Xerographica (talk | contribs) →Willfully ignoring reliable sources: new section |
Xerographica (talk | contribs) →Arbitrary and disruptive: new section |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
But it turns out that it's NOT a personal attack to say that another editor is being disruptive. So it would be a HUGE improvement if this article could say..."rather than saying that an editor is "incompetent", it's politically correct to say that they are being "disruptive"." --[[User:Xerographica|Xerographica]] ([[User talk:Xerographica|talk]]) 08:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC) |
But it turns out that it's NOT a personal attack to say that another editor is being disruptive. So it would be a HUGE improvement if this article could say..."rather than saying that an editor is "incompetent", it's politically correct to say that they are being "disruptive"." --[[User:Xerographica|Xerographica]] ([[User talk:Xerographica|talk]]) 08:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Arbitrary and disruptive == |
|||
I just received another warning from Rich...[[User_talk:Xerographica#February_2013_2]]. According to him, it's a personal attack to say... |
|||
#that another editor is being disruptive |
|||
#that another editor's edits were arbitrary |
|||
#that another editor is not genuinely interested in improving an article |
|||
Hey Rich, if you truly believe that these are personal attacks, then why not improve this article by updating it to match your preferences? --[[User:Xerographica|Xerographica]] ([[User talk:Xerographica|talk]]) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:35, 5 February 2013
Spoken Wikipedia | ||||
|
Archives |
---|
|
Subpages
|
Can someone fix the archives?
Archive 11 is not showing in the list. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC) DoneNobody Ent 12:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
As stated, this policy is overdone liberal touchy-feely "safe space" crap..olala
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
It amounts to "lick the hole of the ass;" it limits free and frank expression and discourages open, free discourse. While there is an important point here (civility), this policy suffers from a phenomena Howard Rheingold noted for the internet in general-- if you get too many jerks too quickly, they take over. The result of this policy is that 20-yr-old males with excessive levels of testosterone dominate discussions, play games and make WP tedious to use and participate in-- but people are supposed to treat them with courtesy and "discuss the content" instead of pointing out their anti-social behavior. Fuck that! Sometimes you should call a jerk a jerk, jerky behaviour what it is, a temper tantrum a temper tantrum, and an ass, an ass :P :) KenThomas (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note that "20-yr-old males with excessive levels of testosterone" is a blatant reference to my persona. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary, we're welcome to comment on editors' behavior. I've yet to encounter a situation in which "Your approach is unhelpful and detrimental because..." was less constructive than "You're a stupid jerk." would have been. —David Levy 03:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Regardless, here's the lede tatement of the policy:
- Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor.
- That's pretty draconian, and pretty much declares comments on behavior are not acceptable-- but, of course, who's to decide what's "derogatory?" (The mob?) I get the psycho-language, but its the same language and policy, for instance, of "only positive reinforcement" which destroyed the CA school system. My point is not that the policy is actually entirely bad; my point is that it is overstated. KenThomas (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty draconian, and pretty much declares comments on behavior are not acceptable
- You're mistaken. A user's on-wiki behavior directly affects "content". It's explicitly stated in the policy that "discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." It's also noted "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" constitute personal attacks (emphasis added).
- No blanket prohibition exists. —David Levy 11:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- And not suprprisingly, KenThomas has been blocked for calling a female admin a "Schoolmarm." I'm closing this as it appears KenThomas has unilaterally decided that NPA is irrelevant. This isn't a constructive discussion about how to improve policy, but is more of an inflammatory rant. Toddst1 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
What is not a personal attack?
Could we say something here about things that can feel like but are not personal attacks? Chrisrus (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, what in particular did you have in mind? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Like maybe for example, when one says to the other "You are wrong about this, and this logic you're using is bad." That can feel like a personal attack, and many times people respond my saying "Quit attacking me! Go read NOPERSONALATTACKS! Chrisrus (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I see. This might make sense to add as a section or subsection under "What is considered to be a personal attack". However, we would first need to brainstorm some more examples that might be included there, or develop a general paragraph about what isn't a personal attack - just this single example doesn't really merit a new section. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll start, feel free to edit:
- Not a personal attack
- Sometimes, attacks on your ideas can feel like a personal attack. Here are some example of statements that can get an editor's back up, but are not personal attacks:
- "You're wrong."
- "Your logic is faulty."
