Wikipedia talk:Avoid instruction creep

Redirects here

@Butwhatdoiknow, it is normal for redirects to appear in the lead, especially if they aren't merely slight variations in spelling, and it is normal for those titles to be in bold-faced text. Why do you want this page to be handled in a non-standard fashion?
There is approximately one link to WP:Nobody reads the directions for every four links to Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. (Most of the links are to the shortcut WP:CREEP.) When 20% of the spelled-out links are to a title that's significantly different, I think we need to let editors know that they have arrived at the intended page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Regarding your edit in its entirety, you not only added the redirect sentence but you also removed and replaced other text in the lede. Your edit summary said "About citing this page." I'm not seeing how what you say above explains these additional changes to the lede.

2. Regarding your insert of hidden text saying "Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions redirects here, so this line needs to remain in the lead." I asked "is 'this line needs to remain in the lead' legit?" I'm not seeing how what you say above answers that question.

3. Regarding the redirect itself, I wonder whether CREEP - which promotes readable directions - is the right target. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

1. I thought that some of the other content, which was boldly edited by you a while back, was less direct and less clear than the content you had removed, so I partly restored it to the previous version.
   • For example, I believe that "These pages explain community norms for all readers, especially those unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates" is basically false (because nobody reads the directions, especially "readers" and "those unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates"). I think some times that it would be far more accurate to say "These pages are an attempt to save experienced editors some time in re-re-re-re-explaining the same things to other editors, and to make certain kinds of disputes more efficient because experienced editors can conduct their conversations in WP:BBQ shortcuts instead of actually talking like humans".
   • I also don't that links to these mainspace articles are helpful to people reading this page. Criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive rule-making, for example, asserts that several editors, between 2009 and 2014, said that they believed there were too many rules. But the section doesn't give a single example of a rule that they believed was excessive. If you want to know that Dariusz and Kat and Aaron complained, then you're set. But if you want to know what constitutes "excessiveness", so that you could avoid making that mistake yourself, then that link is utterly worthless to you.
2. You seem surprised by the use of hidden comments to identify titles that redirect. See Wikipedia:Redirect#PLA and WP:TARGET. This has been done in thousands of articles (but not millions, so even an editor who has made a few thousand edits might not have noticed it before). See, e.g., here, here, and here.
   • Whether it needs a "so don't remove it, 'kay?" reminder probably depends on how trusting the posting editor is that other editors will understand what's going on. I notice that you've personally removed that twice, without any discussion, and based on your comments here, without seeming to understand why that phrase was (properly) present and in bold-faced type. If you assume that everyone's read all the directions, then you probably wouldn't bother signalling that editors should think twice. However, it would not be rational for an editor to say that nobody reads the directions, and then assume that everyone has read the directions about how to handle redirects in the target pages.
3. CREEP promotes not having too many directions. It's not about readability (at all). CREEP is about not legislating small details.
   • CREEP's ideal is that you write "Base articles on reliable sources" and then leave it to editors to figure out what works best, instead of trying to write something like "Every article must cite a minimum of 11 different sources, of which at least three must be available free online and an actual majority must be independent of the subject matter, unless the subject is about a notable person using of social media, in which case you don't count links to that person's social media activity when calculating the percentage of independent sources, but if it's a medical article, then only textbooks, professional-level reference works and review articles in reputable journals, except in the ==History== section or if you're writing about criticism of psychiatry, and please see these 37 lengthy essays on how to write biographies, based on which century, profession, and nationality applies to the subject".
   • The problem to be addressed isn't complex language; the problem is that almost nobody will even read all of that even if you write it in the simplest possible Simple English. Even if they do, that level of detail won't be very helpful to them. CREEP wants fewer, more general rules, with editors using their best judgment to fill in the gaps.

The obvious connection here is that when editors create CREEPy rules, editors create rules that nobody will read. Perhaps if a rational editor is tempted to create CREEPy rules, despite recognizing that the proposal is CREEPy, then that rational editor might be dissuaded by being told that CREEPy rules are ineffective and pointless (in addition to being CREEPy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

1. I've made a BOLD edit to, I hope, resolve our differences (except for the "Nobody reads directions" sentence).

2. Again, my concern is with the hidden text saying "this line needs to remain in the lead" (or, as you have re-stated it, "so don't remove it, 'kay?"), which suggests the sentence cannot be removed. Compare that to the language used in your three examples: the first and second say nothing about future editing and the third says "Be careful not to rename the title without due consideration."

