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 09:52, 13 February 2022 editWikiuser100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,456 edits Undid revision 1071519633 by Butwhatdoiknow (talk)It IS *absolutely* a grammar change, which you are welcome to revert to your subjective POV because I’m not gonna waste my time making it again or fooling around with an NPOV template here.Tags: Undo Reverted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:44, 18 December 2024 edit undoMwwv (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,061 edits Reverted 1 pending edit by 87.52.108.5 to revision 1261063471 by Kenneth Kho: test editsTag: Manual revert 
(170 intermediate revisions by 96 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{About|creep in policies and guidelines|creep in articles|Misplaced Pages:Article creep|creep of templates|Misplaced Pages:Avoid template creep}} {{Redirect|WP:CREEP|creep in articles|WP:ACREEP|creep of templates|WP:TCREEP}}
{{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.
⚫ {{Supplement|pages=]|shortcut=WP:CREEP}}
⚫ {{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 ''']''' to keep Misplaced Pages ] pages easy to understand. The longer, more detailed, and more complicated the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow what they say.


== Problem == == Problem ==
Line 12: Line 12:
== Prevention == == Prevention ==


Keeping policies and guidelines ] is the most effective way of preserving transparency. Substantive '''additions''' to policy should generally be rejected unless: ''' 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 ].
#There is a real problem that needs solving, not just a ].
#The proposal, if implemented, is likely to make a real, positive difference.
#All implied requirements have a clear consensus.


'''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.
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 ]. ] on article talk pages can be undermined by an over-strict policy, as an editor who wants to follow it literally can ] that the issue is already decided.

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

The {{tl|Simple help page}} ] can be added to pages designed to provide simple instructions for newcomers.


==Fixing== ==Fixing==
{{further|Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Conflicts between advice pages}} {{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 policy. 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.


⚫ 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.
If an instruction does not make sense or does not seem to describe community consensus, 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.


== Not every instruction is creep ==
⚫ In some cases, it might be best to restore earlier wording. If you decide to delete text, either explain your change on the talk page or ] remove it, giving your rationale in the edit summary. If you meet with disagreement, ] the matter further. Those who oppose an outright deletion may still be open to ''changes''.


{{Anchor|Misuse}}
⚫ == Linking to this page ==
{{shortcut|WP:NOTCREEP}} {{shortcut|WP:NOTCREEP}}


{{Anchor|Misuse}}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. 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 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 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. 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== ==See also==
{{div col}} {{div col}}
'''Essays against instruction creep'''
'''Policies, essays, and guidelines'''
*] *]
⚫ *]
*]
*] *]
*] (WP:MOSBLOAT)
*]
*]
*] (humor)
*]
*]
*]
*] *]

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

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

'''Templates''' '''Templates'''
*] (edit notice) *] (edit notice)

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: