SmashWiki talk:How to Test Propositions
I'm not sure this is a good idea.
Maybe we should test it first? DoctorPain99 15:33, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
- In all seriousness, though, I don't see why we need this, and it could cause a whole fuckton of problems, so oppose. DoctorPain99 15:34, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
Nope Bad suggestions don't magically become good suggestions just because we "tested" them, and that's the only case where this would have any sort of beneficial impact. Toomai Glittershine The Producer 15:51, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
Edit conflict: Alrighty then, I guess I'll have to reply to all of you individually...
@Doc: Yes, it MAY cause "a fuckton of problems" depending on what proposal is being tested, but that's why the testing period is only temporary, so if it doesn't work, we can cut it off early and deem it a bad idea.
@Toomai: I don't believe I said anything about bad suggestions turning into good ones just because they were tested. All I'm saying is that even a small amount of potential can be found in even the shittiest of proposals that have ever happened. And to possibly increase that amount of potential, we should test things that require consensus in order to find it. Also, I may not have mentioned it in the proposal, but proposals can still fail even after they get tested, so your complaint is quite frankly a non-issue.
@Scr7: No I am not trying to get my past proposals in by coming up with this one. I am just pointing out that one of the best ways to see if something's as bad or good as people say it is, is to test it out. And if a proposed policy is bad, then it doesn't get accepted. End of story! Also, this isn't just to test out MY past proposals, but ALL proposals that happen here. And once again, just as I said in Toomai's reply, a proposal can still fail even after it is tested, so this will not be a sure-fire way to get my other policies in anyway.
@Dots: If that's the case, then I think I might have to revise this to make it clearer. :|
To be honest, you guys here seem to be getting the wrong idea here, and as I just mentioned, I'll try and make this seem more understandable. MeatBall104: Get In Mah Belleh!!! 16:17, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
- It may be "temporary" but damage will be done and we'll have to fix it. New users will get confused about what's going on, pages might have to be moved then moved back, if the username policy had been tested then failed, we'd even have to change usernames and then changed back. What you're proposing is too much of a logistical nightmare to be useful. DoctorPain99 16:26, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
So should we test this proposition about testing propositions by testing testing propositions? But on a serious note, this just seems like you're saying that all/most propositions should be implemented despite the opinion of them, and then after we realize we were right that they are bad, we clean up the mess that could have been avoided by just trusting our knowledge that they were bad. Even the wording makes it sound like you're just saying "opinions on proposals don't matter and we should just do them anyway." Some proposals are bad and should not be put in place. Others are good and should be put in place. We don't need to make a huge mess every time someone has an idea to know that the idea is bad. Ryxis (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
- Notice that the policy says that the testing period's length will depend on how complicated the proposal is? AND, I've stated that overly complicated policies such as the one in your example wouldn't require testing. Hopefully THAT will keep complicated reverts of actions to a minimum. Also, while new users could possibly get confused during testing periods, it would probably be among the smaller problems, as in this community, newbies are currently outnumbered by experienced people.
And no, opinions do matter, and we will still cash them in at the beginning and end. However, we will also decide how good or bad a proposal is, or how good or bad a user is with certain rights based on their performance during the testing-period. Basically, we'll implement proposed changes based on a combination of opinions AND test results. And once again, it is only temporary, and the time-frame is really short, so that "mess that could have been avoided" will not require too much time to clean up.
Finally, I need to get this out there now: I am not criticizing the judgement of users here! The reason this is being proposed in the first place? Because I often find that the best way to figure out something you're unsure about is to test it out. And tbh, I've seen a fair amount of potential in other propositions such as Roy's forum rules proposal, or Toast becoming an admin, and I thought that maybe others can see the potential in these kind of things if we actually try and see for ourselves what the policy or admin would do to this place. And if it turns out to not be a good idea, then we know and will never consider it ever again. And for those who are complaining about having to clean up a mess after the testing-period, it's not like this Wiki isn't spotless. We have a good chunk of content that could use cleanup, and cleaning up THIS "mess" shouldn't be all that different. Not to mention that I have attempted to decrease the complications of this process, so the extra mess to clean up shouldn't be as big a problem anyway.
- I don't know if murdering someone with a rapier is wrong, so maybe I should test it to see if it is wrong. Or if you need a less extreme example, I don't know if raising taxes by 10% is bad, but let's test it out instead of using economic models, logic, or asking professionals. Testing something is, in this case, not the best way to see if something works, and there's no way around that. 18.104.22.168 20:58, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
- @MeatBall104: If there's messes to be cleaned, clean those up instead of creating policies that would make new ones. Saying that existing mess means we wouldn't be harmed by more mess is horrible logic. Seriously, what you're proposing here would create a ton of mess to clean up at worst and at best, we'll adopt policies that we would have adopted anyway. No gain, high cost, bad. I propose we close this as failed. DoctorPain99 21:10, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
I'm not exactly sure how we can test policies in a significant manner over a short term. Unless it is something that is a quite major change, how can we be sure that the actual point of the policy will come into play in the window it is being tested in. Thus, thought experiments and discussion are better for small policy corrections. As for policies that enforce major changes to the wiki, these should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. If we do desire a test, that's something that can be discussed, but such policy directions are so few and far between that deciding if a test is appropriate should be made for each of them in turn. Having a policy that allows testing would only serve to give credence to policy changes that have little likelihood of passing anyway, but can be forced through via this method. In terms of adminship, this just doesn't work. We have had adminship tests before, and none of them require the use actually being given the tools (check the RfA's from 2009–10 to see some of these). Also, given the amount of damage that can be done by a rouge admin, if I were to give someone whom I did not fully trust adminship as a test, I would feel the need to be on the wiki at all times (or at least have another bureau on) so that things could be quickly reverted. Thus, we again wind up in an impractical situation: either I'm on this wiki when I should be doing dissertation research/prepping conference papers, and/or the window of time is much too short for the test to have salient results. The idea of testing someone's admin decision making is a good one, but it can be accomplished without actually giving them adminship and it can be accomplished via the current RfA procedure. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:19, 30 March 2014 (EDT)
Nope. Toom pretty much hit the nail on the head; no reason to force things into a trial period. I think the site's users have a pretty good sense of what will or won't work without having to mess around with that. Miles (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2014 (EDT)