![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I added a pretty substantial caveat. Although I think it's correct, I'm not sure about the ettiquette for editing essays.
If people think my edit [1] changed the tone too much, I'd be happy to fork off my edits (maybe to WP:NOTASPADE), and just insert a "but see" sentence here. Thanks, TheronJ 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This essay states, amongst other things, that there is no policy against 'calling a spade a spade'. In fact, there are two. The Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies specifically prohibit this:
From CIV;
From NPA;
This essay is sometimes used to suggest that it is 'ok' to be incivil and make personal attacks if you are 'right' about the person... but Wiki-policy directly contradicts this because everyone thinks they are 'right' when they are being rude and abusive. Ultimately, there is no good reason to 'call a spade a spade'. It does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Nothing to defuse conflict. It serves only to allow people to insult those they do not like. Which is inherently poisonous to any sort of collaborative effort. -- CBD 12:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we find a less clunky title? Was the page moved from a previous title by mistake? YechielMan 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This essay seems to flatly contradict itself:
but...
So, is it part of a reliable editor's job, or is is not the most productive course? Why would it be part of a "reliable editor"'s job to be unproductive? Is there actually a situation where "calling a spade a spade" is productive? I've observed an awful lot of examples to the contrary. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors -- at least those who are new, little known or who lack "social capital" as Jimmy calls it, are routinely told the solution to rudeness is to be nice and reasonable until the rude person comes around to the more reasonable approach to discourse. (Excuse me for not looking up examples, but those who need examples are no more likely to accept them as valid than they are likely to recall and recognize examples from their own Wikipedia experience.)
This essay claims the opposite -- that a person's perception of another's rudeness is enough to classify that person as rude. The proposed classification is not specific to behavior but to persons -- we aren't asked to identify Point of View pushing, we are asked to identify point of view pushers. If a garden hoe is used once to do the work of a spade, we are told by this essay to call a garden hoe a spade. This proposal is submerged in a fundamental attribution error attributing to character what more properly would be attributed to situational relationships. The problem appears to be that the author of this essay lacks the patience, or does not want to exercise the patience to understand situations that might cause one person to perceive another as a "spade" -- either that, or this essay is a plea for absolution related to ongoing meanness toward some contributors. Swords into spades 19:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. So, after reading this a number of times, it seems like the gist of it is that there's a fine line between incivility and calling a spade a spade. See this quote, for ex:
"What do you expect of me? I've always been one to call a spade a spade." "Fine," said Yevgenia. "But don't imagine that's always a virtue."
But on reading the essay, it seems like it's sometimes read to mean that "It's always ok to call a spade a spade", or "to call a troll a troll". I think it should be reworded slightly to more clearly make the point that people should consider whether there's a more polite way to phrase their accusations (even when such accusations have a strong basis in fact). For starters, I was thinking of added an "In a nutshell template" along those lines. But before I did, I wanted to make sure I wasn't misreading this, or going against some consensus. Cheers, -- Bfigura ( talk) 16:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone have any strong objections to renaming this page to Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade? This seems to be a in line with what the essay is trying to say, and completes the common expression that this is all about. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've personally seen a number of editors being uncivil, accusing others of certain things without proof and/or posting personal attacks and justifying their actions or having their actions defended by others using this essay. I've never seen it before this month, in fact. Is this some sort of fad that's starting to catch on? It really needs to stop before it becomes a serious problem. Jinxmchue 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No one can actually 'hide behind WP:SPADE after violating WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF or WP:NPA', because those are official Wikipedia policies, and WP:SPADE is simply very bad advice. Editors who consistently confuse this wrong-headed advice with policy will no doubt eventually find themselves on the wrong side of ArbCom rulings. Dlabtot ( talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This essay is counterproductive. Is there any way to express that it's deprecated, and the advice it contains is bad advice? I have yet to see a situation - on or off Wiki - where "calling a spade a spade" is actually a productive idea. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your version. I think people shouldn't call other people vandals nor trolls nor POV pushers. A.Z. 02:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, check it out: WP:NOSPADE. I would welcome any improvements or other constructive edits. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't edited this essay before, and haven't ever used it to bolster an argument either. Don't intend to do so right now either, though it is possible I could do one or both in the future. But I don't like attempts to change the article away from its original meaning. You can discuss disagreements with it here on the talk page, just don't try to make it something other than what it is. I only reverted a recent major change, that's all I'm interested in doing at the moment. Gene Nygaard 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd like to see the duck test split out of this essay. As it stands this is a fairly pointless essay (and I'm not suggesting that the previous version was any better); the duck test is probably the only usable thing here.-- Isotope23 talk 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be two significantly different versions of this essay that people are fighting over. If this were a guideline, I'd understand that. It's not - it's an essay. It's absolutely not okay to rewrite it to significantly change its meaning; if someone wants to say something different, that should be a separate essay.
In short, why don't you guys have two essays:
with each making the best arguments for why an editor should label (or not label) someone as a "disruptive editor" or a "POV pusher" when they think that is the situation? Because right now you seem to be arguing that there is only one acceptable version of this essay (yours), which seems a bit absurd when we're taking about an essay. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
As for "fighting" over this page, I don't believe anybody is doing that. I made one major edit, with a note saying, "please feel free to revert and discuss", and I was reverted. We even had some discussion, but it was hard to get to under the weight of various inaccurate and distracting ad hominem accusations being made. I thought that underlined my point rather nicely.
Anyway, I do not, nor ever did, have any intention of reverting, edit-warring, or otherwise "fighting over" this page. I made one edit, as a valid means of starting a discussion, and I don't think I need to be berated for doing so. No harm; no foul. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I am 200% in agreement with this essay and I find a pity it's not included in policy or at least as guideline.
I think the approach of this essay is exactly what WP:NPA needs to be well defined and not become the center of many stupid conflicts of the kind "mamma, he called me whatever!"
One thing is gratuitously insulting or harassing a contributor and another thing is calling things by their name. Something at times much needed. -- Sugaar ( talk) 08:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to translate this document to Japanese as an essay. Please give me advice.
Regards, -- Nightshadow28 ( talk) 11:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
"Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but rather to protect their edits from review." Is there any WP:RS that supports this cliam? It seems that right from the gun the spririt of this essay is in violation of WP:AGF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 ( talk) 22:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Article as-is is contradictory. The article says, call a spade a spade, then says, don't do it. I personally don't see any difference between calling an edit trolling or POV pushing, and calling the editor a troll or POV pusher. I don't see calling an idea "an idea only idiots hold" as any different from calling the holder of said idea -who is usually standing right by- an idiot. Except the blocking behavior of the admin twiddling his thumbs in the background. So I guess what I'm saying is, that a poisoned atmosphere is just as easy to produce without calling a spade a spade as when you do call a spade a spade. So again what is the reason to change the essay? And, everyone uses it to say "I'm calling it that because it is that," when really it says the opposite. So if there is going to be any change, just use the first sentence "uncivil statements are still uncivil even if they are true." At least then the thing would fall out of use, as SPADE could not be used as if it consisted only of it's first two sentences
as in this version. The current version is a mess could perhaps maybe use some work, by some anon editor who hasn't worked on it before, even though the current ones get little gold stars too. Oh, I didn't need to cross that out, it was commenting on the content, not the committee who wrote it. Civil, huh? True civility is not creating a poisoned atmosphere by actually being a reasonable person and fostering an atmosphere of respect. Legislating it so minutely won't really work. We only have WP:CIV because we can't have WP:DECENT. ——
Martinphi
☎ Ψ
Φ——
09:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
How about merging WP:SPADE and WP:NOSPADE, and calling the new essay:
Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade,... or not?
... Just a thought. I don't mean this as a joke, I'm suggesting an essay that discusses the pros and cons of the idea, with suggestions for deciding on whether or not to use that method of communication.
Personally, I feel that the best WP:CIVIL solution would be to delete WP:SPADE and redirect to WP:NOSPADE, but since the WP:SPADE method does have supporters, maybe it would best to come up with a good consensus combo version to replace the two competing essays. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A worjing draft of the new version is at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade/Draft. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, the edit itself must not be labeled as POV, incorrect, or disruptive, as this can be taken as an implicit criticism of the person who made the edit.
I think this, at least, should be deleted. Since its a big change I am posting this here for comment rather than delete from the draft.( olive ( talk) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
No dig intended...( olive ( talk) 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
Ah, Arritt, you changed "If you choose to be blunt you should consider how your bluntnees would appear to an uninvolved party if it is reported as incivility."
to
"If you choose to be blunt you should consider how your bluntness can be made to appear to an uninvolved party if it is reported as incivility."
Don't you think this is rather an assumption of bad faith to the general population of WP editors? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we keep the draft on-topic and not drift off into things better left to other policies such as WP:WEIGHT? People are more likely to read and take it seriously if the essay stays concise and focused. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 04:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's really not that difficult, if you follow a few simple rules, such as never making personal comments, never edit warring for any reason, and never mentioning the possibility of bad faith. The greatest difficulty most people have with these strategies is believing that they could possibly work, but they do. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That aside, I'd reply to your point. Suppose we grant that some editors act in bad faith. Is it helpful to say so, aloud? Is it true that we need to label the person in order to directly address the behavior? I would disagree with that. I'm not advocating "observing this behavior but not directly addressing it." I'm advocating addressing the behavior very directly, while simultaneously dignifying the person.
Finally... what is "bad faith", if it isn't misguidedness? People who want to push a POV believe in that POV. A POV-pusher believes that they are improving the encyclopedia, according to their warped notion of "improve". Nobody self-identifies as a POV-pusher, so what's the gain in calling someone out as one? They're not going to say, "yeah, you got me". They're going to say, in all sincerity, "no I'm not!," and Bingo!, we're one more step removed from the edit we should be talking about.
I'd like to see an example of a situation where making an accusation of bad faith is helpful, in the sense that it leads to a resolution. I've never seen it happen. Even in cases of blatant trolling, not calling them a troll, but instead dignifying them more than they dignify themselves, works.
It's quite surprising how people rise to the occasion when you address them with full respect. They don't expect it, and they find that they can't continue being a dick to you without looking utterly wrong. "Bad" editors expect to be treated brusquely, and then to complain about that treatment. Upsetting that expectation is a great way to throw them off, and to get the discussion focused on edits and on sources, whether or not they'd like to drag it into insults and lawyering. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"Not labeling anything" sounds tricky. What do you mean by that? I don't actually "insist" on labeling the behavior, but one must say something. Rather than labeling the behavior, it's probably better to address the content question that is giving rise to the behavior. Is that what you're getting at? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Now, when you do it, don't sound unctuous, don't use phrasings that make you sound insincere. My point is not to hand you a script, but to aver that explicitly dignifying a person in a dispute is a good way to make the civility line very clear, and to establish that you're both on the cool side of it. If the line between commenting on the content and commenting on the contributor seems grey, you can clarify it. That's the only point I was trying to make with my last two posts.
Honestly, this isn't even a point to sit and theorize about, it's a point for practical empirical application. Who cares what we think would probably work; let's just try stuff and see what works. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
How about "people who are emotionally involved in their POVs and can't keep that out of their editing should not edit the articles about which they feel strongly?" Maybe there isn't any other way to create an environment that really is decent and respectful. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
To "call a spade a spade" is more accurately defined in a more general way than we are using it here, that is to speak plainly or bluntly, but is not necessarily pejorative and does not refer to addressing an individual except in the most literal translation of the phrase. I would like to copy edit the essay since it has become awkward and cumbersome but I would have to redefine this phrase slightly. Is that a concern for any other editors.( olive ( talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
The community has decided that calling someone a POV-pusher or the like -- even if true -- is unnecessary and fundamentally uncivil. Since incivility is one of the top blockable offenses, this essay in its present form could get people into big trouble. I tried to harmonize the essay with Wikipedia community standards but my edits were summarily reverted en masse. [2] Do we really want to keep a potentially harmful essay in project space? Raymond Arritt ( talk) 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to summarize: Civility is never mutually exclusive, but is a behavioural issue, that requires not only thought, rather than what can be the non-specific, less non-thoughtful response of name calling, but also, possibly control, and should not impact the more mechanical issues of editing. Intelligent editors might consider that intelligent, thought ful responses would have more impact on collaborative projects and the community environment of Wikipedia, than the more general voice of name-calling, and might reflect highly on the individual editors themselves (
olive (
talk)
17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
Most people are doing what they see as the right thing. If you accuse them of being a POV-pusher, they will likely say something to the effect of, "I'm not a POV-pusher; I'm trying to make the encyclopedia more accurate/more neutral/better." Replying with something like, "No you're not; you're trying to push a POV" is singularly unhelpful, because it casts the discussion in terms of that person's motivations, instead of casting it in terms of the edits. If you say that a person "shows a pattern of making non-neutral edits on certain subjects", then we've got something much more concrete to talk about, and even better, something that doesn't engage people's emotions nearly as much as the application of labels to persons. The community can look at the edits, make a decision, and block the person if necessary, without it ever being necessary to label the person as a "POV-pusher". - GTBacchus( talk) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Many users get confused, I do. Things are not always black and white. -- Newbyguesses - Talk 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I just now updated WP:TWILIGHT with a section expanding on the point I tried to make here. I would appreciate any feed-back concerning WP:TWILIGHT at that page, if it seems at all helpful to do so. Thanks -- Newbyguesses - Talk 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on here, but if you want an essay explaining that its not OK to call a spade a spade, by all means start it. The transformation here over the past several weeks is just plain Orwellian. It started off saying it's OK to call a spade a spade and then went into great depth explaining that this isn't the case. -- Kendrick7 talk 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to argue for calling spades spades, then please explain what the concrete benefit of doing so would be. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Once you start talking about people's motivations, which you do when you call someone a POV-pusher, it's very difficult to get back on track, and talk about the content dispute in question.
