User:Aiiane/Policy model
What is this?[edit]
The following is a proposal for the interaction and expression of both policy and adminship. It is not meant to be something that is restrictive nor binding, but rather a concept, something to take into consideration when creating the former and exercising the latter - a guideline for policy, so to speak.
The concept[edit]
The spirit of a policy is the critical element.
A common perception of policy is that it needs to be strict, objective, and definite:
- "X is not allowed, period"
- "You cannot do Y more than Z times per day"
- "This is only applicable for W"
There is a fundamental problem with this, however: people adapt much more quickly than a strict set of guidelines can. By the very act of creating strict barriers, the encouragement is there to toe the line. If you say "don't do X more than 10 times a day", you can be sure that there will be people who do X exactly 10 times a day because the objectively-worded policy gives them the "right" to.
Rights are dangerous things. They imply a rule that doesn't allow for better judgement to come into the equation: rights are absolute, and the only rights that should be guaranteed are those which are necessary. Yes, certain rights are necessary. Just as humans can abuse rules, they can also abuse the enforcement of those rules, and thus there is a need for a right to review of such enforcement. Likewise, there is a need for copyright and attribution rights; luckily, the wiki infrastructure provides most of the needed tools in that regard. However, the full list of necessary "rights" is actually rather small.
Policies should be designed to help settle issues, not create them. Beyond such necessary rights, policy should not be strict for anything where the matter cannot be clearly defined. GWW's "NPA" policy is a good example of why attempting otherwise is a problem. Attempting to create artificial delineations in an area which has so many facets that words cannot hope to individually address them all simply leads to snowballing debates whenever the policy is invoked.
Policies should be an expression of the community's wishes for the spirit of administration. Guidelines should be an expression for the spirit of editing. Actual administration should be done by administrators; actual editing should be done by editors.
Provide a recourse for those who believe administration has been abused to request review of actions, and provide a way for editors who are experiencing difficulty with other editors to seek mediation. These are just as necessary as allowing discretion when it comes to editing/administration. Yet even here, don't attempt to remove the human element. Instead, create a cycle that helps to ensure balance: the community held accountable by the sysops, the sysops held accountable by the bureaucrats, and the bureaucrats held accountable by the community.
The people who own the site aren't picking who is in power, so we can't simply have a top-down administration scheme, because there's no top to start from. Yet that doesn't mean we need to try to lay out everything in words, either. Yes, there are people who try to abuse policy, and do it well. Yes, there are people who are simply not acting in good faith. On the other hand, those acting in good faith are the majority - if this were not the case, wikis would be destined for failure, and despite any drama, GuildWiki, GuildWarsWiki, and PvXWiki are all useful Guild Wars resources.
