This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Simplified ruleset page. |
|
Wikipedia Help NA‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
I'm thinking of maybe having a small set of rules that if followed will result in an editor having a pleasant experience at wikipedia. It might be nice to display this message to new users somehow, either just before editing, or at least when they make a login. This might solve the large number of misunderstandings that seem to be creeping in with new generations of editors. I've picked the things that cause most of the disharmonious situations on wikipedia to write these behaviour rules about. Note that as written now, SWB leaves a little breathing space between reccomended behaviour and the point where people actually transgress the rules. The Safe Wikipedia Behaviour guidelines themselves are intended to be graceful. :-) Kim Bruning 10:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
section 1.1.2 Robustness Principle: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send"
In fact... let's apply the KISS principle. Perhaps we could make do with just Safe Wikipedia Behaviour (after editing, after editing , I'm an eventualist :-P ) + Foundation issues alone as our entire simplified ruleset. If we do so, some small things might slip through the cracks though. Here's my checklist:
The foundation issues leave a big hole. We're supposed to rely on the wiki process, but nowhere is it explained what a wiki process is. That might be where this safe editing page fits in. -- iMb~ Meow 11:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the meantime, I'll Be Bold (1) ignore the fact that these are rules (2), and change the lot. I'm leaving a note here (3), but the edit summary was getting all complex, which distressed me, so I skipped making a decent summary (applied (2) to ignore (4)) and used (3) (leaving this message) since I'm supposed to do something sane after all.
Heh, this is working! :-)
(8) -> Kim Bruning 11:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that it would be easier for the novice (for whom this is intended) if the Foundation issues were included here explicitly. And I would lead with them because they are fundamental. -- Theo (Talk) 19:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the event, the changes needed to realise my vision were less dramatic than I thought so I have been bold and applied them directly. Feel free to revert if they subvert your vision too greatly. [Isn't the wiki process great?] -- Theo (Talk) 14:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jolly good show!
Kim Bruning 14:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Kim Bruning 15:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All your changes enhance my revision with one exception. I was seeking a synonym for "godsend" because I know that some people find this word uncomfortable in a secular context. I do not share these views but I would still wish those who hold them to feel welcome here. -- Theo (Talk) 15:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Kim invited me over here, so I'll add my 2 cents. To me, this page seems to overlap a lot with Wikipedia:Wikiquette (which could need a rewrite). I wonder if it may be better to just merge the two pages (newbies already have way too many pages to read in wikipedia).
My other point is more fundamental. "Foundation Issues: There are only 5 actual rules on Wikipedia, the foundation issues. These are the law." This is simply not true. The page itself states it more clearly: "Wikipedia as a community has certain foundation issues that are essentially beyond debate. People who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project."
The foundation issues page is a factual description of the status quo, and it says correctly "if you don't like it, you will probably leave the project". But not all points mentioned there are set in stone. NPOV and free are foundation principles, yes. but: the ability of anyone to edit and the wiki process are a mean (to create a free, neutral encyclopedia), not an end in themselves. The goal is the encyclopedia, the way is the wiki. But the wiki process is certainly not "the final authority on article content". It is correctness, backed up with good sources and formulated in good style. We just hope that the wiki process achieves this, and at the moment it does it reasonably well (apart from some revert wars and constant vandalism). If one day it fails, this may change. Now, trying to be constructive: leave out the foundation issues part and phrase more clearly what it is about: "Wikipedia has certain fundamental principles upon which its success is based: NPOV, a free license, the wiki process, the ability of anyone to edit and the ultimate authority of Jimbo and the board on process matters. If you fundamentally disagree with those you won't get happy in Wikipedia." -- Elian 03:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting, thank you for your insights! Please Be Bold and show us what you mean. :-) Worst case we can just revert, right? :-) Kim Bruning 09:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For folks just joining us: The idea (hopefully!) is to compress the whole of the wikipedia policy pages + netiquette and the kitchen sink into the tiniest summary possible. If folks voluntarily choose to follow just these behavioural guidelines, and are a bit reasonable about it, they should (hopefully) be able to squeek by their first 2000 edits & maybe even their RfA without too much trouble.
(feel free to modify this summary and make it more accurate)
First of all, these are not general guidelines. They are not an attempt to adequately summarize the existing rules, or the supplant the current SR. They are probably inaccurate, irrelevant or incomplete for other people, and do not belong in policy. It's just my personal set of rules I (up to now implicitly) use, and they're only here because Kim asked for them. :-) It works for me. Your mileage will vary.
There are really only two guidelines I have, and everything follows from them:
Now, the rules I respect are fairly simple compared to that:
You'll notice that things like NPOV, citing sources, edit summaries, factual accuracy, signing your comments etc. etc. are missing, for the simple reason that these are not codes of conduct but part of the editorial process. That's solvitur ambulando for me—we'll get it right as we go along, "as if by magic". I respect all of it, of course, but it's not something I need to consciously remind myself of when the going gets tough—it's all "given", and I don't ever expect to have to justify it.
"Ignore all rules" isn't part of my conduct rules either; it's a corollary of "be bold". "Ignore all rules" is a useful escape for when even "be bold, but not reckless" is depressing you, and there is something poetic about it being the ultimate rule we have, but it's not one I find myself needing in practice—and that's a good thing, too. JRM · Talk 12:46, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
Today on IRC, I proposed the following:
"In terms of editorial policy, our fundamenal rule should be WP:NPOV. In terms of social policy, our fundamental rule should be WP:DICK. In terms of personal action on Wikipedia, I follow WP:IAR. I think those three ideas in that order are a resonable trifecta."
and I'll add that out of these follow such other good policies as WP:POINT, WP:BOLD, WP:FAITH, WP:1RR, etc., etc. -- Seth Ilys 16:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now's the time dig up cases for each of the rules where breaking them got someone on WP:AN/I, WP:RFC, WP:RFAr, or lost people votes at WP:RFA.