The only time it becomes profitable to label someone as "a POV pusher" or the like, is if we're community banning them. Short of that, you're going to have to work with the person, so you'd better not undermine that process by showing them that you doubt their intentions. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I would personally not take "seems to be resisting consensus" as an accusation of bad faith, because I don't see how resisting consensus is necessarily a bad-faith action. I could resist consensus in the best of faith; have done so. However, if I said that someone seemed to be resisting consensus, and they thought I was being uncivil, I would clarify my point to make it clear that I don't doubt their good faith. I'm not going to recommend any particular words with which to do that, Raymond, because I get the impression you'll pick them apart. Are you getting my point, beside the particulars of phrasing? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with most of the rest of your post. This is not about "getting upset over name calling". This is about being professional and effective, versus unprofessional and ineffective. I'm arguing for professional effectiveness, of which name calling is no part. You're absolutely right that pointing out bias should not be interpreted as a WP:CIV violation, because people shouldn't think of WP:CIV in terms of violations at all. If someone tries to use WP:CIV as a hammer, that's not remotely civil, and any 5th grader knows that.
As for trusting you... no. I have a lot of experience in dispute resolution here, and I've dealt with many POV-pushers. I don't give them an inch about complaining, what I do is avoid the personal issue entirely, and continue to refocus the discussion on content issues. If they try to play a WP:CIV card, I take it out of their hands by being unfailingly polite to them. It works, according to long experience. I know their MO, and I know how to beat it. Calling a spade a spade is not the answer. I am prepared to demonstrate my point, in the field - I'm that confident.
If you can't conceal your lack of respect for others, then your dispute resolution skills will suffer. If you learn to address content without talking about your speculations on people's motivations, then you'll be more sucessful. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:26, March 13, 2008 (UTC)
I think it best that WP:SPADE and WP:NOSPADE continue to co-exist. The SPADE essay does not condone or recommend breaches of civility, though the wording of WP:CIVIL may be changed from time to time. You only have to look at these threads above (which should be considered as closed, for being FAR too long), to see that some Editors regard the difference between NOUN and VERB as crucial, while other editors feel that that is not a real distinction. Be civil, be factual, be respectful (of editors), and respect the Neutral Point of View. Let all views be expressed, but avoid outright name-calling, as it is unproductive. There must be some way of identifying unhelpful actions, though, as user:Kendrick7 rightly points out above. -- Newbyguesses - Talk 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole bit about nouns versus verbs isn't just for children; it's taught as part of adult dispute resolution. There is no part of effective adult dispute resolution that makes labeling of other people effective or recommended. It's not about "word magic"; it's about effective communication. People will still be offended, but if you've kept the line very clear for your own behavior, then you're in a much better position to make progress with the argument. If you've crossed that line, then the waters are far muddier.
Seriously, just try it. I know people who didn't believe it, then tried it, and it worked. Why not try it? - GTBacchus( talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm catching on to a misunderstanding here. When I say that calling someone a name is uncivil, I do not mean to imply that it is a "violation of WP:CIV". Those are very different things. I don't think of WP:CIV as a law, so how could a violation exist? I think civility is an idea we should be applying each to our own actions, not to other people's.
The point is, don't call names, because there are better ways to communicate. No, I won't block you for it, but don't do it because you've got better things to say. If someone calls you a name, don't get all "you violated WP:CIVIL" on them; say something like, "Hey, I don't think that was fair. Can we talk about this?" Be very civil back to them. That makes it very difficult for them to continue being a dick. Get other people involved. Don't present them with a j'accuse; that contributes to a poisonous atmosphere.
How can we get people to think of WP:CIVIL less as a law to hit other people with, and more as a code of practical conduct? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
... and the edits to this essay are making it read like a political campaign piece, not a witty bit expressing views about what to call a spade. It's fine, but at this rate it may deserve to be renamed. Ante lan talk 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The following appears to be the earliest text of the essay: Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks, and our policy against civility not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but rather to protect their edits from review. Users who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors. Users who consistently push a POV are POV pushers. Users who consistently vandalize are vandals. There is no need to dress up the way we address such users. While we must remain civil, calling a spade a spade is part of a reliable editor’s job.
It appears that this essay has been twisted around to dilute the original point completely. While it is important that we remain civil, it is also important to be honest and realistic. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten the essay again, [5] and added this as an important caveat. No matter how civil the community is to trolls, vandals, sockpuppeteers, etc. I believe this essay rightly contents that such problematic editors are not going to suddenly repent and become productive wikipedians. WP:CIV isn't a suicide pact, and having to go thru absurd circumlocutions all across the wiki everytime we comment on the problematic behavioral trends of such editors is counterproductive to the goals of the project. Hopefully this version gets the point across that where there's the possibility of rehabilitation, incivility is still inexcusable. -- Kendrick7 talk 17:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
When you said "not being allowed to call a troll a troll would inhibit the sharing of such advice to newbies...," what were you responding to? Who has ever suggested that anyone not be allowed to call a troll a troll? - GTBacchus( talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Constructive collaboration isn't possible without establishing the importance a fundamental principle of any kind of collaboration; that collaboration is not about "you", (a larger "you" rather than anyone in particular) but is instead about the response "you" give to another editor. Collaboration is not about what "you" want to say, but about what the other editor in the interaction needs to be be able to participate and contribute. No good teacher, and teaching is a learning collaboration, comes into a class room, and thinks about himself or herself first, but must think about the student first and what each and every student needs. No good actor, and acting and performance are performing collaborations, even in a one man performance ... and thats a whole other discussion.... thinks about himself first but must respond first to the the other actor/actors. Thinking that an editor can come into a situation with a set of rules in place that gives you permission to not consider the individuality of each and every editor, each and every time you interact is not a scenario that can create real collaboration. Think about the other editor first, and what that editor needs to be productive and we as editors will be more productive, collaboration will flow, and the environment will be more comfortable to work in than in one where editors are considering themselves first. I believe there are "bottom lines" in the theories about how collaboration works successfully and this is one of them.(
olive (
talk)
14:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
User:Raymond Arritt, I think I see where your recent edits are going, they seem good enough and are likely to stand. To my mind, it is getting a bit wordy, and hedged with too many negatives and hints of bad consequences, without actually making the point more directly. It appears that the general sentiment on this page is to basically demote WP:SPADE, and replace it with WP:NOSPADE. I disagree with that idea, I think it will more likely facilitate an overall increase in incivility on en.Wikipedia, rather than a decrease; however, if that is the way we are going (with the essay I mean), then i am fine with that.
I note the input of user:little olive oil, these points though coming at a tangent it seems to the general debate, ought to be considered carefully, as I hope will the input of those of us at the periphery of the debate, who still seek to contribute constructively, even if a little outside the loop. Thanks -- Newbyguesses - Talk 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Further empowering [by spaying this essay SPADE (!)] those contentious editors who hide behind spurious claims of personal attacks whilst pursuing uncivil agendas, such as bullying is what I mean. The current trend towards mounting a witch-hunt against any hint of incivility in words, empowers those who wish to damage this site by importing off-wiki dramas and pursuing private agenda which breach our COI policies. I may not be expressing myself felicitously, but I believe that breaches of our NPOV, carried out under such cover, are a worse breach of Civility, than some harsh words, (Not excusing harsh words). Censorship of legitimate ideas, and writing that which is self-serving and unverifiable, these are egregious breaches of civility, as I define it. A murderer, for instance, has been uncivil to his victim and to society. A liar, a cheat is uncivil, that is how i see it. These things are worse than swearing, or invective, in my opinion. (doesnt excuse swearing!)
I do not think such persons should be empowered because a few namby-pambies are upset by plain speaking. Sorry if I aint speaking as plain as I might here! i do hope most people by now know where i stand, and what principles (NPOV) that I hold most dear. Not that I have any problems with the consensus which seems to be developing here, though I do wish i could get my point across. Thanks, -- Newbyguesses - Talk 23:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a huge gulf between pointing out that name-calling is stupid and empowering people to hobble us with litigious claims. We're doing the former here, not the latter. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I am going to ask here for any user, or particularly user:Dreadstar, to please provide any recent non-trivial example of where a user has cited this essay, WP:SPADE to support an infringement of CIVIL or any other policy. The assertion has been made numerous times, unsupported by evidence, and I dont think it has happened. This is not to say that I oppose any user's right to update this essay. -- Newbyguesses - Talk 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just new here and finding my way around...looked at the Civility policy after I read where someone tried to justify a personal insult using "spade".
Doesn't this entire essay more or less conflict with "Comment on the actions and not the editor" found in the civility policy? Dosk7 ( talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The questions go on: What can we fairly expect from people, as far as putting up with abuse? When someone is pushed past their frustration threshhold, what is the best way to de-escalate the editor in a way that leads to their retention as an editor, and a positive change in their handling of similar situations? I'm pretty sure I can't rattle off answers to all of these. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've started a new essay WP:Bait which addresses certain issues that some of us have been trying to shoehorn into the SPADE essay. Maybe the two can complement one another. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
wow.. i agree 64.131.204.90 ( talk) 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Has the section entitled The duck test ever been any longer? This bit seems to get linked to often, and is the under-pinning of many investigations. It is a justification for something we do not usually allow in article-space, but which is necessary when a whole complex of previous and current actions need to be examined: the synthesis of ideas to show that a conclusion is valid. As it reads currently, the Duck Test doesn't really hold water, and that is a bad thing. Either it belongs in a separate place, and gets expanded, or we lose it, and lots of people will miss out on their roast Duck for dinner. Seriously, does it need beefing up, or poaching, grilling or deep-frying? -- Newbyguesses - Talk 03:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The first bit was added in November '06, and the shortcut and a few words were added in early '07. That summer, the first "watering down" or "fixing" of the page happened. Althouh that was largely reverted, the game was on, and it wasn't long before the duck test grew a caveat... and that's where we stand now.
I think the reason it gets cited so much is that people use "WP:DUCK" as a euphemism for "troll", as in "Ignore him, per WP:DUCK." That's my suspicion, anyway. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Dreadstar removed Newbyguesses' edit to the DUCK section with the summary: "distracts from the point of this section. If it looks like a duck but doesn't think it's a duck, then gently and kindly provide proof to the duck so it realizes what it is."
I'm wondering, is that actually good advice? How does that translate into practical terms, exactly? Do we explain to people we see as trolls and POV-pushers that they really are trolls and POV-pushers? This seems like a bad idea, because they generally don't see themselves as those things because of some belief they hold about the world.
