While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.

Like Kudzu, instructions can grow much too fast.

Instruction creep occurs when instructions increase in size over time until they are unmanageable. It is an insidious disease, originating from ignorance of the KISS principle (keep it short and simple) and resulting in overly complex procedures that are often misunderstood, followed with great irritation, or ignored.

The fundamental fallacy of instruction creep is thinking that people read extremely long, detailed instructions.

[edit] Instruction creep on Wikipedia

Instruction creep begins when a well-meaning user thinks "This page would be better if everyone were supposed to do this" or "it would be easier if this were made clear for everyone" and adds more requirements.

Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort to find, read, and actually make sense of overly complex procedures.

Page instructions should be pruned regularly. Gratuitous requirements should be removed as soon as they are added. All new policies should be regarded as instruction creep until firmly proven otherwise.

Unlike articles, policies and guidelines should not strive to be comprehensive. Nor should editors be motivated to have a favorite essay "promoted" to guideline or policy status.

It's generally better for the wording of a content policy to be too lax than too strict. Not everything allowable under WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR should be included in an article; consensus decides that in the case of disputed content. The risk with an overly strict policy is that an editor who favors following it literally can argue that those who don't are ignoring it and are thus irrelevant to consensus.

[edit] Avoiding instruction creep

For proposed new instructions, instruction creep can be avoided if all of the following hold:

1. There is a good indication of an actual problem (as opposed to a hypothetical or a perceived problem).
2. The proposed instructions truly solve this problem (as opposed to treating symptoms or making symbolic gestures).
3. The instructions have few or no undesirable side effects (such as false positives, overcomplexity, or unnecessary prohibitions).

Policies and guidelines exist to document accepted practice, rather than actually dictate such. If on such a page an instruction appears which does not accurately reflect commonly accepted practice, and then this instruction gains the consensus of editors who happen to participate at the talk page in question, then the process has failed. The risk of this occurring is one reason that it is sometimes acceptable to ignore a rule.

[edit] See also

• Wikipedia:Practical process
• Wikipedia:Requests for process
• Bureaucracy
• Creeping featurism – when a computer program ends up doing more and more.
• Functionality creep – when a physical document or procedure ends up serving unexpected or unplanned purposes.
• Iron law of oligarchy
• Parkinson's law
• Red tape
• Vigilante
• Wikipedia:Keep it simple, stupid
• Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it
• Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies
• Wikipedia:Dig (Avoid excessive instruction.)
• Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose

[edit] Source

This page was inspired by the meta-wiki concept: m:instruction creep.