We can then weigh which behaviours are really THAT bad, and those that could basically be left out to get a smaller set :-)
Kim Bruning 16:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Sadly, breaking BE BOLD never seems to have got anyone into trouble. Sigh ... -- Theo (Talk) 23:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Given that the principle guiding the sequence of clauses is intratextual, and implies no hierarchy of importance, should we not use bullets rather than numbers? Especially since no-one is ever likely to refer to individual rules by number. -- Theo (Talk) 09:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Any simplified rule set ought to mention Wikipedia:No_original_research I would have thought. : ChrisG 22:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Since this page isn't really a policy, but a summary of other policies, I've removed the "proposed" tag and added it to the category of pages intended for first-time users. I hope this is satisfactory. -- Beland 01:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In looking over the list here, a useful amalgum of the most impactful rules, it occurs to me that a couple of things might be added to each entry, something like a case list:
The content could consist of links to "cases" of various kinds, typically abritration proceedings or RFC's or Villiage Pump discussions that are particularly illuminating.
This is food for thought rather than a formal proposal for an addition to the page. Regards, Courtland 00:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
"It is against copyright law to copy what someone else has written (unless they have written it on Wikipedia)." is factually incorrect. E.g. It's legal to copy Linux or BSD or Firefox or Hamlet. (Heck, copying Viagra is legal in India!) Editing accordingly.
I removed the following "Sources" section. Aside from the RFCs for internet protocols, which I think hardly qualify as a serious source for this article, each of the other links were already linked to on the page. Why list them again?
(placed here at random for now, please wikify as appropriate!) * The discussion for this page * This page's edit history * m:foundation issues for foundation issues * RFC 1123 and RFC 1855 for be graceful * Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages for be bold * Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for ignore all rules * Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club for when in doubt take it to talk and don't revert good faith edits. * Wikipedia:No personal attacks for no personal attacks * Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Wikiquette generally
Starwiz 02:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
RFC 1855 is netiquette, RFC 1123 is a historic source it draws on for inspiration. (one is human process, the other network process). Also, while redundant, it's important to list sources used for an article, hmm... Kim Bruning 12:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I was going through Wikipedia policy, I stumbleed upon this Foundation issues. Upon clicking link, I was taken to meta page for Foundation issues. I could understand all five issues except "3. The "wiki process" as the final authority on content". Big question for me was "What is wiki process?". I typed "wiki process" as a search term and then was redirected to the article about wiki. On this basis, I made guess that "wiki process" refer to editing by wiki based software. However, while I was investigating further on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I came across definition of process which say, "A process is a central and organized way of doing things, generally following certain policies or guidelines (e.g. the "deletion policy" tells us how the "deletion process" works)". So does the process in "wiki process" refer to the former case or the later case? Later definition of process makes more sense to me. And if this is the case, "wiki process" article should not be redirected to wiki article. It should be something like "wiki process is a central and organized way of doing things, according to wikipedia policies or guidelines." Since this is somewhat "policy" issue, I did not want to make edit. Plus, I really didn't know where to take this question so I came here. This place appear to be the only place where "Foundation issues" is mentioned. This is rather important because I'm currently perticipating in a debate about direction of policy and guideline in japanese wikipedia. You help is greatly appreciated. FWBOarticle
Oh gosh, this is getting long. :-/ Maybe we can trim down a bit again? Kim Bruning 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Could that section please be rephrased? I have seen it taken out of context before to support harmful decisions made to Wikipedia.-- Conrad Devonshire Talk 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh, the result is here. The idea was to split off even simpler versions of the simplified ruleset, not the other way around ;-) Kim Bruning 03:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
... sorry but... what about WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. These are policies that need to be respected. Without these, WP is not worth the pixels and bytes it uses ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
A remainder of Wikipedia content policies:
The problem of course being the history of all of these, as well as their intent.
Note that the policy/guideline/essay distinction is fairly nonsensical. Basically, take any page marked as policy with a bucket of salt (unless it also exists on meta). Pages marked as guidelines are usually central to wiki-operation (such as
wikipedia:consensus). Don't break any rule on an essay page (see above for examples). Finally, untagged pages typically expound the laws of wikiphysics. :)
This is also historical.
Originally, project namespace pages were either descriptive (no tag) or a guideline (still no tag, but you could tell the difference, because a guideline told you to *do* stuff).
Later on, new people came along and wanted to make policies. Newer wikipedians also seem to enjoy graffiti-ing tags all over the place. Hence tags, and tag inflation.
None of this has anything to do with any real wikipedia process or procedures. It's just a game of nomic being played in the project namespace.
For day to day work, don't get depressed though. Just Ignore All Rules, and go about your business.
Kim Bruning 07:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Below, i've placed two sample templates that could be included on any/all of the relevant pages. Feedback appreciated.
My main aim, is an attempt to clear up the mess of "see also" links at the bottom of each of these pages. -
Quiddity
20:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's principles | ||||
Five pillars | Simplified Ruleset | List of policies | Wikipedia is an encyclopedia | Statement of principles |
Overview of our foundation | Synopsis of our customs | Full list of official policies | Short and to-the-point | Historic beginnings |
Principles of Wikipedia |
---|
Formal |
Informal |
2a: See box on right.
2b: See box on left.
Wikipedia Principles |
---|
Five Pillars |
Good idea. I like it. This is something we want to be very clear and easy to navigate. I've created an simpler alternative, also. - PatrickFisher 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you think this could be matched with Template:Policylist? — Centrx→ talk • 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The way this page is written now, you won't be able to make it to admin anymore ... <scratches head>
That's going to be tricky.
Kim Bruning 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Originally this page listed the least number of rules needed for a person to make it to admin. it's actually a sort of project. Maybe we could clear the page and start over. (you'll see older versions doing just that).
One thing you have to watch out for is rules that affect big contentuous pages being used on all parts of the wiki, which would make it utterly unusable. Kim Bruning 20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: 'Nuff said. Jon Awbrey 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Yes, I can see that some kinda self-apponted posse is up late on some kinda "Destroy All Rules" (DAR-lex) tear, and any other time I'd be on that bandwagon, but not when you're trying to e-rode outa town on a raillerie the only rules that make WP still (just barely) worth caring about. Jon Awbrey 11:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Ha! I assume good faith, until e-ducated otherwise. I do not assume that anybody has a clue, until e-ducated otherwise. Jon Awbrey 12:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I'm afraid there's less and less whate'er here all the time. But tanks for all the fish. ><> ><> ><> Jon Awbrey 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I much prefer the single list style, without the ambiguous "you can ignore these bits" message. -- Quiddity·( talk) 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[KB to JA]:
I'll take a gamble and see what you come up with. Figure out which guidelines can cause failure to pass requests for adminship. Do cite WP:RFA and WP:RFAr, do not cite any other arbitrary guidelines, unless they are significantly referenced on those pages. The set that is required will likely be very counter-intuitive to you, but maybe also to me ;-).
When simplifying further, we've found one set of 3 guidelines and one set of 5 guidelines.
So since this page has been superseded, feel free to mess around. I'm hoping you'll find something new. However, be careful not to introduce your own bias (which I suspect you are doing now.) Kim Bruning 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Note the sources section above, which had been removed by someone for some reason. It includes citations not ony from wikipedia, but also from some other internet sources discussing human and/or machine interaction. As it was excised, it's likely not being maintained. Kim Bruning 15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Sorry, but I do not understand any of the things that you are talking about above, much less their relevance to a project of gistifying WP:P's & G's for the actual benefit of the hapless WikiParticipant, oldie or newbie alike. Jon Awbrey 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: This page is titled WP:Simplified Ruleset, not WP:Wannabe Admins 101. I know this may come as a shock, but not every person who is fatefully attracted to WP has such dreams of world domination. So I think it's best to restrain this to a minimal epitome of the "ropes" and a pointer to further reading for reigny days. Jon Awbrey 18:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: My personal requirements are not the point. I assumed — what I think most folks would assume from the title of the page — that it's intended to provide the user, especially the new user, with a simplified summary of the set of rules that govern participation in Wikipedia. Certainly we could all use a handy reference from time to time, but I just thought that it was meant as more of an "on-ramp" to the often bewildering WP expressway. Jon Awbrey 21:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I love it when somebody actually takes one of my metaphors seriously — as I'm sure you can imagine it doesn't happen very often.
JA: I was taking it for granite that the WP:P&G highway was already in place. Yes, I see many potholes, and you might even say a few " dips" in the road, but I gather that the contract for dealing with all that routine maintainance is already in the hands of the community at large. So the subcontract to upgrade the on-ramps has a fairly limited budget (€0 = £0 = $0 = ¥0) and a more narrow scope tham revamping the (w)hole of WP in one swell foop. Are we on the same page and subparagraph so far? Jon Awbrey 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, The trifecta divides rules into editing an encyclopedia, social behaviour, and wiki. And now we already seem to have 2 of the trifecta subdivisions back. Looks like that trifecta was fairly visionary :-)
Maybe refactor the page into the same 3 sections, but slightly expanded from WP:TRI? Hmmmm ...
Kim Bruning 10:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Does it? How? I get no notice of edit conflicts until I hit the "save" button...
Hmm, it's vaguely alluded to at Help:Show preview:
But this is definitely not the primary purpose of the preview button. -- Quiddity·( talk) 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Maybe it's all that time in AI, but I have strong objections to using phrases like "ruleset" as it tends to make some people — geeks and even recovering geeks — think that it's all about Al Gore Rhythms or something. So let me suggest the term that they often use in medical schools, to wit, Precepts. So what we've got here is a veritable précis of precepts, but even I would not go so far as to actually say that in public. Jon Awbrey 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I know how to fix double redirects. I was in the middle of doing it when you reverted. There are Big Rules that prohibit cut and paste moves. Jon Awbrey 02:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I'll give you a couple days to review current procedures. I did that according to the book and the way I've been told to. If the book was unclear, the people who advised me full of it, or I was just plain dumb — I give it an even 3-way split — then you can splain it to me then. Edios for now, Jon Awbrey 02:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I know exactly what happens. This is perfectly routine. All the wikis get turned into redirects and go to the intended target. The only residual problem is fixing the double redirects, which are usually very few in number. Not a problem. Jon Awbrey 02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Here's a friendly suggestion. When you folks quit trying to communicate in DOUBLETHINK BOLD CATCHPHRASES THAT HAVE BECOME TOTALLY DEVOID OF MEANING FROM CONSTANT SEMANTIC ABUSE, then maybe you'll be ready to write a simplified ruleset, or whatever. Jon Awbrey 03:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Here's how I see the present situation:
JA: Jon Awbrey 05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I'll come back tomorrow. Hanlon's razor may have been the wrong link, or maybe somebody over-sharpened it since the last time I used it. There's a complex of 6 or 7 similar aphorisms on that same tray and I may have picked up the wrong one. For my part, I normally go by Maxwell's razor, which says "don't abduct a demon as a hostage to entropy", but that was a redlink the last time I looked. Jon Awbrey 15:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: We must be related. The Awbrey family motto is: "Anything worth doing is worth overdoing." Jon Awbrey 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Two points:
JA: Now you guys have got me all jumpy about the move. Here's the thing. I'm not going to do anything that wrecks the edit history, and that goes double for a central policy page like this, so all that copy-cut-paste business is out for me. I will sometimes copy all or most of a whole article to a personal sandbox as a backup against running vandalism, especially when it threatens to be complex, socially appeased, or long-term. So maybe we could do that as a safeguard against accidental disasters, but continue to work on the live copy. I looked at WP:DISCUSS more carefully, by the way, and it specifically excludes this case, as we're not talking about changing the graphic layout in any big way — at least I hadn't planned to mess with that. It's a simple matter of commitment — for my part that means working on the live copy — there's a threshold that you either cross, or else, by definition, you are staying home. Jon Awbrey 12:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: And I don't trust a tactic that says "It was necessary to destroy the <fill in the blank> in order to save it" — been there, done that — tanks, but no tanks. Jon Awbrey 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: If it's just the mechanics of the move that worries you, then the safest way is to put in a WP:RM posting and let somebody else do it. But I get the sense that it's really something else, something that strikes me as a lack of requisite boldness, just to get all ironical about it. Jon Awbrey 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I just watched an old Doctor Who episode called The Ark in Space, about some astro-refugees who fled Earth's devastation by massive solar flares, and who have all just woken up from cryogenic suspension. Somehow it all seems eerily familiar to the discussion that I'm having here. I would tell you to chill out, but it seems redundant. I hope you don't mind my asking, how long has it been since you actually worked on any articles? In its current state this project is largely redundant — and I mean that in a proper English way — the only question is whether the stub can be recycled into something of use to users. Jon Awbrey 01:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm Canadian, what's your excuse? ;-) -- Quiddity·( talk) 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I spend 2 or 3 weeks a year in Ont(ari)*o — maybe it's catching. Oops! there I go violating WP:NAD. Jon Awbrey 03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: What are you talking about? This page is 1.3 years old:
JA: Maybe we should have a policy called WP:FOP for Wikipedia:Forbid Original Policies? Sorry, WP:NOP and WP:POP were already taken. Jon Awbrey 16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about:
Whilst I can understand that reverting should be avoided if possible, and that edit wars should be avoided, surely there are some reasons where reverting is a reasonable first step, if you give an explanation in the comment? E.g.:
Furthermore, this rule reads to me rather like Zero-revert rule: ""Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page." yet that clearly states it is an optional policy, not an official guideline. Also see Wikipedia_talk:Revert_only_when_necessary#What.27s_so_bad_about_a_revert.3F where many reasons are given against this strategy (in particular, the example of adding "George Bush live in big house and make laws. We study him in school." which may well be a good faith edit, but clearly there's nothing we can do apart from revert it, and it seems odd to suggest this needs to be discussed in Talk first.
I've seen vast numbers of cases where people revert good faith edits with an explanation in comment rather than Talk, but I've had someone question one of my reversions, pointing to [1] and the policy that we should always improve rather than revert, but the original edit was a change (not new material) where I don't see improvement was possible.
So what is this rule actually saying? Can good faith edits never be reverted (or when should they be)? Does a reversion always need the explanation in Talk, even when the comment box is sufficient to explain the objection? Mdwh 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: It's my take on it that this wiki precept, read in its original context, says exactly what it says. Did it say "good faith edits can never be reverted"? No, it did not say that. It is a very important piece of common sense. TIFWIW. Jon Awbrey 19:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Kim Bruning 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Just in case: Note that I'm not saying that Jossi is an Evil reptilian kitten-eater of course, I just happen to respectfully disagree with those particular edits :-)
JA: Re: "I'm not trying to be pedantic" — Please don't, that's my job! The rule is a good one, but often ignored. I know cases where some editors will automatically revert constructive edits made by somebody they've taken a non-shine to, and then you sit there and watch more or less the same improvements being made by someone else, with not a peep. People should not do that, even if they are Admins, but they do. Go figure. Jon Awbrey 03:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
in intro, end of 2nd para "quide us in our constant efort" -> "guide us in our constant effort"? David Woodward 02:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kim! While I don't particularly care about this page either way, I should point out that the non-negotiable principles mentioned are NPOV, the GNU license and civility. And probably IAR, if you want a little paradox for breakfast. >Radiant< 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a copy of these rules on one of my subpages, which I often read through to remind me of how to proceed (many thanks to those who put them together), but repeated reading of them has led me to the conclusion that "graceful" here is not the right word. In theory, it should be, because its root is "grace", and the point is that we should behave on Wikipedia with good grace; we will also have seen the word "gracefully" used with this meaning, as in "to grow old gracefully"; but for some reason "graceful" resists quite that meaning and, in my opinion, reserves itself for physical actions (and occasionally for a style of living which now has implications of wealth). I'm not feeling bold enough to make a change to the text simply on my own instincts, but I feel sure that the mot juste called for is "gracious". What do others think? qp10qp 11:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit of "consider..." based on Dictionary.com, which grants blanket permission for such links on this page. -- Unimaginative Username 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it a guideline? Policy? Help page? Essay? Hard to tell. It is missing the familiar and comfortable Wikipedia page header that identifies where this fits. — Doug Bell talk 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikirules_proposal <- from whence this came.
timeline:
OK, I decided to be bold and make a modification to a portion of the Ignore All Rules section. I re-phrased the final portion of it to read The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both. This guidence comes from the Ignore All Rules page and is, I think, a better way to summarize the phrase. Thoughts? Majoreditor ( talk) 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
We are isntructed to follow this "ruleset", but what is a ruleset? I do not find this word in any dictionnary (English or Translation).
If it is simply a rule set, why not call it this way?
I encounter this term in programming, but have no idea what it really means and how to translate it in another language.
The rules and regulations for Wikipedia are important. Why use a word that (apparently) does not exist, in its title? Or if it exists, could someone please define it? Suzel25 ( talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The section says there are five....but there are only three numbered. - ?? Skookum1 ( talk) 08:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The "preview button" thing seems to stand out compared to everything else on the page. I think there's something to be said for iterating quickly (especially in fast-paced contexts like much of Wikipedia), as well as rereading or rechecking even right after saving, and it's not difficult to get a diff that combines a string of saves. Does it really ruffle editors' feathers enough to be in this simplified ruleset? — AySz88 \ ^-^ 04:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
[3] [4] [5]. This makes it tedious to collaborate on those articles. Eric talk 13:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'ld like to add the sentence, "However, if your bold edits have been reverted, don't boldly reintroduce them. Discuss and find consensus for your edits." to the section about being bold. That is following the sentences,
Be bold in updating pages! Go ahead, it's a wiki! No mistake can break Wikipedia, because any edit can be undone. Encourage others, including those who disagree with you, to likewise be bold!
I think it's important to note the proper limits of boldness. LK ( talk) 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The page has been substantially reorganized, copy-edited, and cleaned up. I think is a decent start for a new editor although it still could be a bit intimidating for a new editor. Two questions:
1. Is there a way to structure the header differently? Something about three italicized redirects and a rectangular info box just doesn't say simple.
2. There's a nice template for Key Policies and Guidelines I'd like to include at the bottom, in collapsed form. Is it too un-simple?
Ocaasi c 10:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I was working on a similar document for basic editing mechanics and navigation called WP:PLAIN. I think it's useful. I'm curious if it could/should be merged here, to create a single page where new editors could get all of the basics. Ocaasi c 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The second section is headed "Writing high-quality articles". I think it would be better as "Creating and editing articles" because we don't want to give the impression that the guidance in that section doesn't apply to all our articles. People might ignore it thinking "I'm not writing high-quality stuff, so this section isn't relevant". Are there any dissenters before I change it? — SMALL JIM 11:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Anyone know why an empty citation is appearing prior to the beginning of this article's text? I tried to edit it out but I can't find the code behind it. Maybe it is supposed to be there...? Just looks weird. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
This page and WP:PSG talk about the same exact thing in the same exact words. I was thinking about merging these articles together. Any thoughts on this? Interstellarity ( talk) 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
This page has gone from 7,439 bytes (500 revisions ago in 2006) to 14,823 bytes. This is a doubling of the page size. I fear instruction creep will defeat the purpose of this simplified page itself. 174.92.25.207 ( talk) 04:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Simplified ruleset page. |
|
Wikipedia Help NA‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
I'm thinking of maybe having a small set of rules that if followed will result in an editor having a pleasant experience at wikipedia. It might be nice to display this message to new users somehow, either just before editing, or at least when they make a login. This might solve the large number of misunderstandings that seem to be creeping in with new generations of editors. I've picked the things that cause most of the disharmonious situations on wikipedia to write these behaviour rules about. Note that as written now, SWB leaves a little breathing space between reccomended behaviour and the point where people actually transgress the rules. The Safe Wikipedia Behaviour guidelines themselves are intended to be graceful. :-) Kim Bruning 10:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
section 1.1.2 Robustness Principle: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send"
In fact... let's apply the KISS principle. Perhaps we could make do with just Safe Wikipedia Behaviour (after editing, after editing , I'm an eventualist :-P ) + Foundation issues alone as our entire simplified ruleset. If we do so, some small things might slip through the cracks though. Here's my checklist:
The foundation issues leave a big hole. We're supposed to rely on the wiki process, but nowhere is it explained what a wiki process is. That might be where this safe editing page fits in. -- iMb~ Meow 11:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the meantime, I'll Be Bold (1) ignore the fact that these are rules (2), and change the lot. I'm leaving a note here (3), but the edit summary was getting all complex, which distressed me, so I skipped making a decent summary (applied (2) to ignore (4)) and used (3) (leaving this message) since I'm supposed to do something sane after all.
Heh, this is working! :-)
(8) -> Kim Bruning 11:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that it would be easier for the novice (for whom this is intended) if the Foundation issues were included here explicitly. And I would lead with them because they are fundamental. -- Theo (Talk) 19:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the event, the changes needed to realise my vision were less dramatic than I thought so I have been bold and applied them directly. Feel free to revert if they subvert your vision too greatly. [Isn't the wiki process great?] -- Theo (Talk) 14:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jolly good show!
Kim Bruning 14:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Kim Bruning 15:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All your changes enhance my revision with one exception. I was seeking a synonym for "godsend" because I know that some people find this word uncomfortable in a secular context. I do not share these views but I would still wish those who hold them to feel welcome here. -- Theo (Talk) 15:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Kim invited me over here, so I'll add my 2 cents. To me, this page seems to overlap a lot with Wikipedia:Wikiquette (which could need a rewrite). I wonder if it may be better to just merge the two pages (newbies already have way too many pages to read in wikipedia).
My other point is more fundamental. "Foundation Issues: There are only 5 actual rules on Wikipedia, the foundation issues. These are the law." This is simply not true. The page itself states it more clearly: "Wikipedia as a community has certain foundation issues that are essentially beyond debate. People who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project."
The foundation issues page is a factual description of the status quo, and it says correctly "if you don't like it, you will probably leave the project". But not all points mentioned there are set in stone. NPOV and free are foundation principles, yes. but: the ability of anyone to edit and the wiki process are a mean (to create a free, neutral encyclopedia), not an end in themselves. The goal is the encyclopedia, the way is the wiki. But the wiki process is certainly not "the final authority on article content". It is correctness, backed up with good sources and formulated in good style. We just hope that the wiki process achieves this, and at the moment it does it reasonably well (apart from some revert wars and constant vandalism). If one day it fails, this may change. Now, trying to be constructive: leave out the foundation issues part and phrase more clearly what it is about: "Wikipedia has certain fundamental principles upon which its success is based: NPOV, a free license, the wiki process, the ability of anyone to edit and the ultimate authority of Jimbo and the board on process matters. If you fundamentally disagree with those you won't get happy in Wikipedia." -- Elian 03:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting, thank you for your insights! Please Be Bold and show us what you mean. :-) Worst case we can just revert, right? :-) Kim Bruning 09:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For folks just joining us: The idea (hopefully!) is to compress the whole of the wikipedia policy pages + netiquette and the kitchen sink into the tiniest summary possible. If folks voluntarily choose to follow just these behavioural guidelines, and are a bit reasonable about it, they should (hopefully) be able to squeek by their first 2000 edits & maybe even their RfA without too much trouble.
(feel free to modify this summary and make it more accurate)
First of all, these are not general guidelines. They are not an attempt to adequately summarize the existing rules, or the supplant the current SR. They are probably inaccurate, irrelevant or incomplete for other people, and do not belong in policy. It's just my personal set of rules I (up to now implicitly) use, and they're only here because Kim asked for them. :-) It works for me. Your mileage will vary.
There are really only two guidelines I have, and everything follows from them:
Now, the rules I respect are fairly simple compared to that:
You'll notice that things like NPOV, citing sources, edit summaries, factual accuracy, signing your comments etc. etc. are missing, for the simple reason that these are not codes of conduct but part of the editorial process. That's solvitur ambulando for me—we'll get it right as we go along, "as if by magic". I respect all of it, of course, but it's not something I need to consciously remind myself of when the going gets tough—it's all "given", and I don't ever expect to have to justify it.
"Ignore all rules" isn't part of my conduct rules either; it's a corollary of "be bold". "Ignore all rules" is a useful escape for when even "be bold, but not reckless" is depressing you, and there is something poetic about it being the ultimate rule we have, but it's not one I find myself needing in practice—and that's a good thing, too. JRM · Talk 12:46, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
Today on IRC, I proposed the following:
"In terms of editorial policy, our fundamenal rule should be WP:NPOV. In terms of social policy, our fundamental rule should be WP:DICK. In terms of personal action on Wikipedia, I follow WP:IAR. I think those three ideas in that order are a resonable trifecta."
and I'll add that out of these follow such other good policies as WP:POINT, WP:BOLD, WP:FAITH, WP:1RR, etc., etc. -- Seth Ilys 16:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now's the time dig up cases for each of the rules where breaking them got someone on WP:AN/I, WP:RFC, WP:RFAr, or lost people votes at WP:RFA.
