Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep

Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to explain community norms for all readers, especially those unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates. It is important that such pages remain easy to understand and in line with community consensus.

All edits, especially substantive additions, should be carefully considered. Instruction creep is often a result of editors producing too much instruction, resulting in very long, complicated pages. Editors may wish to add directions for normal practice, without realizing that nobody reads the directions, so their rules won't be followed anyway. Wikipedia has more than 50 full policies and more than 500 guidelines and WikiProject advice pages, and few users will even read one such page from start to finish, let alone all of them.[1][2]

Like articles, most policy and guideline pages can be edited by any user. Often, somebody thinks that such-and-such a point should be addressed, or that more explanation would be helpful – such additions can end up being quite unhelpful. Gradual bloating can make pages less coherent, less inviting, and further from real community consensus, which becomes difficult to gauge when few users read and understand the pages. Project pages are meant to be broad in scope, and cannot hope to cover every minute aspect of any issues dealt with.

Keeping policies and guidelines to the point is the most effective way of preserving transparency. Substantive additions to policy should generally be rejected unless:

All instruction should be as clear as possible. Ensure that additions are placed in a logical context, and do not obscure the meaning of the surrounding text.

It is usually better for a policy or guideline to be too lax than too strict. Content not clearly prohibited by any policy is still subject to editor discretion. Consensus-building on article talk pages can be undermined by an over-strict policy, as an editor who wants to follow it literally can claim that the issue is already decided.

If you just think that you have good advice for Wikipedians, consider adding it to an essay.

Since things often "creep in" without scrutiny, even longstanding instructions should be subject to review. The amount of time an instruction has been present does not strengthen consensus behind it, though one should be wary whenever removing a longstanding part of policy.

If an instruction does not make sense or does not seem to describe accepted practice, check the page history to see when it was added and how it may have changed over time. Then check the talk page and talk archive, to see whether there was any related discussion. If you think the instruction lacks community consensus, either make your case on the talk page or boldly remove it, giving your rationale in the edit summary. If you meet with disagreement, discuss the matter further. Those who oppose an outright deletion may still be open to changes.

"WP:CREEP" is not a substitute for actual arguments. Instruction can be helpful, even if long – when clearly and accurately representing community consensus.