 | This is an
essay on the
civility policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Pearl-clutching is a type of civil POV pushing where an editor feigns an overreaction with a typically bad-faith invocation of WP:CIVIL. |
Pearl-clutching is a deliberate and potentially bad-faith reaction to a comment and a form of civil POV-pushing. It is done in order to exaggerate the effects and impacts said comment had. "Well, I never!" and "Oh my stars!" are phrases you might expect a pearl-clutcher to say.
Pearl-clutching is very similar to tone policing, a form of anti-debate tactic intended to distract from the main point of the discussion. It can be compared to taking a dive. You aren't really hurt, but in order to provoke a reaction from the official, you act like you are. With pearl-clutching, one acts like a comment is overtly egregious in order to persuade others into thinking the comment was bad-faith or malicious, with no regard for accurate representation of the original comment. The goal is to undermine the original poster of the comment by accusing them of incivility, when incivility is typically the least of concern in the matter at hand, as pearl-clutching is often induced as a last-ditch effort by POV-pushers to gain ground when they are being shut down.
Pearl-clutching comes in many forms, and is typically easily identifiable because the pearl-clutcher's claims are usually a stretch at best. Pearl-clutchers are almost always POV-pushers or those wanting to aide a POV-pusher's argument, but it is sometimes just about grandstanding.
Wikipedia has a well known pillar-policy on civility. In essence, civility can be defined quite simply: If you're doing something in good faith, you're being civil. Sure, sometimes tempers flare, and sometimes criticism cuts too deep, or is less constructive than it should be. Civilization (the thing from which civility is derived, and by which it is defined) is founded on trust though, and where there's trust, there's civility. Flare-ups burn out, apologies are made and accepted, insults are forgiven, criticism is rescinded or accepted in the spirit in which it was intended. That is the true hallmark of civility. Two people might argue, and even vent their frustrations to each other, but at the end of the day, they both believe that they want to accomplish the same goals, and they'll get back to that the moment things calm down.
Incivility occurs when one disrespects this spirit, often in bad-faith.
Pearl-clutching stems from civil POV-pushing, which feigns civility in bad faith. Pearl-clutchers will target editors who make good-faith comments in a harsh or blatant manner. They react in bad faith, using civil comments to try to push their POV. They're likely to gawk over plainly good-faith comments from other editors, simply because they disagree with them. It's often a reaction to someone calling a spade a spade.
Causes
Misinterpretation of WP:CIVIL is one primary cause of pearl-clutching. Some editors say any use of curse words is a violation. According to others, anything short of "you are a jackass" is not, and even that's forgivable. Some say any display of frustration or blunt honesty is a violation. And most seem to believe the actual meaning of what is said is immaterial; it's how it's said that matters, regardless of whether what is being said is "I like puppies," or "I agree with people who support rounding up entire groups and systemically murdering them." This is all against the true spirit of Wikipedia:Civility, which lies in the meaning of the words, and whether or not it was said in good faith. Meta:Universal Code of Conduct is a good standard.
Pearl-clutching stems from deeply personal motives. It may not be obvious to a newcomer, but to any editor with significant experience, the cliques and friendships and feuds and allegiances of a large swathe of editors are as plain as the nose on their face. This exacerbates the issue, causing needless hostility between editors who have the same goals but different methods of reaching them. The focus of civility should be on the sentiment of what is said, rather than on the superficial context of the use of certain words.
Dishonesty
Dishonesty and lying runs rampant among a large percentage of editors, and is a hallmark of pearl-clutchers. Conniving, conspiratorial behavior is frequent and common as well. False accusations of wrongdoing are also name stays amongst pearl-clutchers.
A reasonable person knows that an individual attempting to hijack this project to push their beliefs, who lies about what sources say, and just generally approaches editing with a combative view, would be the very definition of an uncivil editor. But alas, there are often pearl-clutchers who will defend them, just as there will be pearl-clutchers who will come after the editor who engaged unfailingly in good faith, who dares utter the phrase "crappy edit" while reverting a crappy edit, as if they are guilty of a crime that demands punishment.
See the following practical example:
User A: Here's a source that claims X. [source that claims the opposite of X]
User B: That source claims the exact opposite, see "[proof]" which is in the third paragraph of the source.
User A: No, read the second paragraph, where they describe all the evidence for X. That quote doesn't even exist in the third paragraph.
User B: Now you're just lying.
Pearl-Clutcher: User B is casting aspersions!
