Wikipedia talk:No Polarising Policies

The article page isn't worded particularly well so feel free to fiddle with it.

The reason I thought of putting this up was after being involved in the discussion over at WP:NOT EVIL. That proposal, as an example, has people divided over what it means and how useful it is. There are few - if any - people who are sitting in the middle ground and those who are involved either believe the policy protects wikipedia from 'evil' or is itself evil.

It can be argued that this proposal is too similar to Concensus to avoid being instruction creep, but there doesn't seem to be anything in Wikipedia:Concensus that explicitly points out that polarising policies are bad.

Is it too much to suggest moving Wikipedia:Concensus over to Wikipedia:No Polarising Policies?

Input would be appreciated - Drrngrvy 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This has one fatal flaw: the "Wikipedia community" includes everyone who edits here, for whatever purpose. It would be obvious, for example, that vandals would "militantly oppose" a policy of blocking them, banned users would "militantly oppose" the ArbCom, and so forth. Kirill Lok s  h in 21:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but neither blocking nor the ArbCom are policies: they are basic functional blocks that enforce accepted policy. The ArbCom don't work according to an internal policy of ArbCom; they make their decisions based on policies that aren't considered polarising (I'm assuming that the current list is agreed on by an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians. - Drrngrvy 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this proposal is well-intentioned, but is still majoritarian, rather than consensual. I suggest looking at various other voting methods on proposals, like Range voting, Borda count, Approval voting, etc. That may solve the problem that is perceived. --Fahrenheit451 00:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never seen a consensus created by enforcing a particular voting system on a Wikipedia discussion, because if it's not obvious what option should win, it's not a consensus. I've seen confusion over voting systems make a consensus disappear, though. And if the community is polarized on an issue, specific voting rules will only polarize them more.


 * Back on the topic of this page, I'm not sure I understand what the "No Polarizing Policies" proposal is trying to accomplish. Some issues are inherently polarizing, with doing nothing being one of the controversial options, and the proposal doesn't say what to do about that. And when it comes to creating new policy, that's already really hard and already requires a large consensus, and making it even harder seems like it could make Wikipedia stagnate.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  00:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Purpose
I'm not sure what this proposal is trying to accomplish. The main assertion seems to be that nothing should become policy unless there is clear consensus to make it policy. Isn't this already how Wikipedia policy-creation works (apart from Jimbo or Board fiat)? &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 00:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Vague and pointless
This would just be one more thing for people to argue about. It is too vague to be any use at all. Just drop it please. Golfcam 01:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrible idea
This is a very bad idea, and would make it impossible to get anything done on Wikipedia. --Improv 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This proposal polarizes the community, therefore it cannot be implemented. Even its spelling is polari(z/s)ing. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am militantly opposed to this proposed policy
Militantly oppose.--Grouse 12:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)