3. "Nobody reads the directions" does not say (to me) "when editors create CREEPy rules, editors create rules that nobody will read." It says "nobody will read rules regardless of how CREEP-free they are." In context, the obvious (to me) message is: "brevity will not increase the chances that people will read the rules." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

1. IMO that's an improvement. Thanks.
2. You have already removed the redirect's name twice, despite the hidden text recommending against doing that. What do you think would actually work to prevent other people (i.e., people who also haven't read/remembered the directions about R#PLA and TARGET) from removing all mention of the redirect from the lead?
3. Nobody reads the directions whether they're CREEPy or not. This suggests that writing CREEPy rules is a waste of your time. It is true that "when editors create CREEPy rules, editors create rules that nobody will read." It is also true that "when editors create non-CREEPy rules, editors create rules that nobody will read."

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's put 2 aside for the moment (it may become moot depending on how we resolve 3). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

3. If nobody reads non-CREEPy rules, why have CREEP at all? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Instruction creep encourages editors to mindlessly follow rules instead of using their brains. Writing down a million instructions results in editors believing that the goal is to follow the rules, rather than to write good encyclopedia articles. Instruction creep benefits wikilawyers and hurts articles, because having too many/too detailed rules increases the risk that the written rule will be wrong or inapplicable (but the POV pusher will say that the rule must be followed anyway), or that two written rules will conflict with each other. It also delays and prevents appropriate changes (e.g., if real-world facts change but we wrote down a rule that says something different. See the examples in Euphemism treadmill. Imagine how much effort it would have taken if The Rules™ had been written in the 1970s and said to use the term Afro-American [it was briefly in vogue in the 1970s, and it was "neutral" because it didn't have any association with Black Power movement], and the next decade, editors realize that "African-American" or "people of color" are the current terms. It would have been better not to write it down in the first place). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that we have wp:CREEP because (a) some people do read the rules and (b) non-CREEPy rules are more useful? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Add Problem section

I've made another BOLD proposal here and at Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Two questions:

• Why did you cite these sources?
• Why do you believe that the problem is "rulemaking drives away newcomers" (who aren't reading the rules anyway)?

I don't exactly object, but this doesn't seem like the most sensible approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Drives away newcomers

Regarding "drives away newcomers," there's this from Criticism of Wikipedia#Criticism of content: "In The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity is Causing its Decline (2013), Aaron Halfaker said the over-complicated rules and laws of Wikipedia unintentionally provoked the decline in editorial participation that began in 2009—frightening away new editors who otherwise would contribute to Wikipedia." Footnoted to: "Vergano, Dan (January 3, 2013). "Study: Wikipedia is driving away newcomers". USA Today. Archived from the original on September 21, 2015. Retrieved November 19, 2014."

The USA Today article leads with three bullet points. The first is outdated (editor numbers stabilized several years ago), and the other two are:

• Analysis suggests increased edit rejection rates are driving contributors away
• Automated 'bots' that cancel new edits impersonally also may drive away new editors

This indicates that the problem is closer to "reverting" than "writing down rules (that nobody reads)" per se.

@EpochFail's paper says "Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention." He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that "writing down rules" is either "the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism" or "the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions". I suspect that the primarily quality control mechanism is RecentChanges patrollers (e.g., Huggle), and that the algorithmic tools in question are ClueBot's predecessors. The policy-related statement in the paper is that newcomers' suggestions for policies and guidelines were routinely rejected – which is not exactly the same thing as saying that making rules drives away new editors. (Aaron, if the main point of your paper is not correctly described in Criticism of Wikipedia [you're named in two sections], please squawk and we'll try to fix it.)

