The "snowball clause" stems from the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the desire that editors exercise common sense. The snowball clause states:
- If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.
The snowball clause is not policy, but it is designed to prevent editors from using Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster.
For example, deletion policy states, "If a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period". Conversely, the policy also states that "any substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early. Similarly, if an article is deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it. In the case of speedy deletions, it may be observed that a single AfD may reduce confusion instead of a unilateral decision not to obtain the traditional sample of community input on the issue.
What the snowball clause is not
An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome that requires the full process. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness. However, process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy.
The snowball test
This test can be applied to an action only after it's performed, and is thus useful for learning from experience.
- If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.
- If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause. However, if the objection raised is unreasonable or contrary to policy, then the debate needs to be refocused, and editors may be advised to avoid disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
See also
The "snowball clause" stems from the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the desire that editors exercise common sense. The snowball clause states:
- If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.
The snowball clause is not policy, but it is designed to prevent editors from using Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster.
For example, deletion policy states, "If a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period". Conversely, the policy also states that "any substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early. Similarly, if an article is deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it. In the case of speedy deletions, it may be observed that a single AfD may reduce confusion instead of a unilateral decision not to obtain the traditional sample of community input on the issue.
What the snowball clause is not
An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome that requires the full process. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness. However, process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy.
The snowball test
This test can be applied to an action only after it's performed, and is thus useful for learning from experience.
- If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.
- If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause. However, if the objection raised is unreasonable or contrary to policy, then the debate needs to be refocused, and editors may be advised to avoid disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.