Talk:Instruction creep

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Fundamental Fallacy[edit]

"The fundamental fallacy of instruction creep is thinking that people read instructions. If people read instructions, we wouldn't have the problem the new instruction is meant to solve."

This statement is illogical. If people didn't read instructions, then it would not matter if the instructions suffered from "instruction creep". In fact it would not matter if the instructions spent the whole time talking about the moons of Jupiter. Clearly some people do read instructions. The fact that some people don't is another issue entirely.

- Pioneer-12 22:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clearly Snowspinner has not read this page lately. Not only that, but instructions for filling out a tax return for example, have absolutely nothing to do with the length of policy and guideline project pages in Wikipedia. Instructions? What instructions, Snowspinner? -- 06:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not illogical - what I meant by it was that the people writing more instructions are assuming people read what was there already, when they in fact didn't, so adding more instructions doesn't solve the initial problem. Is there a better way of wording this? - David Gerard 15:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The first sentence was totally illogical and totally FALSE. What you meant is partially logical and partially TRUE. People who read this page don't know they're also supposed to read your mind, Mr. Gerard. -- 14:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instruction Creep... or Procedure Creep?[edit]

There's a big difference between general instructions, guidelines, and how-tos, which can help you deal with situations (ex: "Instructions for building a radio"), and official procedures, which tend to just create bureaucracy and annoyance. (ex: "You must have your application stamped and signed in triplicate") - Pioneer-12 02:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not that big a difference IMO. Also, both are a hazard of a wiki, where it's easy to add stuff and less likely for it ever to be taken away again. Both are instruction creep - David Gerard 15:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a big difference in what way? As far as how they can be affected by creep? If that's what you meant, then yes. But other than that, there is a BIG difference. Apples & Oranges. -- 14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you only partially Pioneer. General guidelines, how-tos, instructions, etc help a user make decisions and can make production more efficient. Official procedures can sometimes include rules, or "laws" and can have penalties for breaking them such as blocks or bans, etc. Instruction creep affects both types even though they are different. Procedure Creep is more dangerous than instruction creep. -- 14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Process is evil[edit]

Someone added some disguised "instruction creep":

Process is an embedded reaction to prior stupidity. When I was CTO of a web design firm, I noticed in staff meetings that we only ever talked about process when we were avoiding talking about people. "We need a process to ensure that the client does not get half-finished design sketches" is code for "Greg messed up." The problem, of course, is that much of this process nevertheless gets put in place, meaning that an organization slowly forms around avoiding the dumbest behaviors of its mediocre employees, resulting in layers of gunk that keep its best employees from doing interesting work, because they too have to sign "The Form Designed to Keep You From Doing The Stupid Thing That One Guy Did Three Years Ago".
Wikis, Grafitti, and Process, Clay Shirky, 2003-08-26

As a graphic artist I can totally relate to Clay Shirky, but his philosophy is not all-encompassing especially to functions which are more mechanical. I think this quote is POV and should be removed. It is unnecessary because instruction creep is pretty clearly explained and besides, this quote looks like adcruft for -- 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, in thinking about this a little more, Clay's philosophy applies to production by those who are supposed to be professionally trained producers. It doesn't apply to administration. A big part of WIKIs is administration and I'm assuming Clay knows nothing about administration. But he does have a point, even though he is only partially correct. ;D. -- 14:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not adcruft, that's attribution. I'm going to restore the Shirky quote, if you don't mind -- it's the most vivid and easily-grokkable part of this page. Whether it applies to "producers" or "administrators" is immaterial. —Scs 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instruction creep on Instruction creep[edit]

Love it - David Gerard 20:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL! -- 13:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does kudzu have to do with anything?[edit]

Is the kudzu, which currently appears in the content page with an image captioned "Kudzu was invented to supply similes for process.", relevant in any way? If so, how so? 2A02:8109:9340:136C:8CB1:CFCD:8297:438A 10:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]