Butwhatdoiknow, I'm still not sure why you felt like this sentence needed citations to reliable sources. Do you think people won't believe you if it doesn't have footnotes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're talking about one footnote to one sentence in my text. You said my "approach" doesn't seem like the most sensible. What do you mean by approach? What would you suggest as a better approach? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to tie excessive rule-making to losing newcomers. Newcomers don't leave because there are 500 guidelines and WikiProject advice pages. They leave because their contributions get reverted and threatened. The existence of rules is not the proximate cause of newcomer loss. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

In the early days of Nupedia, Jimmy Wales tried writing an article about a topic that he was familiar with but gave up because he said that it was too intimidating. Nupedia had an elaborate review process which was a barrier to entry, even for insiders like Jimmy. Wikipedia was comparatively successful because it was more open and tolerant. But since then, the process of CREEP has been steadily rebuilding intimidating barriers. I often attend events which are specifically focussed on training new editors and it seems clear that that there now lots of scary rules which frighten them off: issues of BLP, COI, citations, copyright, &c. Even the process of chatting on a talk page like this is intimidating to newcomers and they need lots of hand-holding to be talked through bizarre stuff like pings and tildes. The impression conveyed is that Wikipedia is difficult and hard work and that, if you make a mistake, there are lots of nasty people who will pounce on it and bite you. And this impression is correct as even veteran editors like Jimbo find it difficult to survive in this toxic atmosphere and they now tend to do so by avoiding content creation.

Now Jimbo famously coined the metarule, WP:IAR. This is quite clear and simple but there still lots of editors who don't get it. The problem is not just the rules; it's the attitudes and enforcement that goes with them. It turns out that the rule that matters most is the Iron Rule.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Some rules (e.g., copyvio) are complex and difficult no matter how un-creepily we write them down, or even if we don't write them down at all. I'm pretty sure that we don't have rules telling editors that they must connect to the internet to edit Wikipedia, but it's still a procedural "rule" they will have to follow.

IMO the problem with newcomers isn't the existence of the rules. Newcomers expect some rules. The immediate problem for newcomers is the existence of "lots of nasty people who will pounce on it and bite you". When I was a newbie – all three of us started editing around the same time – my mistakes were met with kindness and tolerance. People just quietly fixed them instead of leaving warning messages on my talk page about how I was "vandalizing" Wikipedia because I didn't magically know that {{Cancer}} as different from Category:Cancer. That approach wasn't uniform back in 2006–2007, but it seems uncommon now. See, e.g., this edit which was reverted via Wikipedia:RedWarn script, with Template:Uw-disruptive1 dumped on the newcomer's talk page. That edit added half a sentence (relevant and encyclopedic) and a reliable source. (I've just asked the reverter what's going on; I suspect that the answer will involve a misunderstanding about what happens if you tell the script that a less-than-perfect edit is "unconstructive".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that it's true that "Excessive rulemaking drives away away new editors." I believe that the primary reason that editors depart is that they were reverted. Why should we say that rulemaking, rather than reverting, drives away new editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The text does not say that excessive rulemaking is is the sole, or even the primary, factor driving away new editors. Are you disputing that it is a factor at all? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that rulemaking drives away new editors at all. Rulemaking is a process. Newcomers are almost never involved in, or directly affected by, that process.

Probably what you meant to say is "Having too many rules drives away new editors". IMO it is possible that this could drive away new editors. However, I'm doubtful about this. How many rules exist in the real world about when, where, and how to drive a car? And yet it does not cause people to stop driving; the number of licensed drivers increases each year. I have never heard of a person saying "There are too many rules; I just won't drive". I know people who don't drive for medical reasons, for environmental reasons, for financial reasons, because they don't like it, and even for fear of harming someone else, but I know nobody who decided against driving because there were thousands of rules about driving.

I see two possibilities:

• The "excessive" rules reflect the realistic complexity of the project. Some people don't want to deal with that level of complexity, and nothing that could be accomplished via a rulemaking process will change this. In this scenario, the rules accurately reflect reality, and it is reality, rather than the rules per se, that is being rejected.
• The "excessive" rules could be removed and replaced by unwritten rules. Instead of reverting your edits because experienced editors agreed _____ (a rule nobody could expect you to have known about), then I'll revert your edits because I personally don't like _____. But the next time you edit, someone else will tell you that _____ is the only correct way to do it. Your experience will be confusing, and different editors will assert their personal views as the One True™ Way. You might be exposed to less reverting, but you will be exposed to more fighting.

