Misplaced Pages:Avoid instruction creep

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) at 02:39, 14 February 2022 (Undid revision 1071633534 by Butwhatdoiknow (talk) I prefer User:Wikiuser100's wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:39, 14 February 2022 by WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1071633534 by Butwhatdoiknow (talk) I prefer User:Wikiuser100's wording)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) This page is about creep in policies and guidelines. For creep in articles, see Misplaced Pages:Article creep. For creep of templates, see Misplaced Pages:Avoid template creep.

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.

Shortcut

WP:CREEP

Explanatory essay

This page in a 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 to keep Misplaced Pages policy and guideline 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

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

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

There is a real problem that needs solving, not just a hypothetical or perceived problem.
The proposal, if implemented, is likely to make a real, positive difference.
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: Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines § Conflicts between advice pages

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 policy.

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.

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 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

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.

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 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.

References

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

Instruction creep at Meta-Wiki

Categories:

Misplaced Pages

:Avoid instruction creep - Misplaced Pages