Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy is not stringent

Generally I'm not opposed to something like this, but I would like the third bullet to be rewritten. It's too much of a 'do what you want' when it should be more like 'do what you think is necessary and would be agreed on by others'. -- (gem / talk) 01:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. The third bullet, when I first read it, seemed like it said "Break a policy if you want, just be ready to have an argument". Obviously, that's not what you want, or the wiki community wants, so if this policy gets consensus, then that 3rd bullet is going to be altered. But I like the general idea of the policy. Good thinking. Calor - talk 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea too, because I screwed up some image things, honest mistake and I don't want to be banned for it. I'd still like to know what provoked this idea. Vanguard 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It started here. -- (gem / talk) 02:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The third point also uses the word 'reasonable' which is undesireable as it has no other meaning than '! agree with'. Backsword 09:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How about, instead of "you are still allowed to do it if you reasonably believe it would be supported by consensus anyways (and are willing to justify yourself if challenged)", saying "...allowed to do it if it has been made clear that it would be supported by consensus (and you are willing to justify yourself if challenged)". It's more strict, but at the same time we end with a proposition more likely to defend consensus, and less likely to defend what one may erroneously believe to be the consensus. Erasculio 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to address some of the concerns here with a rewording of #3. See what you think. --Rezyk 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Better. -- (gem / talk) 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a conduct guideline

A guideline worth following at all times, to be sure, but it does not prescribe any courses of action, nor provide any remedies for disputes. Users are assumed not to be dicks by something like AGF (assuming it gets promoted to a conduct guideline), unless they are being dicks, in which case they might break NPA, 1RV, etc. We can write specific guidelines for users on how to avoid being dicks if really needed (cf. WP:DICK, WP:BITE, WP:POINT). If we must have a policy saying that the wiki works by consensus, I would recommend porting WP:CON. —S3 07:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would be better a guideline. Backsword 09:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC) (1RV is not our policy btw)

Why should those qualities tend toward being inappropriate for policy? (I'm inclined to challenge the notion, which I'd guess that other users have as well, but need to understand the reasoning behind it.) --Rezyk 09:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they are not clearly defined. It does not say what is allowed, it does not say what is disallowed in unambigous terms. This is like making a law that states "Do not do bad things". While this is a worthy goal, it is useless as a law, since you do not spell out WHAT exactly people should not do (and neither what happens if they dont). "Reasonable" just like "bad" are extremely subjective and thus not useful to base any law on.

On a different note, the first line "You do not need to read any rules before contributing." is a statement of a fact (how would we ever go along verifying that? It is technically impossible). Stuff like that doesn't belong in policies either. --Xeeron 10:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. -- (gem / talk) 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"You do not need to read any rules before contributing." That sentence would only have sense to me if it is displaying on top of the Main Page, or at least on top of the Guild Wars Wiki:Welcome to the wiki which is linked on top of the main page. And still it would be a guideline by the reason exposed by Xeeron. The question is, would that sentence would benefit the wiki if is displayed on such a high visible place? Coran Ironclaw 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because a policy is not a moral code. When a choice presents itself in which several options are arguably valid, it is policy that dictates which actions are required, expected, or consistent with precedent. Our current policies are not always careful to keep the religion out of the regulations—GWW:USER, GWW:SIGN and GWW:GUILD are particularly egregious—but this proposed policy would be the worst offender if ratified. —S3 15:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I challenge the notion that policy should be restricted to the stuff you guys describe. I accept and agree that policy is not moral code, but also reject that it should just be process, precise fences, and penal code. Why do you all not want it to include stuff outside those kind of roles? And I'd like to know how it'd apply here in a more concrete sense -- what kind of specific harm are you worried about with this proposal as policy? (Not saying there isn't any, but I feel it is outweighed by the benefits and the ambiguity here is even less problematic than the ambiguity in things like NPA and 1RR).
So you can't verify that part of statement #1 -- so what? I don't care about drawing a hard line between acceptable conduct and violations here. I care about situations like when somebody expects new users to be obliged to thoroughly read and obey their policy before starting work, and (hopefully) us having a policy to point at to show that the community has agreed against that kind of strict obligation.
Also, consider this example statement: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Since it uses extremely subjective and ambiguous terms and doesn't spell out what happens if you violate it, does that make it useless as a law? --Rezyk 02:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your example. Torture is very well defined. Additionally, you take a sentence out of what I guess is some law of a country. I am willing to bet 100 plat that there is a legal literature worth at least 10.000 pages that further explaines what exactly is considered cruel and inhuman. I don't see 10.000 pages describing this policy.

Edit: To answer your question: If the laws of whatever country you took that from ONLY include that line, then yes, I would find the policy mostly useless. --Xeeron 09:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose this draft, just the draft qua policy. As I see it, your worry that a new user will be scared away by the number of policy documents is misplaced. One, wikis are not novel any more, certainly not ones that are the intellectual descendants of Wikipedia. Plenty of new users will have seen similar policies before. Two, if they are not being dicks, they will probably not be violating any significant policies anyway—certainly not in any way that invites blocks, as we only ban on first offense for vandalism. The userspace police will point them to GWW:USER or GWW:SIGN if they violate them. Three, even though you write this policy with new users in mind, it will be gamed by wikilawyers who are unable to engender consensus in the usual ways. Policies should not be blunt instruments in their hands. Lastly, I think comparing policies on a wiki to a legal system of laws and regulations is a false analogy. —S3 11:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing

i think it should say that it only applies to editing policies, not to behaviour policies. - Y0_ich_halt 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

tl;dr

I support. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)