rv. Anyhting short of noting that this isn't a policy or guideline is completely unacceptable. |
Jeff, please don't blind revert. You manage to change more than you intended. :( I'm not aware of any mandate that all pages in wikipedia: must be essays, policies, or guidelines. |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{| class="messagebox" |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|||
| [[Image:Crystal document2.png|30px]] |
|||
||'''This page is important to Wikipedia.''' The nature of the page, however, makes pinning it down as "official" or a "guideline" unhelpful and possibly paradoxical. It has a long tradition, so please think hard about the reasons this page exists before editing it. |
|||
⚫ | |||
|} |
|||
[[Image:Snowpyramids2.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Snowballs]] |
[[Image:Snowpyramids2.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Snowballs]] |
||
Line 10: | Line 17: | ||
In dubious cases it is always best to settle it through the full process. But don't invoke the full process for the sole reason that "process wasn't followed"; come up with a substantive reason why the full process should be required in the particular situation. Keep in mind as well that sometimes the full process may take a shorter amount of time and less protest to produce the desired result than "snowballing" the process. |
In dubious cases it is always best to settle it through the full process. But don't invoke the full process for the sole reason that "process wasn't followed"; come up with a substantive reason why the full process should be required in the particular situation. Keep in mind as well that sometimes the full process may take a shorter amount of time and less protest to produce the desired result than "snowballing" the process. |
||
This is possible on Wikipedia because, unlike many other environments, most actions are almost as easily undone as they are done. Accordingly, the level of certainty required to ''snowball clause'' something which can not be undone is substantially greater. |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
Revision as of 16:43, 13 July 2006
The "snowball clause" is a corollary of "ignore all rules", common sense, and the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It simply states that
- If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being rejected by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.
For example, if an article is speedily deleted for a reason not listed on Criteria for speedy deletion but wouldn't stand a chance in AFD anyway, there's no sense in undeleting it.
In dubious cases it is always best to settle it through the full process. But don't invoke the full process for the sole reason that "process wasn't followed"; come up with a substantive reason why the full process should be required in the particular situation. Keep in mind as well that sometimes the full process may take a shorter amount of time and less protest to produce the desired result than "snowballing" the process.
This is possible on Wikipedia because, unlike many other environments, most actions are almost as easily undone as they are done. Accordingly, the level of certainty required to snowball clause something which can not be undone is substantially greater.