Consequences
Pearl-clutching happens when editors react to words only, and not to the meaning or intent behind the words. It happens when editors fail to evaluate the content of disputes in the context of what has been said. It almost always leads to dramatic, over-the-top, self-serving condemnations. There is no place for that activity on Wikipedia, as it does more harm in deterring good editors than true bad-faith incivility does. It's a form of gaslighting another by twisting good-faith comments into something they are not.
Pearl-clutching results in good faith editors who are devoted to factual accuracy and honest reflections of reality being driven away from Wikipedia because nothing is done about fringe, POV-pushers, and, often, they themselves are the ones who face repercussions from pearl-clutchers.
You can arrive at a factual and accurate agreement between two good-faith people who disagree, but two bad-faith people disagreeing will never find it, except by accident.
One of the best ways to combat pearl-clutching is to not acknowledge it, much like WP:Deny recognition. If it is an egregious enactment of the WP:Civility policy, you can point out their pearl-clutching, as doing so will normally reveal them as the antagonist they are.
Admins can combat pearl-clutching by following true civility, and analyzing more than just the words said in a discussion, but the context of it at large. It's particularly important for admins to weigh in on cases of bad-faith pearl-clutching to remind the editor of true civility.
It is not acceptable for an editor to engage without the slightest hint of good faith, for the self-admitted purpose of pushing their own preferred narrative onto it with no regard for the factual accuracy, so long as they do so while adhering to a system of etiquette that resembles those enforced closely enough.
Identifying pearl-clutchers
These are some characteristic of pearl-clutchers:
- Seems to have an "obsession" with incivility and frequently pontificates about it when the subject is brought up.
- Dismisses concerns about POV-pushing, advocacy, paid editing and sockpuppetry as minor in comparison to civility problems.
- Otherwise ignores accusations of poor behavior, except insofar as they consider the accusations themselves uncivil.
- Defends unacceptable behavior as "good faith" efforts in the face of frustrated editors (note that the unacceptable behavior in question will always be in favor of a position the pearl-clutcher supports, or by an editor who frequently agrees with the pearl-clutcher).
- Offers varying degrees of support for the AGF guideline directly correlating to how much it serves their argument. Likely has no consistent or reasonable stance on AGF.
- Frequently expresses concerns about editor retention, despite not being active in any editor retention projects.
- Ignores the actual sentiment of statements made by others and focuses on the tone and phrasing instead.
- Frequently expresses strong opinions in ANI threads in which they have no stake. One could presume this would be to give their fringe civility arguments more weight when they come into play at their own inevitable discussions.
- Overzealous concern on the behalf of a group they are not a part of, for something that has yet cause problems.
These are questions to ask to guide whether a dispute may be bad-faith pearl-clutching by one party:
- Are they refusing to WP:GETTHEPOINT?
- Do they sound like they're throwing a temper tantrum? (or about to? i.e. threats) "If you don't comply with x, I'll report you!"
- Are they trying, albeit poorly, to use etiquette as an argument?
- Did they invoke a civility policy/essay that wasn't applicable? (likely in bad-faith?)
- Are they using logical fallacies like the chewbacca defense?
- Do they come off as a privileged Karen? (entitled to certain treatment, tone fallacy) "How dare you speak to me like that!"
Example of pearl-clutching behavior:
Editor A: *Makes an objectively ridiculous argument that has no place on Wikipedia*
Editor B: *Mocks User A's argument*
Pearl-clutcher: *Condemns User B for incivility, not acknowledging the original and worse incivility of User A*
How to respond
Responding to pearl-cutchers should be done with as much detail as possible to what the conversation was initially about. Don't dwell on what the pearl-clutcher may have said about you or other's conduct. Simply explain that this is not a conduct or civility issue, it is content issue (or whatever the problem may be). Make sure to respond as sympathetically as possible, so as not to give them any more ground to run with. Often any response will see the pearl-clutcher doubling down anyways, and at that point, it could be time to report them for their disruptive behavior. Pearl-clutchers should not be allowed to derail Wikipedia discussions with hyperbolic exaggerations and frivolous tangents.