All in all, I think that having these "excessive" rules is preferable for newcomers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to replacing the current text with "Having too many rules drives away new editors." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I've made that change with softer language, on the grounds that is is less-untrue than the previous version. However, AFAICT we have no evidence that this is true. I have only seen evidence that some people have speculated that this might happen. You seem to believe that it is true – that if we halved the length or number of policies, we'd more newcomers would stick around, and if we doubled them, fewer newcomers would be retained. Why do you believe this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see the footnote to the text you dispute and, in turn, the footnotes to text to which the footnote links. In particular, footnote 9. (And please stop attributing strawman beliefs to me that I do not hold.)

By the way, an unwritten rule is not the only alternative to a written rule. Another is to not have a rule. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Instead of relying on the popular press summary of https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764212469365, I'm looking at the paper itself. It has been misrepresented in the Wikipedia articles. Here are the relevant sentences from the abstract on the cause of the newcomer decline that began in 2007 and ended in 2013: "Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention."

What this means, in plain language, is the decline in the number of editors was caused by:

• RecentChanges Patrollers
• New Page Patrollers
• Cluebot, and
• Huggle.

Notice that none of those are "rules". Cluebot's first edit was in 2007. Aaron's paper specifically calls out Cluebot and similar "algorithmic tools" and says that when these bots were reverting 40% (nearly half!) of new editors. The process the paper is outlined looks like this:

1. New editor makes an edit
2. Edit is quickly reverted (frequently within seconds)
3. New editor gives up

Again, no "rules" are involved in this. The problem is that people quit when their edits don't stick. This can be good (near-instant reversion by Cluebot discouraged a lot of poop vandals), but it has other costs (good-faith editors give up, too).

Here is what that same paper says about rules: "Furthermore, the community’s formal mechanisms for norm articulation are shown to have calcified against changes—especially changes proposed by newer editors."

Notice the gap between what it actually says (it's harder to get anyone to accept proposed changes to major policy and guideline pages, especially if the person proposing the change is a new editor) and what this page is claiming (too many rules = fewer newcomers editing in the mainspace).

I don't think that this is evidence that "rules" make people quit. I think the evidence we have is that reverting makes people quit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's go back to your wording (with a change from "might" to "may"). See my citation in the edit summary for the change. If we're done, feel free to remove the "under discussion" tag. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

More sensible approach

If my approach isn't the most sensible then we shouldn't spend time trying to improve it. What do you have in mind as something better? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: From this post I gather that your only concern with the changes I made is the "Excessive rulemaking drives away away new editors who would otherwise contribute to Wikipedia." sentence. Do I have that right? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have multiple concerns. Here are some:

I appreciate this as an improvement: "The longer, more detailed, and more complicated you make the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow whatever you write." It takes out doubtful claims and adds a probably correct claim.

I think that most of this:

"In fact manuals are often not read, even those who do read them are unlikely to read them in full (Brockman, 1990; Carroll, 1990; Carroll, et al., 1987; Rettig, 1991; Schriver, 1997; Spannagel, et al., 2008; Wright, 1981), and all features are not used. This is something that consumer society needs to address in order to accurately meet users’ needs." Blackler A, Gomez R, Popovic V, Thompson H, (2016) Life is too short to RTFM: How users relate to documentation and excess features in consumer products, Interacting with Computers, 28 (1), pp. 27-46 (accessed December 12, 2021. particularly when they are not "easily accessible and pleasant to use." Brigit van Loggem, 'Nobody reads the documentation': true or not?, Information Resarch, vol. 19 no. 4, December, 2014 (Accessed December 12, 2021). (Ignoble Prize winner.)

is unnecessary.

