Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

[pending revision]

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:14, 17 November 2023

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 Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Shortcut

WP:CREEP

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.

Instruction creep may make Wikipedia policy and guideline pages hard to understand or follow. The longer, more detailed, and more complicated editors make the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow whatever they say.

Problem

Nobody reads the directions from beginning to end. Increasing amounts of directions result, over time, in decreasing chances that any particular rule will be read at all, much less understood and followed. 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 Wikipedia space pages broad in scope, not trying to cover 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; an article does not have to include everything that might technically be permitted by policy. 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 would solve a real and significant problem, not just a hypothetical or trivial issue. Consider potential unintended consequences of any addition. Make sure that any addition fits with what comes immediately before and after it; a poorly placed addition might obscure the meaning of surrounding text.

Fixing

Since things often "creep in" without scrutiny, even longstanding instructions should be subject to review.^[1] The amount of time an instruction has been present does not necessarily indicate how strong of a consensus it has, though one should be cautious about removing a longstanding part of a 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.

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 an outright deletion may still be willing to consider changes.

Not every instruction is creep

Shortcut

WP:NOTCREEP

Additional instruction, perhaps even lengthy instruction, can be helpful if it clearly spells out community consensus regarding a significant point. The problem comes when the instruction is trivial, redundant, unclear, or not actually reflective of community consensus.

Linking to this page

If someone cites this page to explain their view, they mean that they think the rule is at least unnecessary, and will create more burdensome bureaucracy or be ignored. 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 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.

References

^ 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.

External links

Instruction creep at Meta-Wiki

[1] 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.

[1]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Redirect|WP:CREEP|creep in articles|WP:ACREEP|creep of templates|WP:TCREEP}}
 {{Supplement|pages=[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content|procedural policy regarding policies and guidelines]]|shortcut=WP:CREEP}}
 {{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 Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|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.
+[[Instruction creep]] may make Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policy and guideline]] pages hard to understand or follow. The longer, more detailed, and more complicated editors make the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow whatever they say.
 == Problem ==
 [[Image:Kudzu on trees in Atlanta, Georgia.jpg|thumb|250px|Like [[:en:Kudzu|kudzu]] vines, instructions can grow much too fast.]]
-'''Nobody reads the directions'''<!--EDITING NOTE: [[Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions]] 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 [[WP:TLDR|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 [[Wikipedia:Dig|drive away editors]]. To avoid these outcomes, keep [[Wikipedia:Project namespace|Wikipedia space]] pages broad in scope, not covering every minute aspect of their subject matter.
+'''Nobody reads the directions'''<!--EDITING NOTE: [[Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions]] redirects here. Please do not change text without due consideration.--> from beginning to end. Increasing amounts of directions result, over time, in decreasing chances that any particular rule will be [[WP:TLDR|read at all]], much less understood and followed. Excessive direction causes guidance to become less coherent and increasingly drift from actual community consensus. Further, having too many rules may [[Wikipedia:Dig|drive away editors]]. To avoid these outcomes, keep [[Wikipedia:Project namespace|Wikipedia space]] pages broad in scope, not trying to cover every minute aspect of their subject matter.
 == Prevention ==
-''' Principles'''. Keep policies and guidelines [[Wikipedia: Keep it short and simple|to the point]]. It is usually better for a policy or guideline to be too lax than too strict. Detailed policies can lead to [[wp:wikilawyering|wikilawyering]], impairing the [[WP:TALKDONTREVERT|consensus-building]] process. If you just think that you have good advice for Wikipedians, consider adding it to an [[WP:ESSAY|essay]].
+''' Principles'''. Keep policies and guidelines [[Wikipedia: Keep it short and simple|to the point]]. It is usually better for a policy or guideline to be too lax than too strict; an article [[WP:EDITDISC|does not have to include]] everything that might technically be permitted by policy. Detailed policies can lead to [[wp:wikilawyering|wikilawyering]], impairing the [[WP:TALKDONTREVERT|consensus-building]] process. If you just think that you have good advice for Wikipedians, consider adding it to an [[WP:ESSAY|essay]].
-'''Editing'''. Do not make substantive additions to a policy or guideline unless the addition solves a real and significant problem, not just a [[Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it|hypothetical issue]]. Before publishing your edit, review the text for potential unintended consequences and re-write as appropriate.
+'''Editing'''. Do not make substantive additions to a policy or guideline unless the addition would solve a real and significant problem, not just a [[Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it|hypothetical or trivial issue]]. Consider potential unintended consequences of any addition. Make sure that any addition fits with what comes immediately before and after it; a poorly placed addition might obscure the meaning of surrounding text.
 ==Fixing==
 {{further|Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Conflicts between advice pages}}
-[[File:Harvard_Square_turds.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|An issue perhaps better left to editor discretion (though the handwash is a thoughtful touch)]]
+[[File:Harvard_Square_turds.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|An issue perhaps better left to user discretion (though the handwash is a thoughtful touch)]]
+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: Wikipedia is driving away newcomers | work=[[USA Today]] | date=January 3, 2013 | accessdate=June 17, 2021 | last=Vergano|first=Dan}}</ref> The amount of time an instruction has been present does not necessarily indicate how strong of a consensus it has, though one should be cautious about removing a longstanding part of a 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.
-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: Wikipedia is driving away newcomers | work=[[USA Today]] | 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 [[WP:PGBOLD|boldly]] make your changes, giving your rationale in the edit summary. If you meet with disagreement, [[WP:FOLLOWBRD|discuss]] the matter further. Those who oppose complete removal may still be willing to consider changes.
+If you feel that a change is needed, either make your case on the talk page or [[WP:PGBOLD|boldly]] make your changes, giving your rationale in the edit summary. If you meet with disagreement, [[WP:FOLLOWBRD|discuss]] the matter further. Those who oppose an outright deletion may still be willing to consider changes.
 == Not every instruction is creep  ==
@@ Line 28: / Line 31: @@
 {{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.
+Additional instruction, perhaps even lengthy instruction, can be helpful if it clearly spells out community consensus regarding a significant point. The problem comes when the instruction is trivial, redundant, unclear, or not actually reflective of community consensus.
 == 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 [[wikipedia:NOTBURO|bureaucracy]] or a rule that [[wikipedia:Ignore all rules|will be ignored]] because it prevents editors from writing good articles.  It's rare that what Wikipedia really needs is yet another rule.
+If someone cites this page to explain their view, they mean that they think the rule is at least unnecessary, and will create more burdensome [[wikipedia:NOTBURO|bureaucracy]] or be [[wikipedia:Ignore all rules|ignored]].  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 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.
+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==