We can then weigh which behaviours are really THAT bad, and those that could basically be left out to get a smaller set :-)
Kim Bruning 16:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Sadly, breaking BE BOLD never seems to have got anyone into trouble. Sigh ... -- Theo (Talk) 23:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Given that the principle guiding the sequence of clauses is intratextual, and implies no hierarchy of importance, should we not use bullets rather than numbers? Especially since no-one is ever likely to refer to individual rules by number. -- Theo (Talk) 09:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Any simplified rule set ought to mention Wikipedia:No_original_research I would have thought. : ChrisG 22:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Since this page isn't really a policy, but a summary of other policies, I've removed the "proposed" tag and added it to the category of pages intended for first-time users. I hope this is satisfactory. -- Beland 01:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In looking over the list here, a useful amalgum of the most impactful rules, it occurs to me that a couple of things might be added to each entry, something like a case list:
The content could consist of links to "cases" of various kinds, typically abritration proceedings or RFC's or Villiage Pump discussions that are particularly illuminating.
This is food for thought rather than a formal proposal for an addition to the page. Regards, Courtland 00:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
"It is against copyright law to copy what someone else has written (unless they have written it on Wikipedia)." is factually incorrect. E.g. It's legal to copy Linux or BSD or Firefox or Hamlet. (Heck, copying Viagra is legal in India!) Editing accordingly.
I removed the following "Sources" section. Aside from the RFCs for internet protocols, which I think hardly qualify as a serious source for this article, each of the other links were already linked to on the page. Why list them again?
(placed here at random for now, please wikify as appropriate!) * The discussion for this page * This page's edit history * m:foundation issues for foundation issues * RFC 1123 and RFC 1855 for be graceful * Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages for be bold * Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for ignore all rules * Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club for when in doubt take it to talk and don't revert good faith edits. * Wikipedia:No personal attacks for no personal attacks * Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Wikiquette generally
Starwiz 02:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
RFC 1855 is netiquette, RFC 1123 is a historic source it draws on for inspiration. (one is human process, the other network process). Also, while redundant, it's important to list sources used for an article, hmm... Kim Bruning 12:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I was going through Wikipedia policy, I stumbleed upon this Foundation issues. Upon clicking link, I was taken to meta page for Foundation issues. I could understand all five issues except "3. The "wiki process" as the final authority on content". Big question for me was "What is wiki process?". I typed "wiki process" as a search term and then was redirected to the article about wiki. On this basis, I made guess that "wiki process" refer to editing by wiki based software. However, while I was investigating further on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I came across definition of process which say, "A process is a central and organized way of doing things, generally following certain policies or guidelines (e.g. the "deletion policy" tells us how the "deletion process" works)". So does the process in "wiki process" refer to the former case or the later case? Later definition of process makes more sense to me. And if this is the case, "wiki process" article should not be redirected to wiki article. It should be something like "wiki process is a central and organized way of doing things, according to wikipedia policies or guidelines." Since this is somewhat "policy" issue, I did not want to make edit. Plus, I really didn't know where to take this question so I came here. This place appear to be the only place where "Foundation issues" is mentioned. This is rather important because I'm currently perticipating in a debate about direction of policy and guideline in japanese wikipedia. You help is greatly appreciated. FWBOarticle
Oh gosh, this is getting long. :-/ Maybe we can trim down a bit again? Kim Bruning 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Could that section please be rephrased? I have seen it taken out of context before to support harmful decisions made to Wikipedia.-- Conrad Devonshire Talk 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh, the result is here. The idea was to split off even simpler versions of the simplified ruleset, not the other way around ;-) Kim Bruning 03:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
... sorry but... what about WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. These are policies that need to be respected. Without these, WP is not worth the pixels and bytes it uses ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
A remainder of Wikipedia content policies:
The problem of course being the history of all of these, as well as their intent.
Note that the policy/guideline/essay distinction is fairly nonsensical. Basically, take any page marked as policy with a bucket of salt (unless it also exists on meta). Pages marked as guidelines are usually central to wiki-operation (such as
wikipedia:consensus). Don't break any rule on an essay page (see above for examples). Finally, untagged pages typically expound the laws of wikiphysics. :)
This is also historical.
Originally, project namespace pages were either descriptive (no tag) or a guideline (still no tag, but you could tell the difference, because a guideline told you to *do* stuff).
Later on, new people came along and wanted to make policies. Newer wikipedians also seem to enjoy graffiti-ing tags all over the place. Hence tags, and tag inflation.
None of this has anything to do with any real wikipedia process or procedures. It's just a game of nomic being played in the project namespace.
For day to day work, don't get depressed though. Just Ignore All Rules, and go about your business.
Kim Bruning 07:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Below, i've placed two sample templates that could be included on any/all of the relevant pages. Feedback appreciated.
My main aim, is an attempt to clear up the mess of "see also" links at the bottom of each of these pages. -
Quiddity
20:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's principles | ||||
Five pillars | Simplified Ruleset | List of policies | Wikipedia is an encyclopedia | Statement of principles |
Overview of our foundation | Synopsis of our customs | Full list of official policies | Short and to-the-point | Historic beginnings |
Principles of Wikipedia |
---|
Formal |
Informal |
2a: See box on right.
2b: See box on left.
Wikipedia Principles |
---|
Five Pillars |
Good idea. I like it. This is something we want to be very clear and easy to navigate. I've created an simpler alternative, also. - PatrickFisher 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you think this could be matched with Template:Policylist? — Centrx→ talk • 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The way this page is written now, you won't be able to make it to admin anymore ... <scratches head>
That's going to be tricky.
Kim Bruning 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Originally this page listed the least number of rules needed for a person to make it to admin. it's actually a sort of project. Maybe we could clear the page and start over. (you'll see older versions doing just that).
One thing you have to watch out for is rules that affect big contentuous pages being used on all parts of the wiki, which would make it utterly unusable. Kim Bruning 20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: 'Nuff said. Jon Awbrey 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Yes, I can see that some kinda self-apponted posse is up late on some kinda "Destroy All Rules" (DAR-lex) tear, and any other time I'd be on that bandwagon, but not when you're trying to e-rode outa town on a raillerie the only rules that make WP still (just barely) worth caring about. Jon Awbrey 11:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Ha! I assume good faith, until e-ducated otherwise. I do not assume that anybody has a clue, until e-ducated otherwise. Jon Awbrey 12:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I'm afraid there's less and less whate'er here all the time. But tanks for all the fish. ><> ><> ><> Jon Awbrey 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I much prefer the single list style, without the ambiguous "you can ignore these bits" message. -- Quiddity·( talk) 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[KB to JA]:
I'll take a gamble and see what you come up with. Figure out which guidelines can cause failure to pass requests for adminship. Do cite WP:RFA and WP:RFAr, do not cite any other arbitrary guidelines, unless they are significantly referenced on those pages. The set that is required will likely be very counter-intuitive to you, but maybe also to me ;-).