The paragraph in DUCK seems to recommend telling people, "see, here's why I'm telling you that following the dictates of your own conscience is somehow a bad-faith action, because I know your mind better than you know yourself." Has that ever helped a situation? What's it supposed to do, de-escalate the person? - GTBacchus( talk) 05:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Why not? I'll give it a try. Perhaps you should fiddle with it too if its not right.( olive ( talk) 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
Wikipedia has a whole list of words to avoid, including terrorist, sect, myth. How can these two guidelines co-exist? Emmanuelm ( talk) 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted in Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid)
Can someone join the Spade and Nospade in an essay titled What is a spade, because I seem to have trouble understaning either of the two. I am a new editor, and I have no idea how Wikipedia works, so keep it in layman terms, so me simple Joe can get the gist of the topic at hand! If you have trouble joining the two, then have one essay tell what is a Spade and the other essay what is not a Spade. But today, they both tell me, No Spade, No Spade, No Spade It is like saying, I am not a Troll stop calling me that or I will report you to ANI Igor Berger ( talk) 05:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, there may be people who "love to waste people's time with endless circular arguments", but we don't have to let them waste our time. These "endless circular" arguments are actually easy to dispense with if we stay focused. If you make it worth their while, they'll stay. So don't do that. That doesn't mean to call them names. It means to respond effectively. There's no circular argument that need waste our time. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As for the "common generalization" that we "must AGF of anyone at all times", I'd like to see where that's been claimed. I don't believe it, and I don't know anyone who believes it. Is it a "common generalization", or is it a straw man? Do you think I'm taking that position here?
I know where to find the diffs supporting my claim here, just give me a few hours. I'd like to see diffs showing that "calling a spade a spade" has ever helped a situation.
I would say that you're also presenting a false dichotomy: we either have to tell people that someone is best ignored, or else "let the newbie wander into the minefield, or twist and turn our words in an RfC so that we walk a fine line between obeying WP:CIV and having to tell a lie" That sounds terrible, and like nothing I would ever advocate. I would advocate a third approach, which is to be professional about it. Why not talk about some position I'm actually advancing, instead of one that nobody here holds? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The best reason not to say, "you are a troll," is not that it's an "NPA violation" or something like that. The best reason not to say, "you are a troll," is that saying it is utterly useless, whether true or false. Our goal is always to be useful, not useless. Even if there were no NPA policy, calling people trolls would be a foolish idea. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
<-- Example : right and wrong ways to discuss disruptive editting.
A) Over at talk:Blah, User:Bigmouth is constantly trolling, and acting like a dic-. Bigmouth is a dic- - WRONG! WRONG!
B) At [WP talk:Blah] , [User:Bigmouth] posted [DIFF] and [DIFF]. The first insults User:Poorboyo, and the second post is a rant, and also incivil. There are other instances, some as recent as yesterday [DIFFs]. Would User:Bigmouth please Stop this kind of behaviour, or perhaps take a break from editting [WP:Blah]. RIGHT!
(Yes, no, comments?) -- Newbyguesses ( talk) 06:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, time for a concrete example based on real experience. Let's suppose UserX is a long-term timewaster, someone who does nothing but argue on talk pages. He has demonstrated that he has zero knowledge of the topic at hand in terms of basic principles or the published literature. Rarely, he will make a controversial edit to an article in order to keep the back-and-forth going (being perfectly aware that such edits have been soundly rejected by consensus in the past). He's smart enough to skate right up to the line on WP:CIV and WP:NPA without quite going over. In other words, he's a CIVIL troll. Some of the regulars know enough to ignore him. New participants UserY and UserZ wander in, and UserX makes a provocative comment to them. The regulars think "uh oh, here it comes." Is it fair to tell UserY and UserZ "be forewarned, this guy loves to waste people's time in endless, unproductive argumentation?" Raymond Arritt ( talk) 10:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
People can be incredibly insane, or stupid, in millions of ways, and many of them might come across as intending disruption, but most people are actually interested in making the encyclopedia "better", according to their understanding of the "good".
Raymond, in your example, it would be inappropriate to say "be forewarned, this guy loves to waste people's time in endless, unproductive argumentation". How do you know what he "loves"? Maybe what he would love most is for the article to reflect his POV, which he sees as "neutral". If you want to let users Y and Z know what's going on, just state calmly and professionally that this issue has been addressed before, and point them to a previous instance of it. If the behavior is truly incessant, then you can pursue dispute resolution on the grounds that user X's edits are disruptive, but not on the grounds that you can read their mind and determine them to have malicious intent. Their intent should never come up, because it is a topic that is extremely likely to waste time. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, I agree with you calling editors Trolls, or even saying an editor is Trolling is not productive. But when a DUCK behaves like a DUCK, and you tell the DUCK, "You are not an uglly duckling but a beautiful swane, please stop acting like a DUCK, be more gentle and people will respect and listen to you. But the duck says' "Quak, Quak!" and walk away forgeting everything you said, goes back to Troll the same article in the same way. Other editors try talking to a DUCK, but the DUCK keeps Trolling the same article. What do you do next? Igor Berger ( talk) 23:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'm not sure why you think I'm suggesting saying, "please be more gentle and people will respect and listen to you". You can actually be quite firm without indulging in labeling. Firmness and frankness do not in any way require incivility or an unprofessional tone. We do not have to tolerate disruption, and we do not have to label people. You don't ever have to decide that they're "trolling" the article, simply that they're being disruptive. "Trolling" implies that you know their intention, but you don't. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the way you deal with it is to stay very focused on the articles and the edits. You make it very clear by your productive contributions that you're not a troll, and then you're bulletproof. Does this approach not work, in your experience? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ya know, I am just as fond of the Ugly Duckling story as the next person, but as a matter of bald logic, that particular story belongs in an essay entitled Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. Wouldn't it be better over in that essay, not this one? -- Newbyguesses - Talk 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone considered the idea of merging Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade with Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade and placing it on a title like Wikipedia:Should we call a spade a spade? It seems that with the discussion over some points in SPADE being more appropriate for NOSPADE and such, we might as well merge the two, and discuss both points together, since while on their faces they seem separate and opposing, they overlap quite a bit. What do you think? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't get this bit. How is it a "test"? How is a story about Lloyd Bentsen making Dan Quayle look bad in a 1988 debate related to editing Wikipedia?
Is the application supposed to be that if you deflate someone with a condescending insult, then.... you win? Does it mean anything that the debate in question actually hurt the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket more than it helped? - GTBacchus( talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What kind of namby-pamby foolishness turned an essay on calling a spade a spade into an essay that says that if you call a spade a spade, you'll probably be blocked, so best to be ever-so-civil and NEVER, EVER dare say anything that will ever offend anyone? Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or practice before we have tea with the queen? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Should the essay say that trying to be diplomatic is a bad idea, when dealing with people whom you consider to be sufficiently wrong? - GTBacchus( talk) 10:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I find this edit by Raymond Arritt somewhat troubling. Is asking editors to be honest really "jarringly inconsistent with the preceding material"? Is there anything on this page that says "be dishonest"? What's going on there? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This essay has converged with WP:NOSPADE, which is a bit odd. The trouble is, this essay had been used far too much as a justification for making personal attacks, on the grounds that the person being attacked is a "spade". The essay has been drifting away from that idea, and in the direction of not calling people names after all. Making this into an essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy. Like I said in another section above: if an edit or a source is bad, call it bad. If you think a person is bad, keep it to yourself.
One small point - it doesn't say the duck will turn into a swan; it says he might turn out to have always been one. That's rather different. What the duck test used to look like can be found in the history; see this version for example. As you can see, it didn't really say much. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as the likelihood of mistaking a swan for a duck... I've seen it done enough times to make it worth writing down. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I like the idea of valuing clear thought and direct speech, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with making the crucial distinction one between clear expression and jumping to unwarranted conclusions; I think maybe those two things are on different vectors. I'm still thinking about that.
What the people who rewrote this essay apparently wanted to say is that it's bad to call people names, but in the process, they threw out clear thinking and honest discrimination along with name-calling. There has to be a way to split clear-thinking from name-calling so as not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I've lost track of who the ducks and who the swans were supposed to represent, but there really are different species of individuals here, whose approach to building an encyclopedia, whose style of thinking and approaching information, and whose communication styles are quite different from each other. One group tends to a direct, forthright style; the other to an indirect, less straightforward style. I prefer the direct style myself; it makes communication straightfoward and uncomplicated and easy to understand. While we don't want name-calling, I also don't think we want an essay that suggests that a direct style of communication is bad, just because people who prefer a more oblique style don't like it or are inclined to misinterpret it as rude or abrasive or personally intended. (Again, let me stress that I'm not condoning name-calling here.) I hope those who want to get rid of name-calling don't mean to go further than that, to say that a direct, straightforward communication style should be discouraged.
Being so oversensitive that you see personal attacks where there are none, seems to me about as incivil as actually attacking someone. I would put that into Newby's category of a kind of jumping to conclusions that qualifies as dishonest. If the emerging civility policy encourages this kind of incivility while outlawing its inverse, I would have a problem with that, and this is where I take issue with this essay as re-written; it could be interpreted to mean that any direct or straightforward assessment of a situation should be avoided, because someone might take it personally and be offended. This attitude was apparent in the earlier discussion now archived, where people argued not only against calling names, but against saying negative things about anything, which taken to extreme could lead to, say, the position that giving a fringe viewpoint its proper (very small to nonexistent) weight is uncivil because it could make the fringe idea's proponents feel unwanted and devalued. It sounds ridiculous, but it's not more ridiculous than arguments I've seen on many fringe article talk pages, such as that it's uncivil to call an idea "pseudoscientific" because that's pejorative and disrespectful to the people who hold the idea. Again, way too much text, sorry. Woonpton ( talk) 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've started a draft and have taken it as far as I have time for just now. The ideas are somewhat disjointed and incomplete, but wanted to see if this is remotely in the direction of what you had in mind. Many of the sentences in there are directly lifted out of your posts, but of course you're not responsible for what I've done with them; feel free to delete or re-arrange. I've tried to incorporate your thoughts with some of my own. Woonpton ( talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If there are going to be two essays, which I think sounds great, then WP:SPADE could be about the virtues of communicating directly and frankly - bluntly even. It could help people who tend towards bluntness to understand that their way is valid and valued, and to avoid unnecessary conflict with differing ways, and conversely, it could help people who tend towards indirectness to understand and work better with more straightforward styles. That's an essay worth writing, but it should be clear that we're not suggesting that we label people as "spades" and call them out accordingly.
A separate essay, WP:NOSPADE could point out that being plain-spoken and direct does not imply name-calling. That essay could focus on how questions of motivation are irrelevant to the project of improving articles, and that trolls and POV-pushers are best dealt with in a dispassionate and professional manner. - GTBacchus( talk) 08:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Mostly I was just thinking aloud about what an essay about direct speaking would look like. I don't think it would be about telling people how to communicate more effectively; I think it would be about the virtues of direct communication, as I said above. The part about helping people understand each other better would be a welcome side-effect. That was the intended substance of my comment above. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
For why these two essays have converged, you might want to look back in the archives as far, or further, than October 2007 at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade/Archives#Hijacking essay and other sections. The merge question, and the Duck question have been discussed there, without resolution. -- NewbyG ( talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Newby that since the essay no longer has much to do with spades, it doesn't make sense to keep a picture of a spade in it. Shoemaker is right that the picture still relates to the title of the essay, but nothing in the essay relates to the title. Woonpton ( talk) 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an essay, not a policy document. Recent edits have flipped this essay entirely on its head, and I have undone those edits. If what you are trying to say is "don't call a spade a spade because doing so may be uncivil", consider writing a new essay. Antelan talk 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Antelan. Many Wikipedia policies, guidleines, essays intersect, as a matter of fact most of them do, so that seems a moot argument and you are maybe dealing with a Dead Parrot:0) on that comment. The recent edits are more general and all-ecompassing in their scope and importantly more neutral. I would have to support them over a less neutral version.( olive ( talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
I'm not sure if there's any point in this side discussion, but I would think that this essay could very well become a guideline or merge in to a policy at some time. My point is that what begins as an essay could become a policy eventually, if the community finds that it needs it.I would think the community would decide through some form of agreement or consensus. I'm not sure if I'm addressing your point or what the point is about ... not because of anything you're saying, but just because of miscommunication. I may not be understanding you.( olive ( talk) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Antelan, do you think it's appropriate to call editors "POV-pushers", "vandals", "trolls", etc, if you believe them to be so? That seems to be the thrust of the version of this page to which you're reverting, but please correct me if I'm wrong. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If this essay is going to say that calling people names is appropriate, then I would support its deletion, as sufficiently opposed to our fundamental policies, and inimical to the project of collaboratively writing an encyclopedia.
The reason I asked your personal opinion about spade-calling is that, if you don't think it's appropriate, then I wouldn't bother to ask you why you think it's appropriate. If you, or someone else, can explain that it makes sense to have an essay advocating calling editors "spades", then maybe you'd change my mind about this essay. As it is, I think it should either be about calling edits and sources "spades", and not editors, or else it should be deleted. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
To give you a direct answer to the question of whether those who disagree should be allowed their essay: If there is any worthwhile substance behind the disagreement, then yes, put it in the essay and keep it; if there is nothing other than a preference for name-calling, then no, delete it, just as we would a pro-vandalism essay. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I would point out that the essay historically has been used to justify name-calling, so it's not totally off-the-wall for me to suggest that it supports that behavior. People really do take it that way. The current text certainly doesn't advocate name-calling, but the original text did; or would you disagree about that?
I'm very sorry that you're unwilling to say what you think about the essay. I think you could help me understand another perspective here, but you seem unwilling to do that, and I don't know why :( . Would it be bad for me to understand where you're coming from? - GTBacchus( talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, if it was always clear whether a label was accurate or misleading, then we wouldn't need essays like this, would we? However, calling a spade a spade, and then turning out to be mistaken - that is misleading, even though it's not meant to be.
At any rate, I'm interested in hearing why applying labels to other editors is a good idea. I'm travelling this weekend, but I'll be certain to check back in here, because I'm very interested in this conversation. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Raymond edited the nutshell to say: "It's okay to call a spade a spade, to speak plainly, except when referring to other editors."
Does anyone agree with this sentiment? I can agree with it on a very superficial level, but ultimately, it seems wrong. It's okay to speak plainly and directly about what we're doing, full stop. Also true, but unrelated: straying off-topic is counterproductive.
Talking about other editors is simply off-topic. It's not very cool or helpful to jump to conclusions about others' motives based on incomplete information - but even that is harmless if the person jumping can keep their judgment to themselves. What's really not okay is dropping the topic of improving the encyclopedia to instead talk about how rotten you think someone is. I'm not okay with having a page that encourages that. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I'm trying to have my cake and eat it, because I'm not sure what you see me as "trying" to do here. I'm trying to suggest that people stay on-topic when working on the project. Is that unreasonable? Is name-calling on-topic? Is a request to stay on-topic the same as a stance against frankness? Going off-topic isn't wrong because it's done bluntly; it's wrong because it's off-topic. The two issues are orthogonal. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer something like "It's okay to call a spade a spade - to speak plainly - but remember to remain civil and on-topic." - GTBacchus( talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, this is all beside the point that there seemed to be a general agreement a couple of days ago that this essay as now framed is redundant with Don't Call a Spade a Spade, and with WP:CIVIL, and that we wanted something that advocated for more frank expression, with the exception of name calling. I haven't seen any change in the wind that would suddenly justify adopting it essentially as it is. I'm not wedded to the draft I started in response to those concerns, but I'm very much against keeping it in its present form. I think it needs to be rewritten, or renamed, or deleted. Woonpton ( talk) 23:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Newby suggested I should make a new section for this; I've made a rough beginning on a [
draft proposal] for a rewrite of the essay, so far incorporating some thoughts of Newby's and some thoughts of mine along with what I think are consensus ideas.
Woonpton (
talk)
20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what we're running into is that some people really want to have an essay that says, "if you decide someone is a POV-pusher or a troll, call them that." That's precisely how people have often cited WP:SPADE in the field. Others would like to have an essay that says "speak frankly and honestly, but stay on topic, i.e., don't talk about the other guy's motives, personality, etc."
I'm hoping someone will explain why it would ever be a good idea to talk about the other guy's motives, personality, etc., but when I ask that question, I don't seem to get many answers. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep the pro-vandalism essay in mind - I can claim that it's not purely anti-policy, and that it explores a gray area... but will you believe me, if I don't explain how that's true? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
That said "we" have not "established" that the essay you advocate is not purely antithetical to policy. Simply saying that you, "should be WP:civil when calling a spade a spade," is kind of like saying you should have an eye to improving the encyclopedia when vandalizing. If my pro-vandalism essay said that, would you oppose it, or would you be willing to let ideas that conflict with your own remain of Wikipedia? See how that's a rhetorical cheap shot? - GTBacchus( talk) 22:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
As for violating policy, I don't really care whether the essay "violates" whatever "rule"; I don't think of Wikipedia that way. I care about whether it might be a really bad idea to have an essay that encourages (intentionally or not) destructive behavior. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is about whether it's consistent with policy or with good sense to encourage editors to label others while simultaneously (and contradictorily) mentioning that they should remain civil while doing something fundamentally unhelpful. I think an essay that says "Someone pushing a POV is a POV-pusher, and it's somehow useful to call them that," but then turns around and says, "be civil while doing it," is absurd. If the community thinks that such an essay is a good thing, then of course I'll go along with consensus, but I'd like to see some evidence of that consensus first. Does that seem fair? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[8] The Duck is back, and WP:DUCK now redirects to thispage. -- NewbyG ( talk) 00:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the distinctions GTB is making could WP:Spade be more about content rather than behaviour, and if so, being direct would not imply any actions towards an editor but rather towards the content/edits, and strong, direct language could be more acceptable, although many editors are subjectively attached to their edits so care would have to be taken here too. WP:No Spade would possibly apply to behaviour towards other editors and could be described as that kind of behaviour that although problematic, is best dealt with not condemning the editor in any way but by dealing with the editor in a civil manner so as not to further support an already less than opimal working environment. Spade then becomes a more objective note, No Spade the more subjective one.( olive ( talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
As for "POV-pusher", it's not that it's a vile insult - I hope I've not given the impression that I'm trying to protect people from insults. I don't really care about that. The problem with calling someone a POV-pusher is that it doesn't help. A genuine POV-pusher doesn't see themselves as a POV-pusher; they see themselves as being neutral and correct, and they see those who oppose them as POV-pushers. If someone who is opposing them in some content dispute calls them a POV-pusher, what will that accomplish? Will they say "oh, gee, you're right. I'll stop pushing my fringe POV, now that you've shown me the light!" Of course not. They'll simply defend themselves - with full sincerity - against the accusation, and the conversation will go further and further off-topic.
That is the reason to avoid name-calling: it isn't helpful. If it were helpful, I'd be all for it, but in an actual content dispute, it doesn't get us where we need to go. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
My question is this: Why call a spade a spade (regarding people, not edits)? How does it help? In what circumstances is labeling another editor more useful/beneficial/productive than refraining from doing so?
I think this question is worth asking, because ultimately it's an empirical matter. "Calling a spade" is either sometimes helpful, or it's not, and if it is helpful, then I'd like to know, so I can do it. If it's not, that would be good to know, too, it seems.
Can anyone help me with this? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You mention a couple of things that I'm very interested in. First of all, "Sending more neutral admins... would help". I'm interested in finding a systematic way to do this. I imagine a kind of group that keeps track of edit wars and applies conflict resolution strategies in a mindful way, documenting what works, and getting better at bringing edit wars to a resolution that accords with neutrality. Does that seem to be a good suggestion?
Another question I have regards, "If you don't call a spade a spade, then certain disputes never end...," and, "...calling a spade a spade is about the only defense..." So, does it work? If you call a spade editor a spade, does the dispute therefore end in a satisfactory way? Is it an effective defense? How does that work? What's the best way to do it? What kind of editor is best at it? How do you avoid false positives?
If we're going to get good at managing controversial articles — which we must — we might as well document what works, right? I don't know what the page currently looks like, and by the time you read this it may be different, but the original version of the page documents something that, as far as I know, doesn't work. That's an empirical question, right? So let's answer it, and let's show people. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[Unindent] Sorry if I was a bit aggressive in my description, but...
Well, basically, the editor in question went about to a lot of articles, and took a very long time before anyone did anything about him. The information put before the arbcom was up at the probation page for a couple months while he, basically, continued as always. I really think the disruption would have been much greater if, once he was caught out, the other editors had not been warned, simply and clearlyu, tat his quotes from sources could not be trusted.
Not exactly calling a spade a spade in conversation with them, but with others, when the editor in question is truly disruptive, they need to know to look out, and pussyfooting around it isn't going to help. I'd probably say that well-judged and evidenced labels are also useful at WP:ANI and WP:RFAR, as they do serve to communicate a set of behavioural problems clearly.
Now, in resposse to GTBacchus - If you can get a group of neutral admins able and ready to be called in and investigate problems in any article probation, that would be great. It would take a reasonable number of them, though, and there would have to be methods in place to make sure there were always at least X of them active and willing to step in. On the Homeopathy probation, for instance, there were a lot of admins who stepped up at first. But at least by March or so, they seem to have all burned out, and were unwilling to deal further.
There's also the problem of who's doing it. If you get a couple admins in ready and willing to block for a single act of incivility, given a diff, but unwilling to look at anything more complex - well, you get the backlash against WP:CIVIL you see happening right now, where civility has been turned into a weapon, because in some areas there's at least a perception that it's the only thing people are reliably getting blocked for.
There is one problem that would be really, really bad:
In the end, policy more-or-less says some disputes only really have one side in the "right". WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, for instance, privileges mainstream science over fringe theories and pseudoscience. Having a "neutral" admin who was neutral in the "equal weight to all views" sense (You know, "They have sources too! They can use their sources to write their sections, you can use yours to write your sections, what's the problem?") would seriously risk putting Wikipedia in disrepute. I don't think it's worth saying more on that subject, though, barring confusion from me not really wanting to call a spade a spade in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The position I'm trying to understand is the one that says we should not only tell him what he's doing wrong, but call him a spade. There are people taking this position, and I would love to understand it, but I don't yet. I don't see the practical benefit of calling someone a spade. What is it? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just done that but I don't think it will ever work, but it is the last resort. At least in the topic in dispute.
The only way is just to abandon wiki edits, or engage in editing wars. Wikipedia is still not developed enough to allow only intelligent, policy abiding editors to edit articles.
My last resort in solving this problem is to propose wikipedia to:
1) normal editors can only add, not delete. 2) automatic computerised editors that will delete based on well proven policies, such as duplicate phrases and profanities.
Isn't this already in place in order to avoid spams? 3) Grading of editors based on online standardised tests. There must be many grades based on knowledge and logical abilities.
They are only allowed to delete articles that they have sound knowledge of.
4) Increasing the standard of high class editors, those that can block other editors. Currently some of them will just delete and delete. Someone who does not even know that England is an International team.
Even in disputes, these editors themselves are the vandals as I had experienced, changing my comments so as to support his argument, and showing off his power.
Othmanskn ( talk) 05:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The idea of "enforcing WP:CIVIL rather than policies like NPOV, NOR, RS" is a false dichotomy. First of all, I'm not talking about enforcing WP:CIVIL; that page is crap. I'm talking about people actually acting professionally for the reason that it works better. Secondly, the only way to enforce NPOV, NOR, RS, etc, is to act very professionally, and to commit to the difficult task of learning, mindfully and as a community, how to maintain a neutral and stable article about alternative medicine on an open wiki.
When fighting a fire, incivility is gasoline. That doesn't qualify as "the least of our worries". To get the fire put out, we actually have to stop throwing gasoline on it.
One last matter - my question is not entirely "pointy". I am open to finding out that there are situations in which calling someone a spade actually helps. I'm open to using anything in our arsenal, but only if it's helpful. As far as my current understanding goes, incivility is actively destructive, which is worse than unhelpful. If someone can show me wrong, I will thank them for teaching me.
Last note: I do not advocate the "enforcement" of WP:CIVIL; please do not confuse me with someone who does. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is that you have to treat a content issue as a content issue. You can't try to make it into a behavior issue and expect to get anywhere except deeper and deeper in mud. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The important point is that I disagree about whether a civil NPOV defender is more powerful than an uncivil one. How to use that power effectively is an important conversation, and let's have it, but I won't consent to beginning it with the assumption that civility is simply irrelevant. That's not a good starting assumption; let's assume that it might be relevant, and look at it, as well as other factors. What if the required formula involves civility and three other elements? Then civility is not irrelevant; nor is it sufficient alone. I know that you're not arguing for incivility, and I don't suspect that you're arguing for incivility. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[11] Take a moment to read the current version, GTB. It has been up a little while, and is quite different from the version from back in 2007. -- NewbyG ( talk) 02:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also genuinely interested in those questions I asked Shoemaker's Holiday up there. I mean, if we're going to get good at DR, why not document strategies that people say work? Maybe that's for another essay. If so, can someone who knows what it should say please help me write it? - GTBacchus( talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The present version of the page is a tangle of words that basically says nothing. Is it time to delete the whole thing and start over? The version of a couple of days ago was OK. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I added a pretty substantial caveat. Although I think it's correct, I'm not sure about the ettiquette for editing essays.
