Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep
|While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement the procedural policy regarding policies and guidelines, which should be deferred to in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.|
|This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia policies and guidelines should not address every possible problem, as that would produce hopelessly long and complex pages.|
Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to document community norms for all readers, especially those unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates. It is important that such pages remain readily understandable and in line with community consensus. All edits, especially substantive additions, should be carefully considered. Too much instruction can result in complex pages which will seldom be read and understood.
Policy and guideline pages function much like articles in that they can generally be edited by anyone. Often, somebody thinks that such-and-such a point should be addressed, or that more explanation would be helpful, and edits accordingly. Such additions can end up being quite unhelpful. Gradual bloating if left unchecked can make a page less and less coherent, less inviting, and less reflective of community consensus, which becomes difficult to gauge when few users are reading and understanding the page. Project pages are meant to be very broad in scope, and thus cannot hope to adequately cover every minute aspect of the issues they deal with.
Keeping policies and guidelines to the point is the most effective way to preserve transparency. Substantive additions to policy should generally be rejected unless:
- There is an actual problem to solve, and not just a hypothetical or perceived problem.
- The proposal if implemented is likely to make a real, positive difference.
- The proposed instructions would not have the effect of forbidding something which might be acceptable.
All instruction should be as clear as possible. Ensure that additions are placed in a logical context, and do not obscure the meaning of surrounding text.
It is usually better for a policy or guideline to be too lax than too strict. Content allowed under policy can still be rejected by consensus. Consensus-building on article talk pages can be undermined by an over-strict policy, as an editor who wants to follow it literally can claim that the issue is already decided.
If you just think that you have good advice for Wikipedians, consider adding it to an essay.
Since things can sometimes "creep in" without much scrutiny, even longstanding instructions should be subject to review. The mere fact that something has been in a policy for a long time does not in itself prove that it has solid consensus.
If an instruction does not make sense or does not seem to describe accepted practice, check the page history to see when it was added and how it may have changed over time. Then check the talk page and talk archive, to see whether there was any related discussion. If you think the instruction lacks community consensus, either make your case on the talk page or boldly remove it, giving your rationale in the edit summary. If you meet with disagreement, discuss the matter further. Those who oppose an outright deletion may still be open to changes.
"WP:CREEP" is not a substitute for actual arguments. Lengthy instruction can be appropriate if it represents a broad consensus and does more good than harm.
- Policies, essays, and guidelines
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style, an editing guideline with a large number of sections and sub-sections
- Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose
- Wikipedia:Practical process
- Wikipedia:Requests for process
- Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies
This page was inspired by the Meta-Wiki concept: m:instruction creep.