I think this sentence: "Excessive rulemaking drives away away new editors who would otherwise contribute to Wikipedia" is of doubtful accuracy, and I think that the footnote is inappropriate, as it primarily leads to editors' personal speculation than evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Do I correctly gather from this that you are okay with the overall approach of having a new Problem section and revising the redirect to point to that section? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

In principle, I don't mind having a separate ==Problem== section, and I don't mind if the redirect points to any reasonable section on the page. I am, however, doubtful that there will be enough content to justify the existence of a ==Problem== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added more meat to the Problem section by merging the Development section into it. That, I think, resolves your remaining overall approach issue. That leaves your text and footnotes concerns to work out.Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Would you like to talk about the text next? I am not sure that it's true that "Excessive rulemaking drives away away new editors." I believe that the primary reason that editors depart is that they were reverted. Why should we say that rulemaking, rather than reverting, drives away new editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I've responded above. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Footnotes

Next question: Why do you want footnotes in this section? It's not normal to cite sources in our internal advice, even when the advice was constructed primarily from external sources (which is not the case here; this is a case of writing the advice first and finding sources that match it later).
I think what I want to understand is why you think the footnotes improve the page. Do you imagine that editors will read the sources? Be so impressed by the existence of footnotes that they'll be more likely to follow the advice? A handy place to stick a note to some favorite sources, for your own use later? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you think they detract from the essay? If so, let's talk about that. If not, why do you care? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think they distract editors from the advice. It stops being common-sense advice and starts being something that we're so uncertain about that we felt like we needed to "prove" it.

I also think they set an example that we might not want to follow. There are sometimes good reasons to follow external advice (whether we cite it or not), but that is most typically helpful because the subject matter is more complicated than it might seem from a glance. (e.g., statistics, gender identity, suicide, words that you might not realize were politicized).

Overall, it feels like it provides no value to the intended audience, and some small harms (the distraction). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll concede that the cost outweighs the benefit, especially on a page devoted to brevity. Footnotes dropped. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

While obviously I agree with you about the footnotes, "brevity" is not the point of this page. A CREEPY rule can be stated very briefly, and a non-CREEPY rule can be stated verbosely. What makes a rule CREEPY or not is how much control it tries to exert over editors, vs how much they are expected to use their own judgement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody reads the directions

The first sentence of the Problems section reads:

Nobody reads the directions, particularly when they are not easily accessible and pleasant to use.

I propose to change that to:

Editors won't read directions unless they are easily accessible and pleasant to use.

or something similar because:
(a) "nobody reads the directions" is patently untrue,
(b) the phrase conflicts with the underlying premise of this article (to wit: at least some people do read directions and you can increase the percentage by keeping the directions manageable), and
(c) the fact that someone created a "Nobody reads the directions" redirect that points to this article does not justify adding that phrase to this article's text.
Anyone opposed to this change? If so, why? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Ping user:WhatamIdoing. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you actually "read" the directions? NB that "read" implies that you start at the first sentence, and you proceed in a linear fashion all the way down the page until you get to the end (e.g., until the beginning of the appendices, if any). "Reading the directions" is different from "consulting" or "skimming" or "searching for a keyword" or similar behaviors, which actually do seem to be common. How many of the policies/guidelines/how-to/help pages have you actually read completely? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with you that "nobody reads the directions" means "nobody reads all of the directions"? At best, it's confusing. Given that, why have the phrase in the the article at all? What purpose does it serve? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't answer the question I asked. I'll assume that the correct answer is one (one, rather than zero, because Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is only one sentence long).

There are multiple purposes for including this exact phrase in this page. If you have read and understood the directions at Wikipedia:Redirect, I'd bet that you could even tell me what one of the obvious reasons is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

What are the multiple purposes that you believe it serves? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I've spent weeks explaining parts of this to you, and I feel like the net result is that you still don't seem to understand (or agree with?) even the simplest – and wholly sufficient – reason. Why should I spend more time talking to you about this, when it seems to be useless?

From my POV, the situation appears to be:

• You generally don't read the directions yourself.
• But you believe that other people do read the directions – actually "read", not just "skim over just enough to find a quote that you can use to win a dispute", and that these people are significant enough in number and activity to be anything other than a rounding error in Wikipedia's work.
• You specifically haven't {read|understand|agree with} the relevant directions in Wikipedia:Redirect, which say that the words of this relatively popular redirect should be on the page, in bold type.
• You believe this page is about brevity (it's against micromanagement, not verbosity).
• The comprehension value of hyperbole is lost on you.

If even most of that list is true, then of course you're going to think this is factually wrong, off-topic, and inappropriate. I suggest, though, that the problem is not in the phrase.