If people think my edit [1] changed the tone too much, I'd be happy to fork off my edits (maybe to WP:NOTASPADE), and just insert a "but see" sentence here. Thanks, TheronJ 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This essay states, amongst other things, that there is no policy against 'calling a spade a spade'. In fact, there are two. The Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies specifically prohibit this:
From CIV;
From NPA;
This essay is sometimes used to suggest that it is 'ok' to be incivil and make personal attacks if you are 'right' about the person... but Wiki-policy directly contradicts this because everyone thinks they are 'right' when they are being rude and abusive. Ultimately, there is no good reason to 'call a spade a spade'. It does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Nothing to defuse conflict. It serves only to allow people to insult those they do not like. Which is inherently poisonous to any sort of collaborative effort. -- CBD 12:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we find a less clunky title? Was the page moved from a previous title by mistake? YechielMan 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This essay seems to flatly contradict itself:
but...
So, is it part of a reliable editor's job, or is is not the most productive course? Why would it be part of a "reliable editor"'s job to be unproductive? Is there actually a situation where "calling a spade a spade" is productive? I've observed an awful lot of examples to the contrary. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors -- at least those who are new, little known or who lack "social capital" as Jimmy calls it, are routinely told the solution to rudeness is to be nice and reasonable until the rude person comes around to the more reasonable approach to discourse. (Excuse me for not looking up examples, but those who need examples are no more likely to accept them as valid than they are likely to recall and recognize examples from their own Wikipedia experience.)
This essay claims the opposite -- that a person's perception of another's rudeness is enough to classify that person as rude. The proposed classification is not specific to behavior but to persons -- we aren't asked to identify Point of View pushing, we are asked to identify point of view pushers. If a garden hoe is used once to do the work of a spade, we are told by this essay to call a garden hoe a spade. This proposal is submerged in a fundamental attribution error attributing to character what more properly would be attributed to situational relationships. The problem appears to be that the author of this essay lacks the patience, or does not want to exercise the patience to understand situations that might cause one person to perceive another as a "spade" -- either that, or this essay is a plea for absolution related to ongoing meanness toward some contributors. Swords into spades 19:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. So, after reading this a number of times, it seems like the gist of it is that there's a fine line between incivility and calling a spade a spade. See this quote, for ex:
"What do you expect of me? I've always been one to call a spade a spade." "Fine," said Yevgenia. "But don't imagine that's always a virtue."
But on reading the essay, it seems like it's sometimes read to mean that "It's always ok to call a spade a spade", or "to call a troll a troll". I think it should be reworded slightly to more clearly make the point that people should consider whether there's a more polite way to phrase their accusations (even when such accusations have a strong basis in fact). For starters, I was thinking of added an "In a nutshell template" along those lines. But before I did, I wanted to make sure I wasn't misreading this, or going against some consensus. Cheers, -- Bfigura ( talk) 16:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone have any strong objections to renaming this page to Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade? This seems to be a in line with what the essay is trying to say, and completes the common expression that this is all about. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've personally seen a number of editors being uncivil, accusing others of certain things without proof and/or posting personal attacks and justifying their actions or having their actions defended by others using this essay. I've never seen it before this month, in fact. Is this some sort of fad that's starting to catch on? It really needs to stop before it becomes a serious problem. Jinxmchue 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No one can actually 'hide behind WP:SPADE after violating WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF or WP:NPA', because those are official Wikipedia policies, and WP:SPADE is simply very bad advice. Editors who consistently confuse this wrong-headed advice with policy will no doubt eventually find themselves on the wrong side of ArbCom rulings. Dlabtot ( talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This essay is counterproductive. Is there any way to express that it's deprecated, and the advice it contains is bad advice? I have yet to see a situation - on or off Wiki - where "calling a spade a spade" is actually a productive idea. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your version. I think people shouldn't call other people vandals nor trolls nor POV pushers. A.Z. 02:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, check it out: WP:NOSPADE. I would welcome any improvements or other constructive edits. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't edited this essay before, and haven't ever used it to bolster an argument either. Don't intend to do so right now either, though it is possible I could do one or both in the future. But I don't like attempts to change the article away from its original meaning. You can discuss disagreements with it here on the talk page, just don't try to make it something other than what it is. I only reverted a recent major change, that's all I'm interested in doing at the moment. Gene Nygaard 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd like to see the duck test split out of this essay. As it stands this is a fairly pointless essay (and I'm not suggesting that the previous version was any better); the duck test is probably the only usable thing here.-- Isotope23 talk 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be two significantly different versions of this essay that people are fighting over. If this were a guideline, I'd understand that. It's not - it's an essay. It's absolutely not okay to rewrite it to significantly change its meaning; if someone wants to say something different, that should be a separate essay.
In short, why don't you guys have two essays:
with each making the best arguments for why an editor should label (or not label) someone as a "disruptive editor" or a "POV pusher" when they think that is the situation? Because right now you seem to be arguing that there is only one acceptable version of this essay (yours), which seems a bit absurd when we're taking about an essay. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
As for "fighting" over this page, I don't believe anybody is doing that. I made one major edit, with a note saying, "please feel free to revert and discuss", and I was reverted. We even had some discussion, but it was hard to get to under the weight of various inaccurate and distracting ad hominem accusations being made. I thought that underlined my point rather nicely.
Anyway, I do not, nor ever did, have any intention of reverting, edit-warring, or otherwise "fighting over" this page. I made one edit, as a valid means of starting a discussion, and I don't think I need to be berated for doing so. No harm; no foul. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I am 200% in agreement with this essay and I find a pity it's not included in policy or at least as guideline.
I think the approach of this essay is exactly what WP:NPA needs to be well defined and not become the center of many stupid conflicts of the kind "mamma, he called me whatever!"
One thing is gratuitously insulting or harassing a contributor and another thing is calling things by their name. Something at times much needed. -- Sugaar ( talk) 08:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to translate this document to Japanese as an essay. Please give me advice.
Regards, -- Nightshadow28 ( talk) 11:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
"Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but rather to protect their edits from review." Is there any WP:RS that supports this cliam? It seems that right from the gun the spririt of this essay is in violation of WP:AGF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 ( talk) 22:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Article as-is is contradictory. The article says, call a spade a spade, then says, don't do it. I personally don't see any difference between calling an edit trolling or POV pushing, and calling the editor a troll or POV pusher. I don't see calling an idea "an idea only idiots hold" as any different from calling the holder of said idea -who is usually standing right by- an idiot. Except the blocking behavior of the admin twiddling his thumbs in the background. So I guess what I'm saying is, that a poisoned atmosphere is just as easy to produce without calling a spade a spade as when you do call a spade a spade. So again what is the reason to change the essay? And, everyone uses it to say "I'm calling it that because it is that," when really it says the opposite. So if there is going to be any change, just use the first sentence "uncivil statements are still uncivil even if they are true." At least then the thing would fall out of use, as SPADE could not be used as if it consisted only of it's first two sentences
as in this version. The current version is a mess could perhaps maybe use some work, by some anon editor who hasn't worked on it before, even though the current ones get little gold stars too. Oh, I didn't need to cross that out, it was commenting on the content, not the committee who wrote it. Civil, huh? True civility is not creating a poisoned atmosphere by actually being a reasonable person and fostering an atmosphere of respect. Legislating it so minutely won't really work. We only have WP:CIV because we can't have WP:DECENT. ——
Martinphi
☎ Ψ
Φ——
09:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
How about merging WP:SPADE and WP:NOSPADE, and calling the new essay:
Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade,... or not?
... Just a thought. I don't mean this as a joke, I'm suggesting an essay that discusses the pros and cons of the idea, with suggestions for deciding on whether or not to use that method of communication.
Personally, I feel that the best WP:CIVIL solution would be to delete WP:SPADE and redirect to WP:NOSPADE, but since the WP:SPADE method does have supporters, maybe it would best to come up with a good consensus combo version to replace the two competing essays. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A worjing draft of the new version is at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade/Draft. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, the edit itself must not be labeled as POV, incorrect, or disruptive, as this can be taken as an implicit criticism of the person who made the edit.
I think this, at least, should be deleted. Since its a big change I am posting this here for comment rather than delete from the draft.( olive ( talk) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
No dig intended...( olive ( talk) 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
Ah, Arritt, you changed "If you choose to be blunt you should consider how your bluntnees would appear to an uninvolved party if it is reported as incivility."
to
"If you choose to be blunt you should consider how your bluntness can be made to appear to an uninvolved party if it is reported as incivility."
Don't you think this is rather an assumption of bad faith to the general population of WP editors? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we keep the draft on-topic and not drift off into things better left to other policies such as WP:WEIGHT? People are more likely to read and take it seriously if the essay stays concise and focused. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 04:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's really not that difficult, if you follow a few simple rules, such as never making personal comments, never edit warring for any reason, and never mentioning the possibility of bad faith. The greatest difficulty most people have with these strategies is believing that they could possibly work, but they do. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That aside, I'd reply to your point. Suppose we grant that some editors act in bad faith. Is it helpful to say so, aloud? Is it true that we need to label the person in order to directly address the behavior? I would disagree with that. I'm not advocating "observing this behavior but not directly addressing it." I'm advocating addressing the behavior very directly, while simultaneously dignifying the person.
Finally... what is "bad faith", if it isn't misguidedness? People who want to push a POV believe in that POV. A POV-pusher believes that they are improving the encyclopedia, according to their warped notion of "improve". Nobody self-identifies as a POV-pusher, so what's the gain in calling someone out as one? They're not going to say, "yeah, you got me". They're going to say, in all sincerity, "no I'm not!," and Bingo!, we're one more step removed from the edit we should be talking about.
I'd like to see an example of a situation where making an accusation of bad faith is helpful, in the sense that it leads to a resolution. I've never seen it happen. Even in cases of blatant trolling, not calling them a troll, but instead dignifying them more than they dignify themselves, works.
It's quite surprising how people rise to the occasion when you address them with full respect. They don't expect it, and they find that they can't continue being a dick to you without looking utterly wrong. "Bad" editors expect to be treated brusquely, and then to complain about that treatment. Upsetting that expectation is a great way to throw them off, and to get the discussion focused on edits and on sources, whether or not they'd like to drag it into insults and lawyering. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"Not labeling anything" sounds tricky. What do you mean by that? I don't actually "insist" on labeling the behavior, but one must say something. Rather than labeling the behavior, it's probably better to address the content question that is giving rise to the behavior. Is that what you're getting at? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Now, when you do it, don't sound unctuous, don't use phrasings that make you sound insincere. My point is not to hand you a script, but to aver that explicitly dignifying a person in a dispute is a good way to make the civility line very clear, and to establish that you're both on the cool side of it. If the line between commenting on the content and commenting on the contributor seems grey, you can clarify it. That's the only point I was trying to make with my last two posts.
Honestly, this isn't even a point to sit and theorize about, it's a point for practical empirical application. Who cares what we think would probably work; let's just try stuff and see what works. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
How about "people who are emotionally involved in their POVs and can't keep that out of their editing should not edit the articles about which they feel strongly?" Maybe there isn't any other way to create an environment that really is decent and respectful. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
To "call a spade a spade" is more accurately defined in a more general way than we are using it here, that is to speak plainly or bluntly, but is not necessarily pejorative and does not refer to addressing an individual except in the most literal translation of the phrase. I would like to copy edit the essay since it has become awkward and cumbersome but I would have to redefine this phrase slightly. Is that a concern for any other editors.( olive ( talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
The community has decided that calling someone a POV-pusher or the like -- even if true -- is unnecessary and fundamentally uncivil. Since incivility is one of the top blockable offenses, this essay in its present form could get people into big trouble. I tried to harmonize the essay with Wikipedia community standards but my edits were summarily reverted en masse. [2] Do we really want to keep a potentially harmful essay in project space? Raymond Arritt ( talk) 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to summarize: Civility is never mutually exclusive, but is a behavioural issue, that requires not only thought, rather than what can be the non-specific, less non-thoughtful response of name calling, but also, possibly control, and should not impact the more mechanical issues of editing. Intelligent editors might consider that intelligent, thought ful responses would have more impact on collaborative projects and the community environment of Wikipedia, than the more general voice of name-calling, and might reflect highly on the individual editors themselves (
olive (
talk)
17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
Most people are doing what they see as the right thing. If you accuse them of being a POV-pusher, they will likely say something to the effect of, "I'm not a POV-pusher; I'm trying to make the encyclopedia more accurate/more neutral/better." Replying with something like, "No you're not; you're trying to push a POV" is singularly unhelpful, because it casts the discussion in terms of that person's motivations, instead of casting it in terms of the edits. If you say that a person "shows a pattern of making non-neutral edits on certain subjects", then we've got something much more concrete to talk about, and even better, something that doesn't engage people's emotions nearly as much as the application of labels to persons. The community can look at the edits, make a decision, and block the person if necessary, without it ever being necessary to label the person as a "POV-pusher". - GTBacchus( talk) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Many users get confused, I do. Things are not always black and white. -- Newbyguesses - Talk 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I just now updated WP:TWILIGHT with a section expanding on the point I tried to make here. I would appreciate any feed-back concerning WP:TWILIGHT at that page, if it seems at all helpful to do so. Thanks -- Newbyguesses - Talk 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on here, but if you want an essay explaining that its not OK to call a spade a spade, by all means start it. The transformation here over the past several weeks is just plain Orwellian. It started off saying it's OK to call a spade a spade and then went into great depth explaining that this isn't the case. -- Kendrick7 talk 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to argue for calling spades spades, then please explain what the concrete benefit of doing so would be. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Once you start talking about people's motivations, which you do when you call someone a POV-pusher, it's very difficult to get back on track, and talk about the content dispute in question.
