Jump to content

Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
[pending revision][pending revision]
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎top: restore text replaced without explanation (And is "this line needs to remain in the lead" legit? if so I have a lot of text throughout Wikipedia that I'd like to preserve forewater).)
"forewater [fôr′wô′tər] n. The amniotic fluid between the presenting part, usually the head, and the intact fetal membranes." User:Butwhatdoiknow, please clarify.
Line 2: Line 2:


{{Supplement|pages=[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content|procedural policy regarding policies and guidelines]]|shortcut=WP:CREEP|shortcut2=WP:KUDZU|shortcut3=WP:BLOAT|shortcut4=WP:ANTICREEP|shortcut5=WP:RULECREEP}}
{{Supplement|pages=[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content|procedural policy regarding policies and guidelines]]|shortcut=WP:CREEP|shortcut2=WP:KUDZU|shortcut3=WP:BLOAT|shortcut4=WP:ANTICREEP|shortcut5=WP:RULECREEP}}
{{nutshell|When editing guidance, keep in mind the risk of increasingly detailed instructions resulting in bloated pages that new editors find intimidating and experienced editors ignore.}}
{{nutshell|When editing guidance, keep in mind the risk of increasingly detailed instructions resulting in bloated pages that new editors find intimidating and experienced editors ignore.}}


Avoid '''[[Instruction creep|instruction creep]]''' to keep Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policy and guideline]] pages easy to understand. These pages explain [[WP:Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community|community norms]] for all readers, especially those unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates. [[Criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive rule-making|Excessive instruction]] has the opposite effect, creating pages that [[WP:TLDR|nobody reads]] and intimidate new editors.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/|title=The Decline of Wikipedia|url-access=limited|work=[[MIT Technology Review]]|date=October 22, 2013|accessdate=April 6, 2016|last=Simonite|first=Tom}}</ref>
Avoid '''[[Instruction creep|instruction creep]]''' to keep Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policy and guideline]] pages easy to understand. These pages explain [[WP:Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community|community norms]] for all readers, especially those unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates. [[Criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive rule-making|Excessive instruction]] has the opposite effect, creating pages that [[WP:TLDR|nobody reads]] and intimidate new editors.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/|title=The Decline of Wikipedia|url-access=limited|work=[[MIT Technology Review]]|date=October 22, 2013|accessdate=April 6, 2016|last=Simonite|first=Tom}}</ref>

Revision as of 16:54, 10 December 2021

This page is about creep in policies and guidelines. For creep in articles, see Wikipedia:Article creep. For creep of templates, see Wikipedia:Avoid template creep.

Avoid instruction creep to keep Wikipedia policy and guideline pages easy to understand. These pages explain community norms for all readers, especially those unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates. Excessive instruction has the opposite effect, creating pages that nobody reads and intimidate new editors.[1]

Development

Like kudzu vines, instructions can grow much too fast.

Over time, individual good faith edits grow to become very long and complicated directions separated over many pages. This makes the guidance less coherent and less inviting. And, as fewer and fewer editors read and understand overgrown pages, Wikipedia space content will increasingly drift from actual community consensus. To avoid this outcome, project pages are meant to be broad in scope, not covering every minute aspect of their subject matter.

Prevention

Keeping policies and guidelines to the point is the most effective way of preserving transparency. Substantive additions to policy should generally be rejected unless:

  1. There is a real problem that needs solving, not just a hypothetical or perceived problem.
  2. The proposal, if implemented, is likely to make a real, positive difference.
  3. All implied requirements have a clear consensus.

All instruction should be as clear as possible. Ensure that additions are placed in a logical context, and do not obscure the meaning of the surrounding text.

It is usually better for a policy or guideline to be too lax than too strict. Content not clearly prohibited by any policy is still subject to editor discretion. Consensus-building on article talk pages can be undermined by an over-strict policy, as an editor who wants to follow it literally can claim that the issue is already decided.

If you just think that you have good advice for Wikipedians, consider adding it to an essay.

The {{Simple help page}} edit notice can be added to pages designed to provide simple instructions for newcomers.

Fixing

Further information: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines § Conflicts between advice pages
An issue perhaps better left to editor discretion (though the handwash is a thoughtful touch).

Since things often "creep in" without scrutiny, even longstanding instructions should be subject to review.[2] The amount of time an instruction has been present does not strengthen consensus behind it, though one should be wary whenever removing a longstanding part of policy.

If an instruction does not make sense or does not seem to describe accepted practice, check the page history to see when it was added and how it may have changed over time. Then check the talk page and talk archive, to see whether there was any related discussion. If you think the instruction lacks community consensus, either make your case on the talk page or boldly remove it, giving your rationale in the edit summary. If you meet with disagreement, discuss the matter further. Those who oppose an outright deletion may still be open to changes.

Linking to this page

Shortcut

Additional instruction can be helpful when it succinctly states community consensus regarding a significant point, but it is harmful when the point is trivial, redundant, or unclear.

If someone cited this page to explain their view, they mean that they think the rule is at least unnecessary and unimportant, if not downright harmful by creating a lot of burdensome bureaucracy or a rule that will be ignored because it prevents editors from writing good articles. It's rare that what Wikipedia really needs is yet another rule.

If you cite this page to support your opposition to "creepy" rules, remember that some editors really need to have this concept spelled out for them. They're usually dealing with a problem that seems significant to them, and they believe that writing down a rule somewhere will somehow solve their problem, even though 99.9% of editors will never even read the rule they're proposing, much less follow it. So don't say "Oppose per CREEP"; instead, say "Oppose the creation of this unnecessary and complicated rule for a very uncommon situation that could just as easily be solved by editors using their best judgment to apply the relevant existing rules as explained at WP:CRYPTIC" – or whatever the facts of the case at hand are.

See also

Policies, essays, and guidelines

Essays encouraging redundancy

Articles

Templates

References

  1. ^ Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved April 6, 2016.
  2. ^ Calcification in rule-making drives away new editors. Vergano, Dan (January 3, 2013). "Study: Wikipedia is driving away newcomers". USA Today. Retrieved June 17, 2021.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep&oldid=1059633162"