When simplifying further, we've found one set of 3 guidelines and one set of 5 guidelines.
So since this page has been superseded, feel free to mess around. I'm hoping you'll find something new. However, be careful not to introduce your own bias (which I suspect you are doing now.) Kim Bruning 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Note the sources section above, which had been removed by someone for some reason. It includes citations not ony from wikipedia, but also from some other internet sources discussing human and/or machine interaction. As it was excised, it's likely not being maintained. Kim Bruning 15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Sorry, but I do not understand any of the things that you are talking about above, much less their relevance to a project of gistifying WP:P's & G's for the actual benefit of the hapless WikiParticipant, oldie or newbie alike. Jon Awbrey 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: This page is titled WP:Simplified Ruleset, not WP:Wannabe Admins 101. I know this may come as a shock, but not every person who is fatefully attracted to WP has such dreams of world domination. So I think it's best to restrain this to a minimal epitome of the "ropes" and a pointer to further reading for reigny days. Jon Awbrey 18:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: My personal requirements are not the point. I assumed — what I think most folks would assume from the title of the page — that it's intended to provide the user, especially the new user, with a simplified summary of the set of rules that govern participation in Wikipedia. Certainly we could all use a handy reference from time to time, but I just thought that it was meant as more of an "on-ramp" to the often bewildering WP expressway. Jon Awbrey 21:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I love it when somebody actually takes one of my metaphors seriously — as I'm sure you can imagine it doesn't happen very often.
JA: I was taking it for granite that the WP:P&G highway was already in place. Yes, I see many potholes, and you might even say a few " dips" in the road, but I gather that the contract for dealing with all that routine maintainance is already in the hands of the community at large. So the subcontract to upgrade the on-ramps has a fairly limited budget (€0 = £0 = $0 = ¥0) and a more narrow scope tham revamping the (w)hole of WP in one swell foop. Are we on the same page and subparagraph so far? Jon Awbrey 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, The trifecta divides rules into editing an encyclopedia, social behaviour, and wiki. And now we already seem to have 2 of the trifecta subdivisions back. Looks like that trifecta was fairly visionary :-)
Maybe refactor the page into the same 3 sections, but slightly expanded from WP:TRI? Hmmmm ...
Kim Bruning 10:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Does it? How? I get no notice of edit conflicts until I hit the "save" button...
Hmm, it's vaguely alluded to at Help:Show preview:
But this is definitely not the primary purpose of the preview button. -- Quiddity·( talk) 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Maybe it's all that time in AI, but I have strong objections to using phrases like "ruleset" as it tends to make some people — geeks and even recovering geeks — think that it's all about Al Gore Rhythms or something. So let me suggest the term that they often use in medical schools, to wit, Precepts. So what we've got here is a veritable précis of precepts, but even I would not go so far as to actually say that in public. Jon Awbrey 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I know how to fix double redirects. I was in the middle of doing it when you reverted. There are Big Rules that prohibit cut and paste moves. Jon Awbrey 02:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I'll give you a couple days to review current procedures. I did that according to the book and the way I've been told to. If the book was unclear, the people who advised me full of it, or I was just plain dumb — I give it an even 3-way split — then you can splain it to me then. Edios for now, Jon Awbrey 02:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I know exactly what happens. This is perfectly routine. All the wikis get turned into redirects and go to the intended target. The only residual problem is fixing the double redirects, which are usually very few in number. Not a problem. Jon Awbrey 02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Here's a friendly suggestion. When you folks quit trying to communicate in DOUBLETHINK BOLD CATCHPHRASES THAT HAVE BECOME TOTALLY DEVOID OF MEANING FROM CONSTANT SEMANTIC ABUSE, then maybe you'll be ready to write a simplified ruleset, or whatever. Jon Awbrey 03:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Here's how I see the present situation:
JA: Jon Awbrey 05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I'll come back tomorrow. Hanlon's razor may have been the wrong link, or maybe somebody over-sharpened it since the last time I used it. There's a complex of 6 or 7 similar aphorisms on that same tray and I may have picked up the wrong one. For my part, I normally go by Maxwell's razor, which says "don't abduct a demon as a hostage to entropy", but that was a redlink the last time I looked. Jon Awbrey 15:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: We must be related. The Awbrey family motto is: "Anything worth doing is worth overdoing." Jon Awbrey 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Two points:
JA: Now you guys have got me all jumpy about the move. Here's the thing. I'm not going to do anything that wrecks the edit history, and that goes double for a central policy page like this, so all that copy-cut-paste business is out for me. I will sometimes copy all or most of a whole article to a personal sandbox as a backup against running vandalism, especially when it threatens to be complex, socially appeased, or long-term. So maybe we could do that as a safeguard against accidental disasters, but continue to work on the live copy. I looked at WP:DISCUSS more carefully, by the way, and it specifically excludes this case, as we're not talking about changing the graphic layout in any big way — at least I hadn't planned to mess with that. It's a simple matter of commitment — for my part that means working on the live copy — there's a threshold that you either cross, or else, by definition, you are staying home. Jon Awbrey 12:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: And I don't trust a tactic that says "It was necessary to destroy the <fill in the blank> in order to save it" — been there, done that — tanks, but no tanks. Jon Awbrey 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: If it's just the mechanics of the move that worries you, then the safest way is to put in a WP:RM posting and let somebody else do it. But I get the sense that it's really something else, something that strikes me as a lack of requisite boldness, just to get all ironical about it. Jon Awbrey 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I just watched an old Doctor Who episode called The Ark in Space, about some astro-refugees who fled Earth's devastation by massive solar flares, and who have all just woken up from cryogenic suspension. Somehow it all seems eerily familiar to the discussion that I'm having here. I would tell you to chill out, but it seems redundant. I hope you don't mind my asking, how long has it been since you actually worked on any articles? In its current state this project is largely redundant — and I mean that in a proper English way — the only question is whether the stub can be recycled into something of use to users. Jon Awbrey 01:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm Canadian, what's your excuse? ;-) -- Quiddity·( talk) 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I spend 2 or 3 weeks a year in Ont(ari)*o — maybe it's catching. Oops! there I go violating WP:NAD. Jon Awbrey 03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: What are you talking about? This page is 1.3 years old:
JA: Maybe we should have a policy called WP:FOP for Wikipedia:Forbid Original Policies? Sorry, WP:NOP and WP:POP were already taken. Jon Awbrey 16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about:
Whilst I can understand that reverting should be avoided if possible, and that edit wars should be avoided, surely there are some reasons where reverting is a reasonable first step, if you give an explanation in the comment? E.g.:
Furthermore, this rule reads to me rather like Zero-revert rule: ""Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page." yet that clearly states it is an optional policy, not an official guideline. Also see Wikipedia_talk:Revert_only_when_necessary#What.27s_so_bad_about_a_revert.3F where many reasons are given against this strategy (in particular, the example of adding "George Bush live in big house and make laws. We study him in school." which may well be a good faith edit, but clearly there's nothing we can do apart from revert it, and it seems odd to suggest this needs to be discussed in Talk first.