The only time it becomes profitable to label someone as "a POV pusher" or the like, is if we're community banning them. Short of that, you're going to have to work with the person, so you'd better not undermine that process by showing them that you doubt their intentions. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I would personally not take "seems to be resisting consensus" as an accusation of bad faith, because I don't see how resisting consensus is necessarily a bad-faith action. I could resist consensus in the best of faith; have done so. However, if I said that someone seemed to be resisting consensus, and they thought I was being uncivil, I would clarify my point to make it clear that I don't doubt their good faith. I'm not going to recommend any particular words with which to do that, Raymond, because I get the impression you'll pick them apart. Are you getting my point, beside the particulars of phrasing? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with most of the rest of your post. This is not about "getting upset over name calling". This is about being professional and effective, versus unprofessional and ineffective. I'm arguing for professional effectiveness, of which name calling is no part. You're absolutely right that pointing out bias should not be interpreted as a WP:CIV violation, because people shouldn't think of WP:CIV in terms of violations at all. If someone tries to use WP:CIV as a hammer, that's not remotely civil, and any 5th grader knows that.
As for trusting you... no. I have a lot of experience in dispute resolution here, and I've dealt with many POV-pushers. I don't give them an inch about complaining, what I do is avoid the personal issue entirely, and continue to refocus the discussion on content issues. If they try to play a WP:CIV card, I take it out of their hands by being unfailingly polite to them. It works, according to long experience. I know their MO, and I know how to beat it. Calling a spade a spade is not the answer. I am prepared to demonstrate my point, in the field - I'm that confident.
If you can't conceal your lack of respect for others, then your dispute resolution skills will suffer. If you learn to address content without talking about your speculations on people's motivations, then you'll be more sucessful. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:26, March 13, 2008 (UTC)
I think it best that WP:SPADE and WP:NOSPADE continue to co-exist. The SPADE essay does not condone or recommend breaches of civility, though the wording of WP:CIVIL may be changed from time to time. You only have to look at these threads above (which should be considered as closed, for being FAR too long), to see that some Editors regard the difference between NOUN and VERB as crucial, while other editors feel that that is not a real distinction. Be civil, be factual, be respectful (of editors), and respect the Neutral Point of View. Let all views be expressed, but avoid outright name-calling, as it is unproductive. There must be some way of identifying unhelpful actions, though, as user:Kendrick7 rightly points out above. -- Newbyguesses - Talk 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole bit about nouns versus verbs isn't just for children; it's taught as part of adult dispute resolution. There is no part of effective adult dispute resolution that makes labeling of other people effective or recommended. It's not about "word magic"; it's about effective communication. People will still be offended, but if you've kept the line very clear for your own behavior, then you're in a much better position to make progress with the argument. If you've crossed that line, then the waters are far muddier.
Seriously, just try it. I know people who didn't believe it, then tried it, and it worked. Why not try it? - GTBacchus( talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm catching on to a misunderstanding here. When I say that calling someone a name is uncivil, I do not mean to imply that it is a "violation of WP:CIV". Those are very different things. I don't think of WP:CIV as a law, so how could a violation exist? I think civility is an idea we should be applying each to our own actions, not to other people's.
The point is, don't call names, because there are better ways to communicate. No, I won't block you for it, but don't do it because you've got better things to say. If someone calls you a name, don't get all "you violated WP:CIVIL" on them; say something like, "Hey, I don't think that was fair. Can we talk about this?" Be very civil back to them. That makes it very difficult for them to continue being a dick. Get other people involved. Don't present them with a j'accuse; that contributes to a poisonous atmosphere.
How can we get people to think of WP:CIVIL less as a law to hit other people with, and more as a code of practical conduct? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
... and the edits to this essay are making it read like a political campaign piece, not a witty bit expressing views about what to call a spade. It's fine, but at this rate it may deserve to be renamed. Ante lan talk 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The following appears to be the earliest text of the essay: Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks, and our policy against civility not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but rather to protect their edits from review. Users who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors. Users who consistently push a POV are POV pushers. Users who consistently vandalize are vandals. There is no need to dress up the way we address such users. While we must remain civil, calling a spade a spade is part of a reliable editor’s job.
It appears that this essay has been twisted around to dilute the original point completely. While it is important that we remain civil, it is also important to be honest and realistic. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten the essay again, [5] and added this as an important caveat. No matter how civil the community is to trolls, vandals, sockpuppeteers, etc. I believe this essay rightly contents that such problematic editors are not going to suddenly repent and become productive wikipedians. WP:CIV isn't a suicide pact, and having to go thru absurd circumlocutions all across the wiki everytime we comment on the problematic behavioral trends of such editors is counterproductive to the goals of the project. Hopefully this version gets the point across that where there's the possibility of rehabilitation, incivility is still inexcusable. -- Kendrick7 talk 17:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
When you said "not being allowed to call a troll a troll would inhibit the sharing of such advice to newbies...," what were you responding to? Who has ever suggested that anyone not be allowed to call a troll a troll? - GTBacchus( talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Constructive collaboration isn't possible without establishing the importance a fundamental principle of any kind of collaboration; that collaboration is not about "you", (a larger "you" rather than anyone in particular) but is instead about the response "you" give to another editor. Collaboration is not about what "you" want to say, but about what the other editor in the interaction needs to be be able to participate and contribute. No good teacher, and teaching is a learning collaboration, comes into a class room, and thinks about himself or herself first, but must think about the student first and what each and every student needs. No good actor, and acting and performance are performing collaborations, even in a one man performance ... and thats a whole other discussion.... thinks about himself first but must respond first to the the other actor/actors. Thinking that an editor can come into a situation with a set of rules in place that gives you permission to not consider the individuality of each and every editor, each and every time you interact is not a scenario that can create real collaboration. Think about the other editor first, and what that editor needs to be productive and we as editors will be more productive, collaboration will flow, and the environment will be more comfortable to work in than in one where editors are considering themselves first. I believe there are "bottom lines" in the theories about how collaboration works successfully and this is one of them.(
olive (
talk)
14:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
User:Raymond Arritt, I think I see where your recent edits are going, they seem good enough and are likely to stand. To my mind, it is getting a bit wordy, and hedged with too many negatives and hints of bad consequences, without actually making the point more directly. It appears that the general sentiment on this page is to basically demote WP:SPADE, and replace it with WP:NOSPADE. I disagree with that idea, I think it will more likely facilitate an overall increase in incivility on en.Wikipedia, rather than a decrease; however, if that is the way we are going (with the essay I mean), then i am fine with that.
I note the input of user:little olive oil, these points though coming at a tangent it seems to the general debate, ought to be considered carefully, as I hope will the input of those of us at the periphery of the debate, who still seek to contribute constructively, even if a little outside the loop. Thanks -- Newbyguesses - Talk 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Further empowering [by spaying this essay SPADE (!)] those contentious editors who hide behind spurious claims of personal attacks whilst pursuing uncivil agendas, such as bullying is what I mean. The current trend towards mounting a witch-hunt against any hint of incivility in words, empowers those who wish to damage this site by importing off-wiki dramas and pursuing private agenda which breach our COI policies. I may not be expressing myself felicitously, but I believe that breaches of our NPOV, carried out under such cover, are a worse breach of Civility, than some harsh words, (Not excusing harsh words). Censorship of legitimate ideas, and writing that which is self-serving and unverifiable, these are egregious breaches of civility, as I define it. A murderer, for instance, has been uncivil to his victim and to society. A liar, a cheat is uncivil, that is how i see it. These things are worse than swearing, or invective, in my opinion. (doesnt excuse swearing!)
I do not think such persons should be empowered because a few namby-pambies are upset by plain speaking. Sorry if I aint speaking as plain as I might here! i do hope most people by now know where i stand, and what principles (NPOV) that I hold most dear. Not that I have any problems with the consensus which seems to be developing here, though I do wish i could get my point across. Thanks, -- Newbyguesses - Talk 23:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a huge gulf between pointing out that name-calling is stupid and empowering people to hobble us with litigious claims. We're doing the former here, not the latter. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I am going to ask here for any user, or particularly user:Dreadstar, to please provide any recent non-trivial example of where a user has cited this essay, WP:SPADE to support an infringement of CIVIL or any other policy. The assertion has been made numerous times, unsupported by evidence, and I dont think it has happened. This is not to say that I oppose any user's right to update this essay. -- Newbyguesses - Talk 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just new here and finding my way around...looked at the Civility policy after I read where someone tried to justify a personal insult using "spade".
Doesn't this entire essay more or less conflict with "Comment on the actions and not the editor" found in the civility policy? Dosk7 ( talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The questions go on: What can we fairly expect from people, as far as putting up with abuse? When someone is pushed past their frustration threshhold, what is the best way to de-escalate the editor in a way that leads to their retention as an editor, and a positive change in their handling of similar situations? I'm pretty sure I can't rattle off answers to all of these. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've started a new essay WP:Bait which addresses certain issues that some of us have been trying to shoehorn into the SPADE essay. Maybe the two can complement one another. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
wow.. i agree 64.131.204.90 ( talk) 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Has the section entitled The duck test ever been any longer? This bit seems to get linked to often, and is the under-pinning of many investigations. It is a justification for something we do not usually allow in article-space, but which is necessary when a whole complex of previous and current actions need to be examined: the synthesis of ideas to show that a conclusion is valid. As it reads currently, the Duck Test doesn't really hold water, and that is a bad thing. Either it belongs in a separate place, and gets expanded, or we lose it, and lots of people will miss out on their roast Duck for dinner. Seriously, does it need beefing up, or poaching, grilling or deep-frying? -- Newbyguesses - Talk 03:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The first bit was added in November '06, and the shortcut and a few words were added in early '07. That summer, the first "watering down" or "fixing" of the page happened. Althouh that was largely reverted, the game was on, and it wasn't long before the duck test grew a caveat... and that's where we stand now.
I think the reason it gets cited so much is that people use "WP:DUCK" as a euphemism for "troll", as in "Ignore him, per WP:DUCK." That's my suspicion, anyway. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Dreadstar removed Newbyguesses' edit to the DUCK section with the summary: "distracts from the point of this section. If it looks like a duck but doesn't think it's a duck, then gently and kindly provide proof to the duck so it realizes what it is."
I'm wondering, is that actually good advice? How does that translate into practical terms, exactly? Do we explain to people we see as trolls and POV-pushers that they really are trolls and POV-pushers? This seems like a bad idea, because they generally don't see themselves as those things because of some belief they hold about the world.
The paragraph in DUCK seems to recommend telling people, "see, here's why I'm telling you that following the dictates of your own conscience is somehow a bad-faith action, because I know your mind better than you know yourself." Has that ever helped a situation? What's it supposed to do, de-escalate the person? - GTBacchus( talk) 05:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Why not? I'll give it a try. Perhaps you should fiddle with it too if its not right.( olive ( talk) 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
Wikipedia has a whole list of words to avoid, including terrorist, sect, myth. How can these two guidelines co-exist? Emmanuelm ( talk) 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted in Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid)
Can someone join the Spade and Nospade in an essay titled What is a spade, because I seem to have trouble understaning either of the two. I am a new editor, and I have no idea how Wikipedia works, so keep it in layman terms, so me simple Joe can get the gist of the topic at hand! If you have trouble joining the two, then have one essay tell what is a Spade and the other essay what is not a Spade. But today, they both tell me, No Spade, No Spade, No Spade It is like saying, I am not a Troll stop calling me that or I will report you to ANI Igor Berger ( talk) 05:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, there may be people who "love to waste people's time with endless circular arguments", but we don't have to let them waste our time. These "endless circular" arguments are actually easy to dispense with if we stay focused. If you make it worth their while, they'll stay. So don't do that. That doesn't mean to call them names. It means to respond effectively. There's no circular argument that need waste our time. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As for the "common generalization" that we "must AGF of anyone at all times", I'd like to see where that's been claimed. I don't believe it, and I don't know anyone who believes it. Is it a "common generalization", or is it a straw man? Do you think I'm taking that position here?
I know where to find the diffs supporting my claim here, just give me a few hours. I'd like to see diffs showing that "calling a spade a spade" has ever helped a situation.
I would say that you're also presenting a false dichotomy: we either have to tell people that someone is best ignored, or else "let the newbie wander into the minefield, or twist and turn our words in an RfC so that we walk a fine line between obeying WP:CIV and having to tell a lie" That sounds terrible, and like nothing I would ever advocate. I would advocate a third approach, which is to be professional about it. Why not talk about some position I'm actually advancing, instead of one that nobody here holds? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The best reason not to say, "you are a troll," is not that it's an "NPA violation" or something like that. The best reason not to say, "you are a troll," is that saying it is utterly useless, whether true or false. Our goal is always to be useful, not useless. Even if there were no NPA policy, calling people trolls would be a foolish idea. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
<-- Example : right and wrong ways to discuss disruptive editting.
A) Over at talk:Blah, User:Bigmouth is constantly trolling, and acting like a dic-. Bigmouth is a dic- - WRONG! WRONG!
B) At [WP talk:Blah] , [User:Bigmouth] posted [DIFF] and [DIFF]. The first insults User:Poorboyo, and the second post is a rant, and also incivil. There are other instances, some as recent as yesterday [DIFFs]. Would User:Bigmouth please Stop this kind of behaviour, or perhaps take a break from editting [WP:Blah]. RIGHT!
(Yes, no, comments?) -- Newbyguesses ( talk) 06:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, time for a concrete example based on real experience. Let's suppose UserX is a long-term timewaster, someone who does nothing but argue on talk pages. He has demonstrated that he has zero knowledge of the topic at hand in terms of basic principles or the published literature. Rarely, he will make a controversial edit to an article in order to keep the back-and-forth going (being perfectly aware that such edits have been soundly rejected by consensus in the past). He's smart enough to skate right up to the line on WP:CIV and WP:NPA without quite going over. In other words, he's a CIVIL troll. Some of the regulars know enough to ignore him. New participants UserY and UserZ wander in, and UserX makes a provocative comment to them. The regulars think "uh oh, here it comes." Is it fair to tell UserY and UserZ "be forewarned, this guy loves to waste people's time in endless, unproductive argumentation?" Raymond Arritt ( talk) 10:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
People can be incredibly insane, or stupid, in millions of ways, and many of them might come across as intending disruption, but most people are actually interested in making the encyclopedia "better", according to their understanding of the "good".
Raymond, in your example, it would be inappropriate to say "be forewarned, this guy loves to waste people's time in endless, unproductive argumentation". How do you know what he "loves"? Maybe what he would love most is for the article to reflect his POV, which he sees as "neutral". If you want to let users Y and Z know what's going on, just state calmly and professionally that this issue has been addressed before, and point them to a previous instance of it. If the behavior is truly incessant, then you can pursue dispute resolution on the grounds that user X's edits are disruptive, but not on the grounds that you can read their mind and determine them to have malicious intent. Their intent should never come up, because it is a topic that is extremely likely to waste time. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, I agree with you calling editors Trolls, or even saying an editor is Trolling is not productive. But when a DUCK behaves like a DUCK, and you tell the DUCK, "You are not an uglly duckling but a beautiful swane, please stop acting like a DUCK, be more gentle and people will respect and listen to you. But the duck says' "Quak, Quak!" and walk away forgeting everything you said, goes back to Troll the same article in the same way. Other editors try talking to a DUCK, but the DUCK keeps Trolling the same article. What do you do next? Igor Berger ( talk) 23:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'm not sure why you think I'm suggesting saying, "please be more gentle and people will respect and listen to you". You can actually be quite firm without indulging in labeling. Firmness and frankness do not in any way require incivility or an unprofessional tone. We do not have to tolerate disruption, and we do not have to label people. You don't ever have to decide that they're "trolling" the article, simply that they're being disruptive. "Trolling" implies that you know their intention, but you don't. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the way you deal with it is to stay very focused on the articles and the edits. You make it very clear by your productive contributions that you're not a troll, and then you're bulletproof. Does this approach not work, in your experience? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ya know, I am just as fond of the Ugly Duckling story as the next person, but as a matter of bald logic, that particular story belongs in an essay entitled Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. Wouldn't it be better over in that essay, not this one? -- Newbyguesses - Talk 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone considered the idea of merging Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade with Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade and placing it on a title like Wikipedia:Should we call a spade a spade? It seems that with the discussion over some points in SPADE being more appropriate for NOSPADE and such, we might as well merge the two, and discuss both points together, since while on their faces they seem separate and opposing, they overlap quite a bit. What do you think? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't get this bit. How is it a "test"? How is a story about Lloyd Bentsen making Dan Quayle look bad in a 1988 debate related to editing Wikipedia?
Is the application supposed to be that if you deflate someone with a condescending insult, then.... you win? Does it mean anything that the debate in question actually hurt the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket more than it helped? - GTBacchus( talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What kind of namby-pamby foolishness turned an essay on calling a spade a spade into an essay that says that if you call a spade a spade, you'll probably be blocked, so best to be ever-so-civil and NEVER, EVER dare say anything that will ever offend anyone? Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or practice before we have tea with the queen? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Should the essay say that trying to be diplomatic is a bad idea, when dealing with people whom you consider to be sufficiently wrong? - GTBacchus( talk) 10:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I find this edit by Raymond Arritt somewhat troubling. Is asking editors to be honest really "jarringly inconsistent with the preceding material"? Is there anything on this page that says "be dishonest"? What's going on there? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This essay has converged with WP:NOSPADE, which is a bit odd. The trouble is, this essay had been used far too much as a justification for making personal attacks, on the grounds that the person being attacked is a "spade". The essay has been drifting away from that idea, and in the direction of not calling people names after all. Making this into an essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy. Like I said in another section above: if an edit or a source is bad, call it bad. If you think a person is bad, keep it to yourself.
One small point - it doesn't say the duck will turn into a swan; it says he might turn out to have always been one. That's rather different. What the duck test used to look like can be found in the history; see this version for example. As you can see, it didn't really say much. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as the likelihood of mistaking a swan for a duck... I've seen it done enough times to make it worth writing down. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I like the idea of valuing clear thought and direct speech, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with making the crucial distinction one between clear expression and jumping to unwarranted conclusions; I think maybe those two things are on different vectors. I'm still thinking about that.
What the people who rewrote this essay apparently wanted to say is that it's bad to call people names, but in the process, they threw out clear thinking and honest discrimination along with name-calling. There has to be a way to split clear-thinking from name-calling so as not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I've lost track of who the ducks and who the swans were supposed to represent, but there really are different species of individuals here, whose approach to building an encyclopedia, whose style of thinking and approaching information, and whose communication styles are quite different from each other. One group tends to a direct, forthright style; the other to an indirect, less straightforward style. I prefer the direct style myself; it makes communication straightfoward and uncomplicated and easy to understand. While we don't want name-calling, I also don't think we want an essay that suggests that a direct style of communication is bad, just because people who prefer a more oblique style don't like it or are inclined to misinterpret it as rude or abrasive or personally intended. (Again, let me stress that I'm not condoning name-calling here.) I hope those who want to get rid of name-calling don't mean to go further than that, to say that a direct, straightforward communication style should be discouraged.
Being so oversensitive that you see personal attacks where there are none, seems to me about as incivil as actually attacking someone. I would put that into Newby's category of a kind of jumping to conclusions that qualifies as dishonest. If the emerging civility policy encourages this kind of incivility while outlawing its inverse, I would have a problem with that, and this is where I take issue with this essay as re-written; it could be interpreted to mean that any direct or straightforward assessment of a situation should be avoided, because someone might take it personally and be offended. This attitude was apparent in the earlier discussion now archived, where people argued not only against calling names, but against saying negative things about anything, which taken to extreme could lead to, say, the position that giving a fringe viewpoint its proper (very small to nonexistent) weight is uncivil because it could make the fringe idea's proponents feel unwanted and devalued. It sounds ridiculous, but it's not more ridiculous than arguments I've seen on many fringe article talk pages, such as that it's uncivil to call an idea "pseudoscientific" because that's pejorative and disrespectful to the people who hold the idea. Again, way too much text, sorry. Woonpton ( talk) 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've started a draft and have taken it as far as I have time for just now. The ideas are somewhat disjointed and incomplete, but wanted to see if this is remotely in the direction of what you had in mind. Many of the sentences in there are directly lifted out of your posts, but of course you're not responsible for what I've done with them; feel free to delete or re-arrange. I've tried to incorporate your thoughts with some of my own. Woonpton ( talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If there are going to be two essays, which I think sounds great, then WP:SPADE could be about the virtues of communicating directly and frankly - bluntly even. It could help people who tend towards bluntness to understand that their way is valid and valued, and to avoid unnecessary conflict with differing ways, and conversely, it could help people who tend towards indirectness to understand and work better with more straightforward styles. That's an essay worth writing, but it should be clear that we're not suggesting that we label people as "spades" and call them out accordingly.
A separate essay, WP:NOSPADE could point out that being plain-spoken and direct does not imply name-calling. That essay could focus on how questions of motivation are irrelevant to the project of improving articles, and that trolls and POV-pushers are best dealt with in a dispassionate and professional manner. - GTBacchus( talk) 08:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Mostly I was just thinking aloud about what an essay about direct speaking would look like. I don't think it would be about telling people how to communicate more effectively; I think it would be about the virtues of direct communication, as I said above. The part about helping people understand each other better would be a welcome side-effect. That was the intended substance of my comment above. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
For why these two essays have converged, you might want to look back in the archives as far, or further, than October 2007 at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade/Archives#Hijacking essay and other sections. The merge question, and the Duck question have been discussed there, without resolution. -- NewbyG ( talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Newby that since the essay no longer has much to do with spades, it doesn't make sense to keep a picture of a spade in it. Shoemaker is right that the picture still relates to the title of the essay, but nothing in the essay relates to the title. Woonpton ( talk) 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an essay, not a policy document. Recent edits have flipped this essay entirely on its head, and I have undone those edits. If what you are trying to say is "don't call a spade a spade because doing so may be uncivil", consider writing a new essay. Antelan talk 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Antelan. Many Wikipedia policies, guidleines, essays intersect, as a matter of fact most of them do, so that seems a moot argument and you are maybe dealing with a Dead Parrot:0) on that comment. The recent edits are more general and all-ecompassing in their scope and importantly more neutral. I would have to support them over a less neutral version.( olive ( talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
I'm not sure if there's any point in this side discussion, but I would think that this essay could very well become a guideline or merge in to a policy at some time. My point is that what begins as an essay could become a policy eventually, if the community finds that it needs it.I would think the community would decide through some form of agreement or consensus. I'm not sure if I'm addressing your point or what the point is about ... not because of anything you're saying, but just because of miscommunication. I may not be understanding you.( olive ( talk) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Antelan, do you think it's appropriate to call editors "POV-pushers", "vandals", "trolls", etc, if you believe them to be so? That seems to be the thrust of the version of this page to which you're reverting, but please correct me if I'm wrong. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If this essay is going to say that calling people names is appropriate, then I would support its deletion, as sufficiently opposed to our fundamental policies, and inimical to the project of collaboratively writing an encyclopedia.