Maybe you would be willing to spend a few hours expanding the Instruction creep stub with some good sources? If you did that, I think you might understand this page better. It should have a section on why people are motivated to do this. You could start with this book: "Rule creep, as we said, is usually motivated by the weaker side in an asymmetric conflict seeking more equal combat" (p. 260), and then try this one: "Instruction creep – associated with change or procedural projects, where, for example, the initial simplification of business instructions is made more complex to cater for unforeseen eventualities (analogous to the idea of a camel being a horse designed by a committee). After that, it should be very easy to find a source that links instruction creep to risk management in businesses (and governments). Those are probably the three most important motivations (desire to win the otherwise unwinnable, desire to document comprehensively, desire to prevent bad outcomes). For the rest of the page, Goffee and Jones have a good chapter on the subject (chapter 6 in this book), and I can add a few more to the article myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that part of the problem is that, to me (unable to comprehend compressed hyperbole), "nobody reads the directions" means "nobody reads the directions at all" and, to you (enlightened to compressed hyperbole), it means "nobody reads all of the directions." Surely, I am not the only person in the world who is compressed hyperbole deficient. To us, the "Nobody" phrase does not communicate what you want it to communicate. (And even if we changed the text in CREEP to "Nobody reads all of the rules," I'm not sure what that self-evident phrase adds to the article. I ask about that below.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, while you haven't said it outright, I gather from the above that your "simplest – and wholly sufficient – reason" for having "Nobody reads the directions" on CREEP is that the phrase is the subject of a redirect to CREEP. My response to that is item (c) in the post at the beginning of this section, to wit: "the fact that someone created a 'Nobody reads the directions' redirect that points to this article does not justify adding that phrase to this article's text." If I am wrong, what prevents an editor from adding to Wikipedia whatever the editor wants to add by creating a redirect that says whatever editor wants and then adding that text (in bold) wherever that editor points the redirect? If I am right, what independent reason do you have for placing that text in CREEP? How does the text improve the article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not merely "a" redirect; it is one of the most heavily used redirects that isn't a SHORTCUT and its name is substantially different from the page title. What prevents an editor from adding whatever they want and keeping it in the target page is the principles outlined at Wikipedia:Redirect. An editor can add whatever they want, so long as it meets those principles (as this one does). Otherwise, the redirect will end up deleted, retargeted, or not mentioned in the text.

Have you read WP:R#ASTONISH yet? Would it help if I simplified things by making a numbered list of the principles named in that section, and we could evaluate each one against this particular redirect? The list of principles looks approximately like this:

1. "Wikipedia follows the "principle of least astonishment"; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "Hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?"" Are some people (e.g., you) surprised when that redirect takes them to this page? Apparently. Does including the redirect supports this principle by reassuring editors that they ended up on the intended page, and that they weren't meant to end up on some other page? Y Yes.
2. "Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place." Does including the redirect support this principle? Y Yes.
3. "Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs": Is this a misspelling or other obvious close variant of the title? No. Would including the direct be the normal best practice? Y Yes.
4. "But insignificant or minor redirects can skip this:" Is this an insignificant or minor redirect? No, it is one of the most common non-SHORTCUT redirects in use for this page. It is also not a minor or insignificant variation that a reader might guess at. Does this principle support including the name? Y Yes.

These are the long-standing guidelines for handling redirects, and they strongly indicate that this redirect needs to be mentioned at or near the top of this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Saying that the redirect is "one of the most common non-SHORTCUT redirects in use for this page" leads us to the next question: "used by whom?" Is anyone but you regularly using it? A random selection of "What links here" edits suggests they aren't. That, in turn, suggests that this redirect, while meaningful to you personally, is "insignificant" to the wider Wikipedia community and its use does not support including the name in wp:CREEP.

