User talk:Jun-Dai/Proposal for Policies and Guidelines

Please don't delete just yet. I've just stumbled across this page and have been giving the whole policy thing a think-through and want to give this due consideration before it's deleted someplace off into the ether. Thanks. --Stranger (SSL69 13:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC))
 * I've given this a think and the results are indicated in rough form below. I ask that you keep your draft.  There are good ideas in it.  These ideas may form part of a consensus later on.  Cheers.  --Stranger 00:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

>>> What’s in a name? Call them “policies” or “rules” or “guidelines” or whatever you want; it’s really not that important. We don’t have “policies”. We only have: summaries of discussions. After a while that becomes consensus. But discussions and opinions can change, and with that the “policies”. The pages that follow are labeled “Policy - ” followed by a brief description. This is simply an attempt to organise in one place the various discussions which have already taken place. I am a rule addict. I like them. I want to make sure that I follow them and am doing things “the right way”. However, I am increasingly becoming of the opinion that Wiktionary is big enough to allow for variety. That we don’t need anything called “policy” at all. This on-line format should be big enough to accompany (find better word) everyone - whether they like to enter stark, bare article entries or flowery entries with lots of multi-coloured boxes, smileys and graphics. But we also have to allow for those people, and there are many, who function in the world of rules and need to have rules in order to feel they are entering words correctly. This is why we set out policies and summarize discussions. However, variety is not the current consensus. And I submit to the consensus. But I can still hold fast to my dream - of a colourful Wiktionary of the future.