The reason I asked your personal opinion about spade-calling is that, if you don't think it's appropriate, then I wouldn't bother to ask you why you think it's appropriate. If you, or someone else, can explain that it makes sense to have an essay advocating calling editors "spades", then maybe you'd change my mind about this essay. As it is, I think it should either be about calling edits and sources "spades", and not editors, or else it should be deleted. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
To give you a direct answer to the question of whether those who disagree should be allowed their essay: If there is any worthwhile substance behind the disagreement, then yes, put it in the essay and keep it; if there is nothing other than a preference for name-calling, then no, delete it, just as we would a pro-vandalism essay. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I would point out that the essay historically has been used to justify name-calling, so it's not totally off-the-wall for me to suggest that it supports that behavior. People really do take it that way. The current text certainly doesn't advocate name-calling, but the original text did; or would you disagree about that?
I'm very sorry that you're unwilling to say what you think about the essay. I think you could help me understand another perspective here, but you seem unwilling to do that, and I don't know why :( . Would it be bad for me to understand where you're coming from? - GTBacchus( talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, if it was always clear whether a label was accurate or misleading, then we wouldn't need essays like this, would we? However, calling a spade a spade, and then turning out to be mistaken - that is misleading, even though it's not meant to be.
At any rate, I'm interested in hearing why applying labels to other editors is a good idea. I'm travelling this weekend, but I'll be certain to check back in here, because I'm very interested in this conversation. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Raymond edited the nutshell to say: "It's okay to call a spade a spade, to speak plainly, except when referring to other editors."
Does anyone agree with this sentiment? I can agree with it on a very superficial level, but ultimately, it seems wrong. It's okay to speak plainly and directly about what we're doing, full stop. Also true, but unrelated: straying off-topic is counterproductive.
Talking about other editors is simply off-topic. It's not very cool or helpful to jump to conclusions about others' motives based on incomplete information - but even that is harmless if the person jumping can keep their judgment to themselves. What's really not okay is dropping the topic of improving the encyclopedia to instead talk about how rotten you think someone is. I'm not okay with having a page that encourages that. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I'm trying to have my cake and eat it, because I'm not sure what you see me as "trying" to do here. I'm trying to suggest that people stay on-topic when working on the project. Is that unreasonable? Is name-calling on-topic? Is a request to stay on-topic the same as a stance against frankness? Going off-topic isn't wrong because it's done bluntly; it's wrong because it's off-topic. The two issues are orthogonal. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer something like "It's okay to call a spade a spade - to speak plainly - but remember to remain civil and on-topic." - GTBacchus( talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, this is all beside the point that there seemed to be a general agreement a couple of days ago that this essay as now framed is redundant with Don't Call a Spade a Spade, and with WP:CIVIL, and that we wanted something that advocated for more frank expression, with the exception of name calling. I haven't seen any change in the wind that would suddenly justify adopting it essentially as it is. I'm not wedded to the draft I started in response to those concerns, but I'm very much against keeping it in its present form. I think it needs to be rewritten, or renamed, or deleted. Woonpton ( talk) 23:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Newby suggested I should make a new section for this; I've made a rough beginning on a [
draft proposal] for a rewrite of the essay, so far incorporating some thoughts of Newby's and some thoughts of mine along with what I think are consensus ideas.
Woonpton (
talk)
20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what we're running into is that some people really want to have an essay that says, "if you decide someone is a POV-pusher or a troll, call them that." That's precisely how people have often cited WP:SPADE in the field. Others would like to have an essay that says "speak frankly and honestly, but stay on topic, i.e., don't talk about the other guy's motives, personality, etc."
I'm hoping someone will explain why it would ever be a good idea to talk about the other guy's motives, personality, etc., but when I ask that question, I don't seem to get many answers. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep the pro-vandalism essay in mind - I can claim that it's not purely anti-policy, and that it explores a gray area... but will you believe me, if I don't explain how that's true? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
That said "we" have not "established" that the essay you advocate is not purely antithetical to policy. Simply saying that you, "should be WP:civil when calling a spade a spade," is kind of like saying you should have an eye to improving the encyclopedia when vandalizing. If my pro-vandalism essay said that, would you oppose it, or would you be willing to let ideas that conflict with your own remain of Wikipedia? See how that's a rhetorical cheap shot? - GTBacchus( talk) 22:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
As for violating policy, I don't really care whether the essay "violates" whatever "rule"; I don't think of Wikipedia that way. I care about whether it might be a really bad idea to have an essay that encourages (intentionally or not) destructive behavior. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is about whether it's consistent with policy or with good sense to encourage editors to label others while simultaneously (and contradictorily) mentioning that they should remain civil while doing something fundamentally unhelpful. I think an essay that says "Someone pushing a POV is a POV-pusher, and it's somehow useful to call them that," but then turns around and says, "be civil while doing it," is absurd. If the community thinks that such an essay is a good thing, then of course I'll go along with consensus, but I'd like to see some evidence of that consensus first. Does that seem fair? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[8] The Duck is back, and WP:DUCK now redirects to thispage. -- NewbyG ( talk) 00:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the distinctions GTB is making could WP:Spade be more about content rather than behaviour, and if so, being direct would not imply any actions towards an editor but rather towards the content/edits, and strong, direct language could be more acceptable, although many editors are subjectively attached to their edits so care would have to be taken here too. WP:No Spade would possibly apply to behaviour towards other editors and could be described as that kind of behaviour that although problematic, is best dealt with not condemning the editor in any way but by dealing with the editor in a civil manner so as not to further support an already less than opimal working environment. Spade then becomes a more objective note, No Spade the more subjective one.( olive ( talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
As for "POV-pusher", it's not that it's a vile insult - I hope I've not given the impression that I'm trying to protect people from insults. I don't really care about that. The problem with calling someone a POV-pusher is that it doesn't help. A genuine POV-pusher doesn't see themselves as a POV-pusher; they see themselves as being neutral and correct, and they see those who oppose them as POV-pushers. If someone who is opposing them in some content dispute calls them a POV-pusher, what will that accomplish? Will they say "oh, gee, you're right. I'll stop pushing my fringe POV, now that you've shown me the light!" Of course not. They'll simply defend themselves - with full sincerity - against the accusation, and the conversation will go further and further off-topic.
That is the reason to avoid name-calling: it isn't helpful. If it were helpful, I'd be all for it, but in an actual content dispute, it doesn't get us where we need to go. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
My question is this: Why call a spade a spade (regarding people, not edits)? How does it help? In what circumstances is labeling another editor more useful/beneficial/productive than refraining from doing so?
I think this question is worth asking, because ultimately it's an empirical matter. "Calling a spade" is either sometimes helpful, or it's not, and if it is helpful, then I'd like to know, so I can do it. If it's not, that would be good to know, too, it seems.
Can anyone help me with this? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You mention a couple of things that I'm very interested in. First of all, "Sending more neutral admins... would help". I'm interested in finding a systematic way to do this. I imagine a kind of group that keeps track of edit wars and applies conflict resolution strategies in a mindful way, documenting what works, and getting better at bringing edit wars to a resolution that accords with neutrality. Does that seem to be a good suggestion?
Another question I have regards, "If you don't call a spade a spade, then certain disputes never end...," and, "...calling a spade a spade is about the only defense..." So, does it work? If you call a spade editor a spade, does the dispute therefore end in a satisfactory way? Is it an effective defense? How does that work? What's the best way to do it? What kind of editor is best at it? How do you avoid false positives?
If we're going to get good at managing controversial articles — which we must — we might as well document what works, right? I don't know what the page currently looks like, and by the time you read this it may be different, but the original version of the page documents something that, as far as I know, doesn't work. That's an empirical question, right? So let's answer it, and let's show people. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[Unindent] Sorry if I was a bit aggressive in my description, but...
Well, basically, the editor in question went about to a lot of articles, and took a very long time before anyone did anything about him. The information put before the arbcom was up at the probation page for a couple months while he, basically, continued as always. I really think the disruption would have been much greater if, once he was caught out, the other editors had not been warned, simply and clearlyu, tat his quotes from sources could not be trusted.
Not exactly calling a spade a spade in conversation with them, but with others, when the editor in question is truly disruptive, they need to know to look out, and pussyfooting around it isn't going to help. I'd probably say that well-judged and evidenced labels are also useful at WP:ANI and WP:RFAR, as they do serve to communicate a set of behavioural problems clearly.
Now, in resposse to GTBacchus - If you can get a group of neutral admins able and ready to be called in and investigate problems in any article probation, that would be great. It would take a reasonable number of them, though, and there would have to be methods in place to make sure there were always at least X of them active and willing to step in. On the Homeopathy probation, for instance, there were a lot of admins who stepped up at first. But at least by March or so, they seem to have all burned out, and were unwilling to deal further.
There's also the problem of who's doing it. If you get a couple admins in ready and willing to block for a single act of incivility, given a diff, but unwilling to look at anything more complex - well, you get the backlash against WP:CIVIL you see happening right now, where civility has been turned into a weapon, because in some areas there's at least a perception that it's the only thing people are reliably getting blocked for.
There is one problem that would be really, really bad:
In the end, policy more-or-less says some disputes only really have one side in the "right". WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, for instance, privileges mainstream science over fringe theories and pseudoscience. Having a "neutral" admin who was neutral in the "equal weight to all views" sense (You know, "They have sources too! They can use their sources to write their sections, you can use yours to write your sections, what's the problem?") would seriously risk putting Wikipedia in disrepute. I don't think it's worth saying more on that subject, though, barring confusion from me not really wanting to call a spade a spade in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The position I'm trying to understand is the one that says we should not only tell him what he's doing wrong, but call him a spade. There are people taking this position, and I would love to understand it, but I don't yet. I don't see the practical benefit of calling someone a spade. What is it? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just done that but I don't think it will ever work, but it is the last resort. At least in the topic in dispute.
The only way is just to abandon wiki edits, or engage in editing wars. Wikipedia is still not developed enough to allow only intelligent, policy abiding editors to edit articles.
My last resort in solving this problem is to propose wikipedia to:
1) normal editors can only add, not delete. 2) automatic computerised editors that will delete based on well proven policies, such as duplicate phrases and profanities.
Isn't this already in place in order to avoid spams? 3) Grading of editors based on online standardised tests. There must be many grades based on knowledge and logical abilities.
They are only allowed to delete articles that they have sound knowledge of.
4) Increasing the standard of high class editors, those that can block other editors. Currently some of them will just delete and delete. Someone who does not even know that England is an International team.
Even in disputes, these editors themselves are the vandals as I had experienced, changing my comments so as to support his argument, and showing off his power.
Othmanskn ( talk) 05:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The idea of "enforcing WP:CIVIL rather than policies like NPOV, NOR, RS" is a false dichotomy. First of all, I'm not talking about enforcing WP:CIVIL; that page is crap. I'm talking about people actually acting professionally for the reason that it works better. Secondly, the only way to enforce NPOV, NOR, RS, etc, is to act very professionally, and to commit to the difficult task of learning, mindfully and as a community, how to maintain a neutral and stable article about alternative medicine on an open wiki.
When fighting a fire, incivility is gasoline. That doesn't qualify as "the least of our worries". To get the fire put out, we actually have to stop throwing gasoline on it.
One last matter - my question is not entirely "pointy". I am open to finding out that there are situations in which calling someone a spade actually helps. I'm open to using anything in our arsenal, but only if it's helpful. As far as my current understanding goes, incivility is actively destructive, which is worse than unhelpful. If someone can show me wrong, I will thank them for teaching me.
Last note: I do not advocate the "enforcement" of WP:CIVIL; please do not confuse me with someone who does. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is that you have to treat a content issue as a content issue. You can't try to make it into a behavior issue and expect to get anywhere except deeper and deeper in mud. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The important point is that I disagree about whether a civil NPOV defender is more powerful than an uncivil one. How to use that power effectively is an important conversation, and let's have it, but I won't consent to beginning it with the assumption that civility is simply irrelevant. That's not a good starting assumption; let's assume that it might be relevant, and look at it, as well as other factors. What if the required formula involves civility and three other elements? Then civility is not irrelevant; nor is it sufficient alone. I know that you're not arguing for incivility, and I don't suspect that you're arguing for incivility. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[11] Take a moment to read the current version, GTB. It has been up a little while, and is quite different from the version from back in 2007. -- NewbyG ( talk) 02:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also genuinely interested in those questions I asked Shoemaker's Holiday up there. I mean, if we're going to get good at DR, why not document strategies that people say work? Maybe that's for another essay. If so, can someone who knows what it should say please help me write it? - GTBacchus( talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The present version of the page is a tangle of words that basically says nothing. Is it time to delete the whole thing and start over? The version of a couple of days ago was OK. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)