I understand that you like to say "nobody reads the directions," want to give it a compressed hyperbole meaning, and want to give it a wikilink. But the question remains: what does "Nobody reads the directions" have to do with wp:CREEP? Better, perhaps, to turn the re-direct into its own article explicitly making the point that few folks read Wikipedia space pages in full. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that if you took the time to research the subject and expand our article about Instruction creep, then you would probably understand the connection better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What I'm hearing you say is "I know what 'Nobody reads the directions' has to do with wp:CREEP but I'm not going to tell you." Is that what you mean to communicate? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say that I despair of being able to explain the connection to you, and that I still have a little shred of hope that if you understood CREEP correctly, we might then have a basis for yet another conversation about this particular subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We won't know whether your despair is warranted until you try to explain the connection to me. Please give it a try. (Or, if you have already tried, point me to your explanation of the connection and I'll re-read that.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Instruction creep#Motivation is an empty section (except for a ref to a relevant source). Why don't you fill it in? You haven't made any edits in the mainspace for almost a month now, and this would be a great way for you to get back to editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, we seem to have reached an impasse on our journey toward reaching consensus through discussion. The only reason you have given for "nobody reads the directions" to appear in wp:CREEP is that there is a "nobody reads the directions" redirect (that you created and seem to be the overwhelmingly primary user of) that points to CREEP. Other than me agreeing that this alone justifies placing the phrase in the article, do you have a preferred way of resolving this disagreement? If not, I'll pick one. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Never mind this for now, I've just made a proposed fix that preserves your pet redirect. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

if you think you need to make a change

To editor Small Jars Lack Gold: I'm not going to quibble over your working change, but please re-add links to WP:BOLD and WP:FOLLOWBRD into your text. Otherwise, you can revert your changes entirely and discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, I thought it might be best not to encourage boldness while editing such pages. But I've made my thoughts clear, so I'll leave it to others what to do from here. Small Jars Lack Gold (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverts of February 13

The introduction to this article read:

Avoid instruction creep to keep Wikipedia policy and guideline pages easy to understand. The longer, more detailed, and more complicated you make the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow whatever you write.

One editor, describing their edit as "Gr.," changed that to:

Avoid instruction creep to keep Wikipedia policy and guideline pages easy to understand. The longer, more detailed, and more complicated the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow what they say.

I restored the original text, pointing out "Not just a grammar change. Let's leave the focus (as it is in the first sentence) on the reader and what happens when they add instructions."
Another editor reverted to the new text with an edit summary of "I prefer [the new] wording." Compare Wikipedia:IJUSTLIKEIT.
Does anyone have a substantive defense of the change to the passive voice, taking the focus away from what the article advocates: editors avoiding instruction creep? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC) (Pinging @WhatamIdoing and Wikiuser100:) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Edited by Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not passive voice. "The longer...the instructions [are]" is not passive. (If it were, then "You are an editor" and "The apple is red" would also be passive. You might want to see Linking verb and the List of English copulae.) "They say [something]", on the other hand, is active voice.

Would you like to strike that from your list of reasons why YOUJUSTLIKE your preferred version? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Pausing to note that you have yet to give any reason why YOUJUSTLIKE your preferred version, I'll respond that we should not get diverted by a technical argument regarding what is or is not the passive voice. Accordingly, I have removed "the change to the passive voice" from the question above. I await your answer to the revised question. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The version by Wikiuser100 is less likely to be read by editors as accusing them of bad behavior. "The longer, more detailed, and more complicated the instructions" is gentler than "The longer, more detailed, and more complicated you make the instructions". Your remaining reason is that this change takes the focus away from accusing editors who are writing instructions, and my response is that, to the extent that you are correct, it would be a Good Thing.

The version by Wikiuser100 works for a wider audience, since it applies equally to people interested in the general idea and to editors who need to explain it to someone who is proposing CREEPY stuff elsewhere.

The version by Wikiuser100 is also simpler and shorter, so it follows the advice in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines about writing clearly and simply. If you compare the two sentences in the https://hemingwayapp.com/ the reading level for your preferred version is university-level, and the reading level for Wikiuser100's version is 11th grade (16 year olds).

Note, for the record, that this is not a comprehensive list of reasons. I believe, however, that it is a more than sufficient list of reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure why you didn't put at least one of these substantive reasons into your edit summary or first talk post. But, now that I've finally seen them, I can see that the call is a close enough one that we shouldn't spend any more time on it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A satisfactory resolution. Thank you for pinging me and keeping me in the loop. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Explain edit of April 24

Oops, hit "Publish" too soo. Here's what I would have said: "Restored text that leaves the focus (as it is in the first sentence) on the reader and what happens when they add instructions." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)