- "You're editing outside your area of expertise"
- "You're incompetent"
- "Your edits have been extremely unhelpful"
- "Your edits destroy value"
- "You have absolutely no interest in reliable sources"
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs)
- Actually, some of these are improper personal remarks. (Namely the last 5.) But adding lists of possible acceptable and unacceptable remarks will not help much. The lists could go on and on and on. Then the argument would be "I don't see that particular remark on the list of unacceptable comments, therefore it is okay for me to say it." Or "I simply said ..." Or a supposedly acceptable remark could be but in "scare quotes" with the intent of disparaging the other editor. WP:WIAPA is clear enough. It starts with "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion...." and closes with "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Let's leave it at that.--S. Rich (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- If it's relevant to the content...then it's not personal. If somebody burns a book...and I refer to them as a "book burner"...then it's not an "improper personal remark"...it's an appropriate and accurate description of their action's impact on the content. And it's especially relevant and necessary if we're in a public library. Right now concentrated benefits and diffuse costs redirects to tragedy of the commons. But there are absolutely no reliable sources to support the redirect. When content is misplaced...or destroyed...or misdirected...then it has to be the result of some action by one or more editors. In this case...you, Rubin and Bwilkins. What would I stand to gain from personally attacking you guys? A few kicks? What I care about is the content...which is why I care about accurately describing the impact that your actions have on the content. And you sure don't want your actions to be accurately described. If I willfully ignored RS and edited way outside my area of expertise then I sure wouldn't want my actions to be accurately described either. --Xerographica (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll start, feel free to edit:
- I see. This might make sense to add as a section or subsection under "What is considered to be a personal attack". However, we would first need to brainstorm some more examples that might be included there, or develop a general paragraph about what isn't a personal attack - just this single example doesn't really merit a new section. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Like maybe for example, when one says to the other "You are wrong about this, and this logic you're using is bad." That can feel like a personal attack, and many times people respond my saying "Quit attacking me! Go read NOPERSONALATTACKS! Chrisrus (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
"Outing?"
Does speculating that a user may have a close personal connection to one of the authors that they cite, and therefore have a conflict of interest, count as a personal attack? If it is based on obviously well-established evidence in the user's edits, of course.
A certain article at the time it was first written contained a reference to a book by a particular author, but the publisher's website indicated that the book was published more than two weeks after the Wikipedia article first appeared.
I of course am not now and have not in the past insinuated that the user is the author, but merely that the user may be connected to the author in some way. What is the Wikipedia consensus on this type of issue? elvenscout742 (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- In order for our conflict of interest guidelines to work we have to be able to label edits that are suspicious. Out-and-out outing (saying an editor *is* some specific person when they have not announced it) is out, and of course how COI warnings are phrased can be tricky. But simply identifying a potential problem -- the appearance of bias -- is not a personal attack. DreamGuy (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Recently I was blocked for a week for referring to two editors and one admin as incompetent. Here's third party evidence of their *insert euphamism here* ... User_talk:Bwilkins#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs_2. I also referred to the two editors in question as Value Destroying Editors (VDEs).
When I asked all the editors involved to copy and paste exactly which passage from this entry was applicable to my behavior...they were unable to do so. That's because my behavior has focused ENTIRELY on what the editors in question have been doing...and NOT on who the editors are as people.
So if people can be blocked on the basis of unspoken rules...then clearly there's a problem. If the unspoken rule is not important enough to be "spoken" in this entry...then the admins need to be disciplined. If the unspoken rule is actually important enough...then "speaking" it in this entry will prove its importance. --Xerographica (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not an unspoken rule. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Willfully ignoring reliable sources
Recently I was blocked for two weeks for saying that another editor was "willfully ignoring reliable sources"... User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_3#Courtesy. So it turns out that it is a personal attack to say that another editor is "willfully ignoring reliable sources". The question is...is it a personal attack to say that another editor is simply "ignoring reliable sources"? This entry really needs to reflect these unspoken rules so that editors know what is...and isn't...a personal attack. That would certainly be an improvement. Because just now an editor warned me that I was personally attacking another editor because I simply asked him whether he had read the material.
But it turns out that it's NOT a personal attack to say that another editor is being disruptive. So it would be a HUGE improvement if this article could say..."rather than saying that an editor is "incompetent", it's politically correct to say that they are being "disruptive"." --Xerographica (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary and disruptive
I just received another warning from Rich...User_talk:Xerographica#February_2013_2. According to him, it's a personal attack to say...
- that another editor is being disruptive
- that another editor's edits were arbitrary
- that another editor is not genuinely interested in improving an article
Hey Rich, if you truly believe that these are personal attacks, then why not improve this article by updating it to match your preferences? --Xerographica (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)