User talk:Crazynas/rfc

Although this is currently still in user space, direct changes to the proposal are welcome. Crazynast 23:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this different from full protection? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Full Protection is a technical measure, this is an entirely social one. Although most of our core policies are unprotected semi-protected at most, in reality they are protected by the status quo, any substantive change requires talk-page discussion first(undiscussed change, beyond tweaking, is almost always rolled back undone).  This proposal utilizes a back end subpage to present the Multiple points of view that are inherent in our wiki-community, while retaining the singular view that is policy.  It also, critically, provides a simple method for transitioning the policy as minority viewpoints rise to majority and so can effortlessly reflect current practice.  Crazynast 10:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You correctly identify the problem; that many policy text changes don't happen in the normal wiki-way, that is, you just make them, and you don't revert them unless you have a damn good reason. Your solution, however, is to make everything worse, micro-analyzing every little change. People should be free to be bold, even on policies. Anything that gives people the idea that policies require some kind of prior restraint approval before making an edit is absolutely going in the wrong direction. Gigs (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that people should be bolder in editing policy. I also feel that there should be stability (and many editors agree).  The goal of this process is primarily to prevent gaming the system, provide an objective criteria for both 'consensus' and 'wide ranging input' and allow effortless change to occur.  It seems the micro analyzing occurs anyhow just on the main article talk, which gets archived, eventually the same issues are rehashed with new editors and no end in sight, that is the goal of the rationale sections (sort of a local WP:PEREN).  Note that this specifically isn't about copy-edits and clarification, and as for restraint on editing please examine the edit notice on say WP:V.
 * The restraint is already there, however the method for change is not. I realize this could be seen as a move toward more bureaucracy however it is my belief that the bureaucracy (resistance to change) is already present, and this proposal brings change back into the realm of possibility.  Appreciate your thoughts, none the less. Crazynast 00:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit notice is a fairly recent thing, that was added without discussion or any kind of consensus. When they went up, I got them to change the wording, because they were initially an even stronger warning.   Our policies aren't prescriptive, we can't "change the policy" by changing the policy pages.  I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding.  Gigs (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I agree. I think there is a confusion because I am attempting to document (in this proposal) a better method then the one currently employed to make substantive changes to the wording of policies.  I agree that policies are and should be descriptive not prescriptive (well except for neutral point of view, but we wouldn't be an encyclopedia then would we).  The goal here is to make descriptive changes attainable (with minimum drama).  Currently the closing discussion on this RfC is going on thee weeks.  Don't you think there's a simpler way handle it?  Cheers. Crazynast 23:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)