I've seen vast numbers of cases where people revert good faith edits with an explanation in comment rather than Talk, but I've had someone question one of my reversions, pointing to [1] and the policy that we should always improve rather than revert, but the original edit was a change (not new material) where I don't see improvement was possible.
So what is this rule actually saying? Can good faith edits never be reverted (or when should they be)? Does a reversion always need the explanation in Talk, even when the comment box is sufficient to explain the objection? Mdwh 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: It's my take on it that this wiki precept, read in its original context, says exactly what it says. Did it say "good faith edits can never be reverted"? No, it did not say that. It is a very important piece of common sense. TIFWIW. Jon Awbrey 19:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Kim Bruning 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Just in case: Note that I'm not saying that Jossi is an Evil reptilian kitten-eater of course, I just happen to respectfully disagree with those particular edits :-)
JA: Re: "I'm not trying to be pedantic" — Please don't, that's my job! The rule is a good one, but often ignored. I know cases where some editors will automatically revert constructive edits made by somebody they've taken a non-shine to, and then you sit there and watch more or less the same improvements being made by someone else, with not a peep. People should not do that, even if they are Admins, but they do. Go figure. Jon Awbrey 03:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
in intro, end of 2nd para "quide us in our constant efort" -> "guide us in our constant effort"? David Woodward 02:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kim! While I don't particularly care about this page either way, I should point out that the non-negotiable principles mentioned are NPOV, the GNU license and civility. And probably IAR, if you want a little paradox for breakfast. >Radiant< 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a copy of these rules on one of my subpages, which I often read through to remind me of how to proceed (many thanks to those who put them together), but repeated reading of them has led me to the conclusion that "graceful" here is not the right word. In theory, it should be, because its root is "grace", and the point is that we should behave on Wikipedia with good grace; we will also have seen the word "gracefully" used with this meaning, as in "to grow old gracefully"; but for some reason "graceful" resists quite that meaning and, in my opinion, reserves itself for physical actions (and occasionally for a style of living which now has implications of wealth). I'm not feeling bold enough to make a change to the text simply on my own instincts, but I feel sure that the mot juste called for is "gracious". What do others think? qp10qp 11:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit of "consider..." based on Dictionary.com, which grants blanket permission for such links on this page. -- Unimaginative Username 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it a guideline? Policy? Help page? Essay? Hard to tell. It is missing the familiar and comfortable Wikipedia page header that identifies where this fits. — Doug Bell talk 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikirules_proposal <- from whence this came.
timeline:
OK, I decided to be bold and make a modification to a portion of the Ignore All Rules section. I re-phrased the final portion of it to read The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both. This guidence comes from the Ignore All Rules page and is, I think, a better way to summarize the phrase. Thoughts? Majoreditor ( talk) 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
We are isntructed to follow this "ruleset", but what is a ruleset? I do not find this word in any dictionnary (English or Translation).
If it is simply a rule set, why not call it this way?
I encounter this term in programming, but have no idea what it really means and how to translate it in another language.
The rules and regulations for Wikipedia are important. Why use a word that (apparently) does not exist, in its title? Or if it exists, could someone please define it? Suzel25 ( talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The section says there are five....but there are only three numbered. - ?? Skookum1 ( talk) 08:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The "preview button" thing seems to stand out compared to everything else on the page. I think there's something to be said for iterating quickly (especially in fast-paced contexts like much of Wikipedia), as well as rereading or rechecking even right after saving, and it's not difficult to get a diff that combines a string of saves. Does it really ruffle editors' feathers enough to be in this simplified ruleset? — AySz88 \ ^-^ 04:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
[3] [4] [5]. This makes it tedious to collaborate on those articles. Eric talk 13:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'ld like to add the sentence, "However, if your bold edits have been reverted, don't boldly reintroduce them. Discuss and find consensus for your edits." to the section about being bold. That is following the sentences,
Be bold in updating pages! Go ahead, it's a wiki! No mistake can break Wikipedia, because any edit can be undone. Encourage others, including those who disagree with you, to likewise be bold!
I think it's important to note the proper limits of boldness. LK ( talk) 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The page has been substantially reorganized, copy-edited, and cleaned up. I think is a decent start for a new editor although it still could be a bit intimidating for a new editor. Two questions:
1. Is there a way to structure the header differently? Something about three italicized redirects and a rectangular info box just doesn't say simple.
2. There's a nice template for Key Policies and Guidelines I'd like to include at the bottom, in collapsed form. Is it too un-simple?
Ocaasi c 10:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I was working on a similar document for basic editing mechanics and navigation called WP:PLAIN. I think it's useful. I'm curious if it could/should be merged here, to create a single page where new editors could get all of the basics. Ocaasi c 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The second section is headed "Writing high-quality articles". I think it would be better as "Creating and editing articles" because we don't want to give the impression that the guidance in that section doesn't apply to all our articles. People might ignore it thinking "I'm not writing high-quality stuff, so this section isn't relevant". Are there any dissenters before I change it? — SMALL JIM 11:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Anyone know why an empty citation is appearing prior to the beginning of this article's text? I tried to edit it out but I can't find the code behind it. Maybe it is supposed to be there...? Just looks weird. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
This page and WP:PSG talk about the same exact thing in the same exact words. I was thinking about merging these articles together. Any thoughts on this? Interstellarity ( talk) 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
This page has gone from 7,439 bytes (500 revisions ago in 2006) to 14,823 bytes. This is a doubling of the page size. I fear instruction creep will defeat the purpose of this simplified page itself. 174.92.25.207 ( talk) 04:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)