Wikibooks talk:Be bold/Archive1

I don't think this should be a policy. I'm indifferent as to whether it should be an official or unofficial guideline, Jguk 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the text from &#123;{policy}}. Policies are rules and principles that the Wikibooks community has accepted and wikibookians must follow. Why must I follow this if it were nominated to be a policy? What if I were a new and timid editor who justed wanted to act as a wikignome while I learn the loops and strings? To require this a policy which Wikibookians must follow is absolutely ludicrous. You can't legislate morals, you can't legislate values, and you definitely cannot enforce them. --Iamunknown 10:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with both the above - unofficial guideline maybe but certainly not policy -- Herby talk thyme 11:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is currently mention of "being bold" as being an encouraged behavior in the decision making guideline. If we can turn that into a policy, then technically we can just let this be a policy. However, I would like to point out that be bold is a common mantra in wikimedia project, and we would like to encourage the behavior. Furthermore, I think there should be some kind of protection in place for the people who actually are bold, so that other people don't complain and say "That a-hole was too bold", or even "On this page, people arent allowed to be bold." Finally, I would like to point out that this page says "Wikibookians are encouraged to be bold", not "mandated" or anything like that. The policy basically says that boldness should be welcomed and encouraged as a matter of policy, but that being bold is something that people may do at their own discretion. I think that we absolutely should encourage it and protect it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that Wikibookians should be bold and that Wikibookians who are bold should not be complained about. I agree that Wikibookians should be encouraged to be bold. They should not, under any circumstance, however, be required to be bold. A policy is specifically "...rules and principles that the Wikibooks community has accepted and wikibookians must follow." I disagree. I think that Wikibookians should follow the ideas outlined in this text; thus I think this text should be a guideline.
 * Furthermore, as the text stands now, there is no protection for bold Wikibookians mentioned. I am unsure if it would be appropriate to include it here. It could, however, be included in Be civil, with an appropriate see also link at the bottom of this page.
 * I will try my hand at it sometime later, unless someone beats me to it. Cheers, Iamunknown 01:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree that this should be a guideline, it still misses a very important topic that are changes in format and structure, those changes shouldn't be protected by the be bold directive, that type of changes should be addressed by a formal proposal if there are other users active on the book (or if it isn't stale). --Panic 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything should be protected by this guideline. The mandate isn't "be bold, except when you shouldnt be", or "be bold unless other people are looking". All wikibookians are always encouraged to take initiative to make the project better. We shouldnt limit or restrict that. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

official vs unofficial
Were can I find information on the differences on a official and unofficial guidelines ? (policies are always official, right ?) --Panic 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're expected to follow official guidelines unless you can show a bloody good reason not to - they will have community consensus. Unofficial guidelines have persuasive force only - they will not necessarily have community consensus, but have not been rejected. Jguk 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where can one find the unofficial list of guidelines ? Or are you referring to guidelines and policies that didn't yet come to a "vote"/close ? --Panic 17:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such distinction between "official" and "unofficial" guidelines. The only things that are recognized are "policy", "guideline", and "proposal". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That was my understanding, but people continue to refer to unofficial guidelines/policies. --Panic 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a number of de facto rules around here, things that people do just because we've always done them. I believe that unless something is written and "official", that people should have the freedom to do whatever they want. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree with Whiteknight here. Some policies apply even though they have not been written up. For example, I believe that when the Be civil policy was moved to enforce, it didn't create a new policy or change the way we do things in any way. Instead it just wrote down what the policy already was.

"Unofficial" is perhaps an unfortunate term. They don't have any formal force, but they will represent the views of the people who have written them. On Wikibooks, we do always tend to listen to people's views before taking a course of action, but that doesn't mean that we all always agree on which course of action is best. It's a judgment call as to how much weight, if any, to give to an "unofficial" guideline in any particular circumstance. However, I do believe that as long as you act reasonably, no-one will mind too much, even if it contradicts an "unofficial" guideline.

Maybe, in the light of the above, we should remove the term "unofficial guideline" and replace it with something like "discussion" or "user's essay".

It is, of course, only "official" policies and guidelines that need to be followed - but don't necessarily assume that they are all written down somewhere - some are just the customs which the current Wikibookians generally all adhere to. Jguk 21:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I had mentioned trying to do "comunity statements" at some point... this would qualify for that. -- SB_Johnny | talk 21:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)