Jump to content

Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.190.46.37 (talk) at 18:14, 17 November 2023 (Reintegrating and improving useful points which were edited out. There should be some explanation as to why it is better for a policy to be too lax than too strict. Additions not fitting into their context is a big issue with editing in general. It is helpful to figure out how a questionable instruction came about, and whether an earlier version of it was better.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Like kudzu vines, instructions can grow much too fast.

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

Further information: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines § Conflicts between advice pages
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.[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

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.

See also

Policies, essays, and guidelines

Essays encouraging redundancy

Wikipedia Articles

Templates

References

  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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep&oldid=1185583352"