This essay, and the term pearl-clutching in general, should not be used to defend comments that are truly offensive. Dialogue obviously exists that is truly rude, despicable, or taboo enough that most people would be reasonably offended by it. To express offense at these comments is not pearl-clutching. Pearl-clutching is done in bad faith, and is directed at comments that are fully appropriate. The essence of pearl-clutching is feigned offense, so expressing genuine offense is not an example of pearl-clutching.
| This is an
essay on the
civility policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: Pearl-clutching is a type of civil POV pushing where an editor feigns an overreaction with a typically bad-faith invocation of WP:CIVIL. |
Pearl-clutching is a deliberate and potentially bad-faith reaction to a comment and a form of civil POV-pushing. It is done in order to exaggerate the effects and impacts said comment had. "Well, I never!" and "Oh my stars!" are phrases you might expect a pearl-clutcher to say.
Pearl-clutching is very similar to tone policing, a form of anti-debate tactic intended to distract from the main point of the discussion. It can be compared to taking a dive. You aren't really hurt, but in order to provoke a reaction from the official, you act like you are. With pearl-clutching, one acts like a comment is overtly egregious in order to persuade others into thinking the comment was bad-faith or malicious, with no regard for accurate representation of the original comment. The goal is to undermine the original poster of the comment by accusing them of incivility, when incivility is typically the least of concern in the matter at hand, as pearl-clutching is often induced as a last-ditch effort by POV-pushers to gain ground when they are being shut down.
Pearl-clutching comes in many forms, and is typically easily identifiable because the pearl-clutcher's claims are usually a stretch at best. Pearl-clutchers are almost always POV-pushers or those wanting to aide a POV-pusher's argument, but it is sometimes just about grandstanding.
Wikipedia has a well known pillar-policy on civility. In essence, civility can be defined quite simply: If you're doing something in good faith, you're being civil. Sure, sometimes tempers flare, and sometimes criticism cuts too deep, or is less constructive than it should be. Civilization (the thing from which civility is derived, and by which it is defined) is founded on trust though, and where there's trust, there's civility. Flare-ups burn out, apologies are made and accepted, insults are forgiven, criticism is rescinded or accepted in the spirit in which it was intended. That is the true hallmark of civility. Two people might argue, and even vent their frustrations to each other, but at the end of the day, they both believe that they want to accomplish the same goals, and they'll get back to that the moment things calm down.
Incivility occurs when one disrespects this spirit, often in bad-faith.
Pearl-clutching stems from civil POV-pushing, which feigns civility in bad faith. Pearl-clutchers will target editors who make good-faith comments in a harsh or blatant manner. They react in bad faith, using civil comments to try to push their POV. They're likely to gawk over plainly good-faith comments from other editors, simply because they disagree with them. It's often a reaction to someone calling a spade a spade.
Causes
Misinterpretation of WP:CIVIL is one primary cause of pearl-clutching. Some editors say any use of curse words is a violation. According to others, anything short of "you are a jackass" is not, and even that's forgivable. Some say any display of frustration or blunt honesty is a violation. And most seem to believe the actual meaning of what is said is immaterial; it's how it's said that matters, regardless of whether what is being said is "I like puppies," or "I agree with people who support rounding up entire groups and systemically murdering them." This is all against the true spirit of Wikipedia:Civility, which lies in the meaning of the words, and whether or not it was said in good faith. Meta:Universal Code of Conduct is a good standard.
Pearl-clutching stems from deeply personal motives. It may not be obvious to a newcomer, but to any editor with significant experience, the cliques and friendships and feuds and allegiances of a large swathe of editors are as plain as the nose on their face. This exacerbates the issue, causing needless hostility between editors who have the same goals but different methods of reaching them. The focus of civility should be on the sentiment of what is said, rather than on the superficial context of the use of certain words.
Dishonesty
Dishonesty and lying runs rampant among a large percentage of editors, and is a hallmark of pearl-clutchers. Conniving, conspiratorial behavior is frequent and common as well. False accusations of wrongdoing are also name stays amongst pearl-clutchers.
A reasonable person knows that an individual attempting to hijack this project to push their beliefs, who lies about what sources say, and just generally approaches editing with a combative view, would be the very definition of an uncivil editor. But alas, there are often pearl-clutchers who will defend them, just as there will be pearl-clutchers who will come after the editor who engaged unfailingly in good faith, who dares utter the phrase "crappy edit" while reverting a crappy edit, as if they are guilty of a crime that demands punishment.
See the following practical example:
User A: Here's a source that claims X. [source that claims the opposite of X]
User B: That source claims the exact opposite, see "[proof]" which is in the third paragraph of the source.
User A: No, read the second paragraph, where they describe all the evidence for X. That quote doesn't even exist in the third paragraph.
User B: Now you're just lying.
Pearl-Clutcher: User B is casting aspersions!
