[wp-docs] New page policy discussion

[Owen Winkler]

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
(http://codex.wordpress.org/index.php?title=Special:Newpages&feed=rss)
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.

Owen