of whether they do have such support; nor is there regular testing of existing wording to see if it still has such support. And there's nothing "official" about consensus - it's just a fuzzy idea that everyone interprets how they want to. Calling the average WP policy "official" makes as much sense as calling a WP article "official" - do it if you want, but it won't mean anything.--Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The policy WP:Policy and guidelines goes into all that. The basis is consensus. It gives instructions that one should follow before marking a policy as such and others for changing it or deleting it. If one messes around marking things as policy without doing that one will be asked nicely not to if the administrators are feeling in a good mood. Then you're liable to be blocked. What more are you asking for? Dmcq (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not complaining about anything, I know well what the procedure is in theory and in practice, I was just trying to demonstrate that there's nothing "official" in our policy pages, the way there is something official in the policies that are formally approved by the Foundation Board. The two are different beasts - calling them by the same name leads to muddled thought, as we can see in this thread. (Our policies and guidelines, on the other hand, are the same beast, but people look at the different labels and imagine there must be a real difference.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Office actions already has a special bit of text at the top. WP:Copyrights has the standard template but a big spiel in and is protected. I get the feeling the few ones that this would cover are all different in special ways, anyways lets see how it gets on. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it may be that we don't need a second template, we just write customized text at the top of the few pages in question. The important thing is that we don't just slap the standard policy template on all of them, when the text contained in that template doesn't apply to them.--Kotniski (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like pointless quibbling over semantics to me. The current template adequately describes what Wikipedia policies are; that there are some exceptions is no reason to try to create some sort of additional level in the hierarchy whereby some policys are more policy-rific than others. Powers T 18:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While I currently tend to agree with LtPowers, creating "yet another" class of pages is something that should be formally proposed to the community, with appropriate announcements in the usual places. A note at this under-watched template that "I've created a new version of the template" simply isn't sufficient for such a fundamental change.
If anyone is interested in pursuing this further, then I suggest that Kotniski write a brief description of the distinction between a "policy" and a "foundation policy" (or whatever title is wanted), make a short list of pages that would likely to categorized as one or the other, and post it as an RfC to WT:POLICY for discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
WT:POLICY would work for me too. - Dank (push to talk) 01:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as the "should normally follow" caveat, I think it's there mainly because any policy page is susceptible to instruction creep. Even if a page is "fully" protected, an admin can still make a questionable change. So I don't think we should use a different template on a policy page just because its principle is iron-clad. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that people are understanding this - all I want is that we don't put a template on pages to which the text of that template doesn't apply. To describe WP:REUSE as a "standard editors should normally follow" makes no sense, because it isn't a standard for editors to follow at all, it's a standard we expect the outside world to follow (and not normally either, but all the time). I don't mind it being in the policy category or being called a policy along with all the other pages we call policies (although it would make for clearer thought if we called it something different, since it clearly is something different), nor do I mind if there is no template on that page, but placing a standard policy template on it (with the current text) is just wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The should normally is to tell people to use their common sense if what the policy is telling them is simply wrong for the encyclopaedia in their particular case. Of course other people might come down on them if they've made a wrong call but that's life. It isn't especially to cope with instruction creep. Dmcq (talk)
Interesting. That WP:REUSE is a policy which the nutshell on WP:Policies and guidelines doesn't apply to. The leader seems okay though thankfully. Yes a list of specials would be good. Dmcq (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not easy. I've given it a start at WT:POLICY#New classification. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Policy/Archive_2&oldid=1016234670"