User:Andrewa/Policy or guideline

Once upon a time, there was a theory that any Wikipedia policy would take precedence over any guideline, as if the policy represented a higher level of consensus.

There's no evidence that this is still true, if it ever was. But it still comes up.

The hierarchy (not)
level of consensus treats policies and guidelines equally. Policies and guidelines generally treats them equally, although there is some suggestion of a hierarchy with essays at the bottom and policies at the top, and guidelines somewhere in between. But there's no clear statement of how or why a guideline might be lower in the hierarchy than a policy, while it's quite clear why an essay is lower down still.

On the other hand there are several places where it's clear that a policy does not overrule a guideline:
 * A behavioural guideline seems no more negotiable for being a guideline than it would be were it a policy.
 * For example, WP:AGF is both a guideline and a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.
 * In the case of article names, the policy explicitly defers to the guidelines.

Both policies and guidelines represent a high level of consensus. And some policies are more fundamantal than most guidelines, and some guidelines are more fundamental than most policies. Some policies and guidelines are general in scope, and some are more limited in scope. They work together. All are negotiable. None are optional.

There's no clear hierarchy... or at least, it's a trivial one of only two levels.
 * Official policy and official guidelines are all part of the lens of policy through which consensus is assessed.
 * Essays and other project or even user pages may contain relevant material and may be cited in discussions (and often are), but they don't have this level of authority.

So in this trivial hierarchy, policies and guidelines are on exactly the same level.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style
The Manual of Style or MOS is a set of official Wikipedia guidelines. As such:
 * Any editor is entitled and encouraged to boldly make any good faith edit that they consider an improvement, even if it violates the MOS.
 * Any editor is also entitled and encouraged to correct any article that departs in any way from the MOS, by bringing it back into compliance. This is part of copyediting and it happens all the time

Both of these rules apply to any policy or guideline, but they are both far more commonly applied to the MOS. And there is no need for discussion before doing any such edits. An edit summary is sufficient.

But there's a big difference between these two rules in practice. Nearly all edits under rule two are uncontroversial and permanent. Nearly all edits under rule one are controversial, and some will eventually be discussed but most will eventually be reverted.

In view of this, any edit that knowingly violates the MOS should always be accompanied by an edit summary that includes a see talk link pointing to a brief rationale on the article talk page. If it's a good and valid rationale, there's a good chance that the edit will remain. But otherwise, there is an even better chance that you are just wasting everyone's time, including your own.

WikiProject guidelines
Some WikiProject "guidelines" are official Wikipedia guidelines but most are not. The have no more standing than an essay.

Many of the specific topic naming conventions are examples of WikiProject guidelines that do have official standing. These have been approved at WT:AT and are listed (directly or indirectly) at WP:AT. That's the sort of consensus approval a guideline needs in order to be official. See Category:Wikipedia proposals for some details.

On the other hand, many essays and most if not all WikiProject guidelines do have some standing, in that they document established practice. Many official guidelines and policies support consistency with existing articles. WikiProject guidelines are the best and generally the only place in which the established practice is described.

So what's the difference?
In business, the difference between a policy and a guideline is that you need your manager's approval before violating a policy, and you need to be able to get it after violating a guideline. Either can get you fired if you stuff up (subject to the labour laws of course).

That same distinction works well on Wikipedia. Before violating a policy you should discuss and gain consensus support. After violating a guideline you should be prepared to discuss and gain consensus support. If you don't or can't, then in either case you have stuffed up. (We're all human.)

And in general there's no other difference. Both policies and guidelines are meant to be followed. Otherwise, why have them?

Be bold
In the article namespace, any editor is entitled to make any change necessary to comply to policies and to guidelines, including and especially the MOS, without discussion. It happens all the time. An edit summary of MOSify is justification enough for any copy edit based on the MOS. If the interpretation of the MOS is challenged, then discussion takes place.

On the other hand, no editor or group of editors is authorised to ignore guidelines or policies. Any editor who consistently does so is guilty of disruption and risks not just reverting but also sanctions.

Negotiate
Just as, in business, the same level of management that authorises a policy or guideline is the level that can authorise an exception to it, so in Wikipedia the same level of consensus that approves a policy or guideline is the level that is needed to authorise an exception. That's right, needed. Get over it.

And during discussions, bear in mind that guidelines are there to guide, not to adjudicate. Discussion is about exchanging ideas, not blows. The goal is consensus, not victory.

Fix it
But of course policies and guidelines should not be in conflict anyway. Ideally they should be completely consistent both with each other and with the aims and goals of Wikipedia. So whether before or after the fact, part of the discussion regarding any non-compliance should be, can we improve the policies and guidelines?


 * If an exception is appropriate, how can the policy or guideline be refined to reduce the need for such exceptions in the future?


 * If an exception is not appropriate, how can the policy or guideline be clarified to reduce the need for such discussions in the future?

Not every problem with the rules can or should be fixed. Our resources are finite, and our bottom line is purely the articles... where very problem should be addressed. The rules will never be perfect, and so there will always be a need both for exceptions and for discussions. But neither should the rules ever be regarded as beyond improvement.

Attribution
''I, andrewa, hereby authorise any Wikipedian (whether logged in or not) to copy any or all of my contributions to this page to any other page in English Wikipedia with or without attribution. Go for it.''