Wikipedia talk:Reduce confusion by following policy

General comments

I like it. - brenneman^{L} 03:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather vague. I've read this very brief piece from start to finish and still don't understand what the writer is advocating, except that he calls this "following policy." If he is using this term with its conventional meaning, then it's a truism. If he is using the term with some other meaning, he doesn't explain himself. --Tony Sidaway 11:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

One-liner

I've added an intro one-liner:

If you follow policy and process, editors know which way is up today and don't feel the ground shifting under their feet.

Is this what the page means, or have I got it badly wrong? - David Gerard 16:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats it. I think you said it better than I did originally. I really should go through some day and revamp this so that it is more than a rant, it does actually have a point deep down and the new first sentence kind of sets up a way for it to develop. Ansell 03:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a Grand Unified Theory of policy versus process. MUWAHAHAHA etc - David Gerard 00:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What happens if we NEED people to feel the ground shift under their feet?

The problem is, the ground really *is* shifting under our feet. Making it artificially feel more steady than it really is gives people a false sense of security, and is not exactly conducive to the longetivity of this project.

Ideally we can be very sensitive to small shifts and react to them in a gentle and timely manner, so that we continue to adapt to our envioronment.

As with all things in real life, failure to adapt is not an option.

Welcome to the real world! :)

Kim Bruning 20:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we need it to ;-) Hence my lovely process essay! Hammer home the policies: NPOV, NOR, V, AGF, BITE. That last isn't usually on the list, but I suspect it should be. - David Gerard 00:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)