Misplaced Pages

:Avoid instruction creep: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:58, 25 January 2007 editBdj (talk | contribs)19,739 edits rv back. If the comment from last year hasn't been dealt with regarding consensus, perhaps this needs to be historical instead?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:44, 18 December 2024 edit undoMwwv (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,045 edits Reverted 1 pending edit by 87.52.108.5 to revision 1261063471 by Kenneth Kho: test editsTag: Manual revert 
(826 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Redirect|WP:CREEP|creep in articles|WP:ACREEP|creep of templates|WP:TCREEP}}
{{proposed|]}}
{{pp-pc|small=yes}}
{{Supplement|pages=]|WP:CREEP|WP:KUDZU}}
{{nutshell|When editing guidance, keep in mind the risk that increasingly detailed instructions will result in bloated pages that new editors find intimidating and experienced editors ignore.}}


Avoid ''']''' to keep Misplaced Pages ] pages easy to understand. The longer, more detailed, and more complicated you make the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow whatever you write.
The fundamental fallacy of instruction creep is assuming that everybody reads instructions.


⚫ == Problem ==
'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time. Instruction creep is generally frowned upon, as it causes instructions to be unmanageable and daunting. In general, people are less likely to read and follow long instructions than they are shorter ones. Although those who partake in instruction creep are probably acting in ], they may actually be acting counterproductively. Some new rules arise with the deliberate intent to control others via ] without an adequate attempt for the formation of ]. This antagonizes others even when it appears to the instigator that he's acting with proper intent.
⚫ ] vines, instructions can grow much too fast.]]
'''Nobody reads the directions'''<!--EDITING NOTE: ] redirects here. Please do not change text without due consideration.--> from beginning to end. And increasing numbers of directions result, over time, in decreasing chances that any particular rule will be ], much less understood and followed. Spread out over many pages, excessive direction causes guidance to become less coherent and increasingly drift from actual community consensus. Further, having too many rules may ]. To avoid these outcomes, keep ] pages broad in scope, not covering every minute aspect of their subject matter.


== Prevention ==
Instruction creep is common in complex organizations where rules and guidelines are created by changing groups of people over extended periods of time. Note that ] supposed to be bureaucratic.
⚫ == Instruction creep on Misplaced Pages ==
⚫ ] was invented to supply ]s for process.]]
In general, try to avoid instruction creep - including that which may be perceived as instruction creep by others - here on Misplaced Pages. Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort to find, read, learn and abide by them. Therefore, it is more favorable to employ the ] when writing instructions on Misplaced Pages. (Note that our editors are volunteers, and are ] to follow procedure if they feel following them doesn't benefit the encyclopedia.)


''' Principles'''. Keep policies and guidelines ]. It is usually better for a policy or guideline to be too lax than too strict. Detailed policies can lead to ], impairing the ] process. If you just think that you have good advice for Wikipedians, consider adding it to an ].
Page instructions may have to be pruned at times. Feel free to remove excessive requirements ]. All new policies should be regarded as instruction creep unless it can be proved they will actually be helpful.


'''Editing'''. Do not make substantive additions to a policy or guideline unless the addition solves a real and significant problem, not just a ]. Before publishing your edit, review the text for potential unintended consequences and re-write as appropriate.
To quote ]: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

⚫ == See also ==
==Fixing==
*]
{{further|Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Conflicts between advice pages}}
⚫ *]
]
⚫ *]

*]
Since things often "creep in" without scrutiny, even longstanding instructions should be subject to review.<ref>Calcification in rule-making drives away new editors. {{cite web | url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/01/03/wikipedia-rules-new-editors/1801229/ | title=Study: Misplaced Pages is driving away newcomers | work=] | date=January 3, 2013 | accessdate=June 17, 2021 | last=Vergano|first=Dan}}</ref> 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 a policy.
*] - on inevitable instruction creep

==Source==
If you feel that a change is needed, either make your case on the talk page or ] make your changes, giving your rationale in the edit summary. If you meet with disagreement, ] the matter further. Those who oppose complete removal may still be willing to consider changes.
<center>This page was inspired by the meta-wiki concept of ].</center>

== Not every instruction is creep ==

{{Anchor|Misuse}}
{{shortcut|WP:NOTCREEP}}

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.

== Linking to this page ==

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 ] or a rule that ] because it prevents editors from writing good articles. It's rare that what Misplaced Pages really needs is yet another rule.

If you cite this page to support your opposition to "creepy" rules, remember that some editors are 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 would 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==
{{div col}}
'''Essays against instruction creep'''
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] (WP:MOSBLOAT)
*]

'''Essays {{em|encouraging}} redundancy'''
*]
*]

'''Misplaced Pages articles'''
*{{Section link|Criticism of Misplaced Pages#Excessive rule-making}}
⚫ *]
⚫ *]
*]
⚫ *]
*]

'''Templates'''
*] (edit notice)
{{div col end}}

==References==
<references />

==External links==
*]

]
]
<!-- Also categorized by a template placed at the beginning of this page -->

Latest revision as of 17:44, 18 December 2024

"WP:CREEP" redirects here. For creep in articles, see WP:ACREEP. For creep of templates, see WP:TCREEP.

This is an explanatory essay about the procedural policy regarding policies and guidelines.
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.		Shortcuts
Explanatory essay
This page in a nutshell: When editing guidance, keep in mind the risk that increasingly detailed instructions will result in bloated pages that new editors find intimidating and experienced editors ignore.

Avoid instruction creep to keep Misplaced Pages policy and guideline pages easy to understand. The longer, more detailed, and more complicated you make the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow whatever you write.

Problem

Like kudzu vines, instructions can grow much too fast.

Nobody reads the directions from beginning to end. And increasing numbers of directions result, over time, in decreasing chances that any particular rule will be read at all, much less understood and followed. Spread out over many pages, excessive direction causes guidance to become less coherent and increasingly drift from actual community consensus. Further, having too many rules may drive away editors. To avoid these outcomes, keep Misplaced Pages space pages broad in scope, not covering every minute aspect of their subject matter.

Prevention

Principles. Keep policies and guidelines to the point. It is usually better for a policy or guideline to be too lax than too strict. Detailed policies can lead to wikilawyering, impairing the consensus-building process. If you just think that you have good advice for Wikipedians, consider adding it to an essay.

Editing. Do not make substantive additions to a policy or guideline unless the addition solves a real and significant problem, not just a hypothetical issue. Before publishing your edit, review the text for potential unintended consequences and re-write as appropriate.

Fixing

Further information: Misplaced Pages: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. 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 a policy.

If you feel that a change is needed, either make your case on the talk page or boldly make your changes, giving your rationale in the edit summary. If you meet with disagreement, discuss the matter further. Those who oppose complete removal may still be willing to consider changes.

Not every instruction is creep

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.

Linking to this page

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 Misplaced Pages really needs is yet another rule.

If you cite this page to support your opposition to "creepy" rules, remember that some editors are 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 would 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

Essays against instruction creep

Essays encouraging redundancy

Misplaced Pages articles

Templates

References

  1. Calcification in rule-making drives away new editors. Vergano, Dan (January 3, 2013). "Study: Misplaced Pages is driving away newcomers". USA Today. Retrieved June 17, 2021.

External links

Categories: