Wikipedia:點樣制定政策

以下係篇提議緊嘅維基百科政策、指引或者程序。篇提議可能重喺度討論緊，又或者尋求緊共識。喺爾版嘅參考或者連結唔應該當做「政策」。 接受定拒絕提議係唔會數票數噉定。

想提出新嘅維基百科政策？或者改現有嘅政策？呢頁可以制定可行嘅新政策，同埋指引（指引本身冇政策咁嚴同咁正式 (strict and official) ）。無論政策同指引都唔可以用投票決定，而係通過討論達成嘅共識去決定。

點樣提議新嘅政策

See also: How are policies started?

提出修改現有嘅政策，用嗰個政策嘅討論頁。

1. First, check existing policy to see if any relevant policies already exist.
2. Create a new page with a rough draft of your proposal. Try to include:
   • A statement at the top explaining what you're proposing
   • 你嘅提議嘅簡要，確定係可行嘅。
   • 解釋提議嘅理由。
   • Add the {{proposed}} tag to the top of the article. This will add a notice and add your proposal to Category:Wikipedia proposals
3. 聽吓、睇吓回應！
   • Link any existing discussions related to the proposal to your proposal page.
   • Post a link to your proposal on Wikipedia:城市論壇_(政策) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies.
4. 努力以求達成共識.
5. If a policy or guideline discussion is still problematic or inconclusive after discussion, it can be re-listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies to invite further review and discussion.

Guidelines for creating policies and guidelines

The following general principles were gathered together following the implementation of several policies across the encyclopedia. As you will see from the guidelines themselves, these points are guidelines, not rules. You know best what will work in your case.

1. Choose policies that have sprung up organically, not imposed from the top down. Contributors "in the trenches" can tell when recurring themes and ideas appear across several articles. Look for conventions that are introduced by one user, but are then copied and adopted by other users. These "de facto" policies often prove very workable. Indeed they are already in practice, so making them "official" is more of a formality than a new policy.
2. Leave room for flexibility (or: Avoid instruction creep). Although a uniformity of style is itself a good thing, it sometimes forces contributors into a straitjacket that they won't like. For example the very flexibility of our policy on allowing all styles of English spelling rather than just the dominant one, has caused it to be a very stable, implementable policy. Although new users often ask if and what the policy is, they tend to accept it pretty quickly once they've been shown the relevant policy page. The same is not true of inflexible policies, which generate the same arguments over and over again.
3. Don't be prescriptive. Devolve responsibility. Although it is tempting to try to cover every possible angle that might arise, it is not always possible. Doing so can lead to long complex policies, with loopholes. Very precise rules are things that badly-intentioned users sometimes love. A policy that says "Doing X n times in a day is grounds for a banning" is often unhelpful - trollish users can and will then deliberately do X (n-1) times in a day. Better to write "Doing X is considered bad. If a user continues to do X after being warned that it is inappropriate, users may decide to {report to arb. committee/implement a temp ban/protect page/revert}". The number of "good" users overwhelms the bad - trust the users to sort things in specific cases, the policy just provides the framework. People are smarter than the words on the page will ever be. This is similar to having a judge to implement and interpret laws.
4. Avoid kneejerk reactions. Suppose one user does something annoying once. It is then often common practice to add to the boilerplate at the top of the relevant policy page, prohibiting what that user did. This in the past has led to ever-lengthening boilerplates that often consider minutiae irrevelant to the broad thrust of the policy. Consider whether it was a one-off, and thus whether it is better to keep that detail on relevant talk pages.
5. Flexibility again. Most articles are only monitored by a few people. Debates are generally manageable, and consensus (often unanimous) can be reached. On very popular policy pages, this is not the case. Lots of people monitor these pages. If you cast a change in "either/or" terms you will often get opinion divided down the middle. Thus, if your policy change has to come to some sort of vote (ample discussion always comes first, because polls are evil), use a form of approval voting rather than first past the post voting. Layout all the options, and for each option allow the user to say if the proposed solution is acceptable or unacceptable. If you only have two options to list, examine whether all the middle ground possibilities have been included.
6. Check existing policies. Consult Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Keep in mind Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. Also check meta, wardwiki, and meatball for inspiration; these wikis are still being maintained.
7. Consult widely - make a special effort to engage potential critics of the new guideline, engage them and get them to help find the middle ground early. (If all else fails, you can use the Bold revert discuss cycle to find these critics)
8. Do not rush - you will get there faster if you give the process the time it needs. People may oppose an idea simply because they feel it has not had adequate discussion, and especially if they feel a policy is being pushed through to circumvent discussion. On the other hand, some amount of friction can always be expected these days. Don't slow down TOO much!
9. Do not call a vote. Votes are rarely appropriate for policy debates, and almost never for guidelines. A vote can never create consensus, instead it may or may not indicate existing consensus.

例有乜用

Policies as well as guidelines can benefit from examples:

Guidelines usually contain more examples than Policies

Most Guidelines document the implementation of the general principles of Policies in concrete circumstances: for that reason Guidelines quite naturally contain more examples than Policy pages. Examples can change (for instance, an article that used to be a good illustration to some guidance, can be turned into a disambiguation page, or the particular example might be moved to a subpage, etc.): while Policies require more consensus to change (they generally have more resistance to swift change), it should especially be taken care of that the examples on Policy pages require stability over a long period of time. For example, the WP:V policy page used to contain names of publications as examples of unreliable sources. These examples were however moved to a guideline: branding publications as "unreliable" as a policy-level appreciation is far too absolute to be workable.

Role of examples during the creation process of policies and guidelines

During the creation process of policies and guidelines examples play an important role: these examples can as well be positive (the policy/guideline attempting to describe how in the past particular issues were successfully handled), as negative (the policy/guideline attempting to describe how a particular problem can be resolved in the future). As an example of the latter, the Seigenthaler controversy was instrumental for the development of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Another example of how examples keep the development of a guideline checked: Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Examples and precedents: new guideline descriptions are cross-referenced to prior AfD cases to check whether the new guideline doesn't deviate from Wikipedians' prior assessments, and/or whether the new guidance would in the future be able to resolve problematic situations without recourse to voting.

舉簡明嘅例

A well-chosen example can often make things clear and understandable far better than long-winded detailed descriptions can. For that reason the selection of the most appropriate examples for guideline and policy pages should not be trivialised: for instance, don't choose examples for which Wikipedians are strongly divided what is the best solution for that example (unless, as a "clear example" illustrating why a guideline chooses a "we agree to disagree" approach). Note, for example, the examples used in Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism: although the area discussed in that guideline section is highly contentious, the examples are always clear: this helps Wikipedians when writing articles about these delicate topics to assess what phrasing would be acceptable, and how to avoid to go over the top.

Also, use examples relevant to the namespace you're writing the guidance for. If you're creating guidance specifically for article namespace, it wouldn't be a good idea to use examples from how issues were tackled in user talk namespace, etc.

Sometimes images can help to create a clear example, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles.

Policy discussions

The central place to discuss policies is Village pump (policy). Policy issues also may be formulated and debated on talk pages, at Meta, on IRC, and on our mailing lists. The Community Portal offers a Community bulletin board to post Wikipedia related news and announcements, including the locations of policy proposals and discussions.

Difficulty of policy adoption

Wikipedians who wish to create or amend policy should proceed with due regard for the difficulty of the process. Some of the most widely known policy adoptions are:

1. Proposed deletion - c. January 2006
2. Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy - December 2005
3. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) - September 2005
4. Expanding criteria for speedy deletion - July 2005
5. Enforcement of the three-revert rule (3RR) - November 2004
6. Creation of the arbitration committee and adoption of its initial rules - January 2004
7. Widening of the speedy deletion criteria - January 2004
8. Creation of the process for gaining adminship by community approval - April 2003

Numbers 2 and 4-8 of these had sponsorship or support of Jimbo Wales.

During this time period, at least 80 proposed policies and proposed policy changes have been rejected.