User talk:42/Policy Ideas and Recommendations

Policy discussion now as opposed to later

Erasculio and Poke, I am against blanket adoption of GWW polices on here, for two reasons. One, many of them are not the best that they could be, and two, if they are adopted here it is very unlikely that they will be able to be changed because many people have the attitude that they are right because they are already policies, and should not be changed just because they are already in place. Getting a policy change enacted on GWW can be very difficult, because many people think the way they see things is the only way things are. This is a chance to do a better job with the polices than GWW did.

And Poke, your comment
"If someone has problems with the GWW policies they should go there and propose changes. Given that both wikis are combined we should try to make most policies similar if not identical to the GWW ones."
to me implies that we should have to fix something on here by going to the other wiki, when "here" isn't even broke. Besides which, both wikis aren't combined; this one is a seperate entity. They just happen to be about 2 games in the same series. That, many users, and them both being a wiki are the only links between the two. Some content from the other game can be useful and used here, but that is no justification for adopting policies that are not good as is now in use on the other wiki.

"I have seen that argument before, but I'm somewhat worried that, while it's likely we would never change copied policies, I think it's even more likely that we would never be able to make new ones."
Erasculio, many of the good points from GWW policy can be looked at for a guideline on the policies here, so that work isn't wasted. But I think that using that as an excuse to adopt many policies that often do not work is not a good idea. Besides, the fact that people are discussing this shows that there is an active desire to work on the policies. See my point above about attempting to change polices. I believe that it would be harder to change policies that are broken than it would be to make new policies that aren't. If we needed to change policies, which I think we would have to do if they are adopted from GWW, why change something that is broke from somewhere else, instead of making it more right from the beginning?

"Policy for the sake of policy isn't constructive. It leads to the false impression that they're necessary for a wiki to work; it could also lead to the policies being incredibly difficult to change and amend." Pling, I agree with you. However, I think that some policies do need to be set in place at the beginning, not for the sake of policy, but for actual useful purpose, such as a policy on NPA. As long as we make them things that to the majority of anyone with a brain would see as common sense, I don't think there will be an issue in the future. Yes, many people who use this wiki will be used to other wikis. Assuming that everyone will just know these policies right from the beggining isn't fair to the people who make use of, and isn't fair to, the wiki. Setting up policies like this now will save headaches later, IMO.

"Regardless, how about we copy every policy other than those about the admins?"
It comes down to something that many people have heard, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". Why force a new wiki to start with something that is broke, and try to fix it, when it is better to do it right, from the start?

"I think a mistake in the past was naming the practice articles 'policies', which automatically implies law or governance in itself. If we're to have these 'practice-articles', I would intend to name them something different that more accurately describes their nature; but we can do that when the times comes. All in good time."
Once again I find myself agreeing with Pling (checks head for temperature :P ), but I think that there is nothing wrong with discussing standards and certain policies starting now, before the wiki gets flooded with even more users. Setting up standards in formatting now (Just thinking about it, and I need to move my standards proposals to the proper location as soon as I get done with this soapbox.) will make it easier, as there will be less need to go through and "fix" articles as many of the GWW pages are in the process of being done. We do not need to have them set in stone, but we will have an idea of how things are laid out when the beta comes out, and we can firm them up then. The same thing could be done with policies. Discuss them now, and firm them up as it is needed.

"How he describes the start of GuildWiki is something like how I think the start of Guild Wars 2 Wiki should be - a natural progression of product, process, practice, and then 'policy'."
I disagree with you on this point Pling, to a certain extent. I think that there is nothing wrong with discussing ideas and suggestions on possible future policies starting now, instead of waiting until the last moment "when they are needed". If we wait until "they are needed", I think that would lead to policies that were more just done half-assed and cobbled together at the last second, instead of being thought through as much as they should have been. While it is true that many of the users here now (and in the future) will be familiar with how GWW operates, many of them (me being one) would like things to be better here. Take as an example all of the issues that people have been finding with the game, and hammering on it time and time again. If we just blanket adopt the policies from GWW to here, there will be people who will do that to the wiki here as well. We can use people's experiences from previous wikis as a help in the design of new policies, including the use of policies that could be made better.

"Sorry, but I don't think we will end up with really useful policies if we start with them before they are needed."
We do not need to set in stone all policies now, but it is irresponsible to not discuss some potential issues that people have had experiences with in past projects they have worked on. I do think that it needs to be drawn attention to any proposed policies and the fact that they are just that, proposed. The same thing should be done for guidelines. And some policies such as the NPA idea I discussed above I feel do need to be set down now, instead of waiting "until it is needed". 42 - talk 18:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying the policies of GWW "are not the best that they could be" is extremely vague; you are not stating why you think each policy has to be changed and how, so that's not really a good argument in this discussion. IMO, it's pretty much a moot point anyway - I don't see any reason to discuss bringing the GWW policies here if the consensus is against even beginning to discuss policies here at the moment. Better to solve that issue first, and only then tackle the other. Erasculio 22:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not intend to imply that all policies and guidelines are necessarily bad just because they are from GWW. Many have good points. My main intent is to make sure that this wiki is better, and does not have many of the bad habits that many of the users on the old wiki seems to have obtained over the years.

Some people have already suggested just porting the policies of GWW to here, despite this wiki not being GWW, and others have been already acting like this already is GWW by enforcing policies that are in use there as if they are policy already here.

While not specifically a "policy" on GWW, some of the issues I have with how things are done there. Some things that are already starting to be done here, in fact.

• Guidelines are treated as if they are policy as well, despite the page on guidelines saying they are not policy.
• The wording on many of those are filled with confusing text (specifically the one on naming guidelines.
• The repeated claiming of violation of a guideline, when the action actually IS following the stated guideline. (see above comment)
• The repeated insistence on ignoring wording on pages that keep getting thrown about that others are supposedly not following, when more often than not, the person actually IS following them.

These are some of the issues that I see happening all the time on GWW, and I do not want this wiki to be screwed over by the same attitudes being used here and bringing this wiki down before it even has a chance to get used for it's intended purpose, documenting the game. 42 - talk 04:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Erasculio, my point in bringing attention to the need to discuss policies is just that, bring attention to it. Discussing specifics of what is messed up about GWW policy that isn't in use here makes even less sense. 42 - talk 05:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing you aren't really realizing is that one of the biggest checks on the policies is the grandfathering of GWiki people. GWiki people tend to do things differently, and for their own reasons. However, if both GWiki and GWW agree on something, it's highly likely that it's been thoroughly vetted and will continue to be relevant to this wiki. --JonTheMon 08:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

None of those complains are about policies; none of those help to explain your point about how GWW's policies "are not the best that they could be", which is one of your two main arguments against porting all GWW policies here as the base for the GW2W's policies. Without a proper argument against porting, I see no reason to not do so.

Your complains about how guidelines work in GWW sound more like the complains of someone who had a personal problem with them than the complains of someone who is thinking about the well being of the entire wiki and thus focusing on its priorities. Erasculio 10:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)