维基百科:撰寫方針很難

维基百科,自由的百科全书
跳到导航 跳到搜索
未来的维基人磨练自己的写作能力。

撰写方针是很难的。当你在写 "规则 "的时候,不管这些规则是否出现在被正式标记为方针、指引、格式手册或其他东西的页面上,那么你就是在从事方针写作。

方针和指引方面,"但请小心 "这一告诫尤其重要,因为在这些方针和指引中,关键部分的措辞可能会以一种特殊的方式反映出一种非常来之不易的、刀锋般的共识——对不熟悉背景的人来说,这一点可能并不明显。

— 来自Wikipedia:Be bold英语Wikipedia:Be bold

要考虑的事情[编辑]

  • 你真的有必要这么做吗?如果只发生过一次已知的争议(甚至没有),那就很少有必要或帮助修改方针或指引。因为没有人看说明书英语Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep,方针的写作是一个长期的问题和长期解决方案。改变书面方针和指引的措辞,可能需要几年时间,才能对编辑的行为产生重大影响。
  • 维基百科19年4个月岁了,其政策是相当成熟的,是数千次共识讨论的产物,平衡了数千名编辑的意见。许多建议都是以前讨论过的,虽然共识可以改变,但值得考虑的是,这些老的讨论在现在是否仍然有分量。请回顾一下你认为要改变的政策、准则或流程的讨论页面的档案,并确保你不准备发布一个经常被拒绝的提案,因为重复讨论它们英语WP:FREQUENT会大大消耗编辑的工作效率。
  • 描述;而不是规定。尽量把大多数有经验的编辑实际做的事情记录下来。如果一个选择很受欢迎,但没有令人信服的理由让你认同、做同样的事情,那么就说这是一个 "流行 "或 "常见 "的解决方案,而不是说这是 "推荐 "或 "需要 "的。
  • 考虑一下你所建议的改变会在各种情况下如何发挥作用。很多编辑第一次尝试写政策的时候,都是因为某个特定的争议,他们的建议往往只为解决这个特定的争议而设计。不要只看单一的例子。比如说,如果你想改进我们对可靠来源的指导,那么就要考虑它对各种文章的影响,比如说,一篇关于一种疾病、一个活生生的人、一个组织、一首歌的文章。
  • 提供所有必要的信息,然后停止。不要过度解释,也不要过于精确。遇到疑问时,尽可能地做最小的改变,然后观察争论一段时间,看这个小小的改变是否解决了问题。如果没有,那就再试一次。
  • 尽量在写明判断的范围。这可以通过使用诸如 "应该""通常""通常""可选 "和(很少)"必须 "等词来部分地做到。RFC 2119是其中一些词语的试金石;例如,当我们说编辑 "应该 "做某件事情时,那么我们就是在告诉他们,"在特定的情况下,可能存在着合理的理由,可以忽略 "通常的建议,而选择忽略所有的规则,"但在选择不同的方式之前,必须理解和仔细权衡其全部含义"。即使是我们的大多数正式政策,也都是最佳做法的提纲模板:Template:See below,而不是硬性要求。除了维基媒体基金会的法律部门对社区提出的法律要求之外,"必须"(又名 "要求 ""永远/不允许")的概念一般在维基百科上根本不适用。如果你的意图是要强加硬性要求,那么你可能犯了一个错误。
  • 考虑一下你的措辞可能会被 误解——甚至被PoV推手英语Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing维基法匠故意扭曲或断章取义。如果很容易被误引或误解,那就复制-编辑你的建议,直到难以误解。
  • 查看相关的页面,有机会的话就去建内链。你想分享的想法可能已经存在于不同的页面上。在这种情况下,最好是链接到已有的建议,而不是把建议分散在多个页面上。
  • 使用整个页面类型。方针、指引和论述之间的区别很细,也很模糊,但有些页面类型更适合某些类型的信息或建议。正确使用帮助页、程序/流程页、支持页、信息页。

Use the whole range of page types. The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays is thin and obscure, but some page types are more appropriate for some types of information or advice. Use help, procedure/process, supplement, and information pages appropriately.

Attitudes that help[编辑]

Good policy writers tend to trust that other editors, overall, will get it right in the end. They leave room for editors to use good judgment and to consider all the facts and circumstances. Their goal is usually to help editors get it right sooner, more efficiently, and with fewer unnecessary disputes. Good policy writers can live with ambiguity, uncertainty, diversity, and experimentation.

Good policy writers tend to listen purposefully. They are also skilled at separating their own views from the views of other people. These traits help them hear the kernel of reality or experience in the middle of a pack of insults and half-truths, and to keep the main point in mind when editors are wandering off on tangents. Listening and conformity are separate matters: good policy writers listen to others, and try to see through their eyes, but don't necessarily adopt the other editors' views.

Good policy writers remember that the real policy is what good editors really do, and that the words on a page with a "policy" tag at the top are only pale shadows of the true policy – the operational, day-to-day consensus of how Wikipedia is managed. The English Wikipedia operates on model more similar to the British constitution than the American one: the true policies and principles have real substance, even when they aren't written down. Writing other things down and applying a tag at the top of the page doesn't make them real policies. Good policy writers remember that "the wiki way" is the fundamental principle for resolving all disputes. The wiki way is about what sticks on the page in the end, rather than what some advice page said ought to stick. As a result, good policy writers value the collective actions of experienced contributors over the words on a policy or guideline page.

Finally, good policy writers know how to lose and when to give up on a hopeless cause.

You might not be very good at this[编辑]

Some editors are skilled at this kind of work. Others are not. Don't be embarrassed if you're not particularly skilled at this background activity. Nobody can be good at everything, and exercise of this particular skill may ultimately contribute less to the mission than many other activities.

If you're not good at writing policies, then consider not boldly making substantive changes to Wikipedia's advice pages. Instead, try taking your ideas to a talk page, describe the problems you're seeing, and ask for advice on improving Wikipedia's advice.

If you are active in policy and guideline pages, then take a look at how other editors usually react to you. If you find that most of your proposals are rejected, then – even if your ideas and goals are great – you're probably just not very good at this. It might be better for you personally, and for the project as a whole, if you found other ways to contribute. Alternatively, look around for an editor who contributes to related policies and guidelines, and ask for advice and help. Your great ideas and goals might just need a partner.

See also[编辑]