Consequences
Pearl-clutching happens when editors react to words only, and not to the meaning or intent behind the words. It happens when editors fail to evaluate the content of disputes in the context of what has been said. It almost always leads to dramatic, over-the-top, self-serving condemnations. There is no place for that activity on Wikipedia, as it does more harm in deterring good editors than true bad-faith incivility does. It's a form of gaslighting another by twisting good-faith comments into something they are not.
Pearl-clutching results in good faith editors who are devoted to factual accuracy and honest reflections of reality being driven away from Wikipedia because nothing is done about fringe, POV-pushers, and, often, they themselves are the ones who face repercussions from pearl-clutchers.
You can arrive at a factual and accurate agreement between two good-faith people who disagree, but two bad-faith people disagreeing will never find it, except by accident.
One of the best ways to combat pearl-clutching is to not acknowledge it, much like WP:Deny recognition. If it is an egregious enactment of the WP:Civility policy, you can point out their pearl-clutching, as doing so will normally reveal them as the antagonist they are.
Admins can combat pearl-clutching by following true civility, and analyzing more than just the words said in a discussion, but the context of it at large. It's particularly important for admins to weigh in on cases of bad-faith pearl-clutching to remind the editor of true civility.
It is not acceptable for an editor to engage without the slightest hint of good faith, for the self-admitted purpose of pushing their own preferred narrative onto it with no regard for the factual accuracy, so long as they do so while adhering to a system of etiquette that resembles those enforced closely enough.
Identifying pearl-clutchers
These are some characteristic of pearl-clutchers:
- Seems to have an "obsession" with incivility and frequently pontificates about it when the subject is brought up.
- Dismisses concerns about POV-pushing, advocacy, paid editing and sockpuppetry as minor in comparison to civility problems.
- Otherwise ignores accusations of poor behavior, except insofar as they consider the accusations themselves uncivil.
- Defends unacceptable behavior as "good faith" efforts in the face of frustrated editors (note that the unacceptable behavior in question will always be in favor of a position the pearl-clutcher supports, or by an editor who frequently agrees with the pearl-clutcher).
- Offers varying degrees of support for the AGF guideline directly correlating to how much it serves their argument. Likely has no consistent or reasonable stance on AGF.
- Frequently expresses concerns about editor retention, despite not being active in any editor retention projects.
- Ignores the actual sentiment of statements made by others and focuses on the tone and phrasing instead.
- Frequently expresses strong opinions in ANI threads in which they have no stake. One could presume this would be to give their fringe civility arguments more weight when they come into play at their own inevitable discussions.
- Overzealous concern on the behalf of a group they are not a part of, for something that has yet cause problems.
These are questions to ask to guide whether a dispute may be bad-faith pearl-clutching by one party:
- Are they refusing to WP:GETTHEPOINT?
- Do they sound like they're throwing a temper tantrum? (or about to? i.e. threats) "If you don't comply with x, I'll report you!"
- Are they trying, albeit poorly, to use etiquette as an argument?
- Did they invoke a civility policy/essay that wasn't applicable? (likely in bad-faith?)
- Are they using logical fallacies like the chewbacca defense?
- Do they come off as a privileged Karen? (entitled to certain treatment, tone fallacy) "How dare you speak to me like that!"
Example of pearl-clutching behavior:
Editor A: *Makes an objectively ridiculous argument that has no place on Wikipedia*
Editor B: *Mocks User A's argument*
Pearl-clutcher: *Condemns User B for incivility, not acknowledging the original and worse incivility of User A*
How to respond
Responding to pearl-cutchers should be done with as much detail as possible to what the conversation was initially about. Don't dwell on what the pearl-clutcher may have said about you or other's conduct. Simply explain that this is not a conduct or civility issue, it is content issue (or whatever the problem may be). Make sure to respond as sympathetically as possible, so as not to give them any more ground to run with. Often any response will see the pearl-clutcher doubling down anyways, and at that point, it could be time to report them for their disruptive behavior. Pearl-clutchers should not be allowed to derail Wikipedia discussions with hyperbolic exaggerations and frivolous tangents.
This essay, and the term pearl-clutching in general, should not be used to defend comments that are truly offensive. Dialogue obviously exists that is truly rude, despicable, or taboo enough that most people would be reasonably offended by it. To express offense at these comments is not pearl-clutching. Pearl-clutching is done in bad faith, and is directed at comments that are fully appropriate. The essence of pearl-clutching is feigned offense, so expressing genuine offense is not an example of pearl-clutching.