[wp-docs] New page policy discussion
carthik at gmail.com
Wed Mar 2 22:06:06 GMT 2005
I tried to get a start on New Page policy discussion in an early
thread  that I mentioned on this thread earlier. While it continues
to the use the sub-page-of-userpage system, it specifies how new pages
will be created/named and so answers at least a few of the questions
you ask in this mail. Would you care to comment/improve on that thread
I started. Feedback is always welcome. Once we can reach an agreement,
we can avoid frequent re-discussions of old topics of this kind, and
move forward with the tasks at hand.
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:07:15 -0500, Owen Winkler
<ringmaster at midnightcircus.com> wrote:
> I agree with Morgan, especially on the point of duplicating content.
> With all of the complaints of late regarding orphaned pages, why on
> Earth should policy suggest that you create - by definition - an
> orphaned User: page for any codex content?
> There should be a policy about how site cohesion is maintained (which
> pages stay and how they're organized), but the policy should be drafted
> in a Machiavellian "you see it -- you fix it" way. My current distaste
> for being slapped around by admins for adding original useful content in
> a method contrary to their tastes but valid by common sense discourages
> me from contributing much. If this makes /me/ less inclined to
> contribute, I can only imagine the barrier for folks who are hesitant
> from the start. This is primarily why I don't contribute to Codex as
> often as I might.
> There are also problems with the review process in the New Page policy.
> For one, nobody follows it - I have seen zero new page review
> requests go by on this mailing list, ever. Also, the policy does not
> mention what signals the final decision on a valid title. Is there a
> quorum? How do you know what a quorum is on a mailing list? And who
> does the moving from a User: page to live content when the decision is
> finally made? Let's not mention that doing it this way will take months
> for a single contentious page at the rate this list debates minutia.
> So, never complain without proposing a solution: Craft a policy that
> allows Codex's users to build Codex. Build into that policy a review
> process that uses the RSS feed of new pages
> rather than using the mailing list. The policy should be expanded to
> describe maintenance tasks, like marking pages as incomplete, orphaned,
> in need of technical review, etc. All users should be empowered to make
> changes directly to pages to bring them in-line with policy, and
> annotate the required change on the Talk page. This is not to imply
> that admin privileges be granted, just that the policy encourages users
> to take organization and editing into their own hands. Gross error or
> contested title/location? Mark it for review by an admin who can bring
> it up on this list or make a decision outright (but we'll need markers
> and instructions on how to apply them). Otherwise, just let people
> create content.
> I get the feeling that list members don't contribute to these policy
> discussions because they fear cheesing people off. I'm just airing my
> personal grievances with Codex, which are as (in)valid as anyone else's,
> and hopefully useful to those whom they concern. When policy is in
> stone, I'll invite you all out for beer.
> wp-docs mailing list
> wp-docs at lists.automattic.com
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone -- 老子 Lǎozi
University of Central Florida
More information about the wp-docs