|
|||
I'm not sure how this example fits under the scope of this guideline. Such comments could be disruptive, yes, but what would they illustrate? It also sounds rather specific for an example. PSWG1920 ( talk) 18:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess the example is fine, but I still don't see why we need to "clarify the scope" in the first section. It is clear from the examples that this can occur in deletion discussions. The Checkuser example shows that it can occur elsewhere. The reason I said that this sentence disrupts the flow is because it takes the discussion away from the tactics themselves. PSWG1920 ( talk) 13:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
See the New York Book Review article here: [1] SarahStierch ( talk) 02:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Addition of a new example to this guideline is discussed at WP:VPP#Requesting closing statements for archived discussions (subsection: "Rationale") -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTPOINTY points out that just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point.
However, this isn't the most common misconception about this page, which would be this part: editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree
. Basically, I believe that the page's scope is much smaller than simply "disrupting Wikipedia" - it's quite possible and common for people to "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" without "making edits with which they do not actually agree". In fact, the vast majority of the cases I've seen involving the improper invocation of
WP:POINT are reactions to impolite (of course, to various degrees depending on the editor) edits by someone with whom the editor disagrees - often
uncivil, sometimes
disruptive, and rarely ever specifically what's described in this page - doing something opposite to what they believe.
As the talk archives show, chronic misuse (and potentially abuse) of this page has been noted since at least 2005. I believe that the misapplication arises for two connected reasons: 1) people don't read pages closely, relying on the given shortcuts, title, and/or nutshell; and 2) the shortcuts, title, and nutshell do not adequately describe the behavior outlined in this page. Now, for the shortcuts, we can't do anything, since they're so ingrained in the culture here, but the other two we can. I think that part of the reason the title is so broad is because the content now at WP:GAME and WP:IDHT was once here; they've now been moved to other pages. However, this leaves us with a title which overreaches the scope of the page - something noted in the talk page sections above (from 2010). Since this page is so heavily known, would it be a good idea to move it to a more descriptive title? I feel like it would cause some hand-wringing, deserved or not. And, there would still have to be a different title to move to. I don't know, but I feel like in its current state, this is not working. ansh 666 10:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect."
The funny thing about that is, if you are on the wrong side of the rule, they will say, "The rule says such-and-such! We need to apply the rule!" If you argue, "We don't need to apply the rule consistently; the rule isn't perfect," they'll say, "If you don't like the rules, you can leave Wikipedia and post your content elsewhere. The door's that way."
But if you try to apply the rules consistently, they hit you with, "Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect." So basically, it's another way of saying, "We do whatever we want, and justify it however we want, and it's the prerogative of the users who make up the 'rough consensus' to be as consistent or inconsistent as they want."
As I was pointing out at Wikipedia:Don't just cite a page of rules; cite the relevant part of the rule and explain how it applies to the specific situation, people will often say, "Go read WP:XYZ." Yet, if you want to do something POINTy, you can't just say, "Go read WP:XYZ"; you have to respect the community's prerogative to ignore the rules as it sees fit. If you, the individual editor, enforce the rules consistently, you're being disruptive; on the other hand, if you, the individual editor, disobey the rules, you're also being disruptive.
So really, disruption just means going against the flow; it means ignoring the complexities of all the self-contradictory ways in which the wind is blowing. It means exposing hypocrisy and trying to do something about it unilaterally.
It's kind of like how in the U.S., if you break the law, you can't argue to the cop or the judge, "I should be allowed to break this law, because the laws aren't perfect." But if the government breaks the Constitution, and you bring this up, they'll say that it would be impractical to follow the Constitution to the letter. For example, there are two parts of the Constitution that say that the trial of "all crimes" or "all criminal prosecutions" shall be by jury, but in misdemeanor cases, it's routine, and the default, for the case to be heard by a judge instead.
So, those in authority, or in the majority, cite the importance of the rule of law when it suits them, saying that without it, we'd have anarchy, tyranny, etc. Yet, when it doesn't suit them, they cite the need for flexibility, practicality, etc. St. claires fire ( talk) 15:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This article basically seems like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but without the handy note that using the "other stuff" argument that that argument should actually be taken serious if applicable (though many "professional" editors might still use that argument to dismiss what the page they themselves link to assesses), anyhow these pages are so similar that they could be merged, or at-least this page could become a mere paragraph, the WP:RULES should not become too repetitive.
-- 42.112.158.223 ( talk) 03:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
"If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion... do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion. do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale. "
Why is this unacceptable behavior. If an article doesn't meet some kind of community established guideline. Shouldn't you take action to police said guidelines if another article doesn't meet them.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 03:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Point making is disruptive editing, which means that it is already covered by WP:DE - it's a WP:CREEP issue to have a separate policy telling us that this form of disruptive editing is also forbidden.
This policy also causes issues, as it is commonly misunderstood; it generally only applies if an editor is editors are making edits with which they do not actually agree with, but it is often cited in other situations, such as when WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST arguments backfire by causing an editor to also nominate the example articles for deletion.
I think both of these can be solved by downgrading this policy to an essay, and copying the line As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point".
to
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Point-illustrating.
BilledMammal (
talk) 15:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently.(from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Point-illustrating) I think it might be confusing to add the suggested phrase (
edits with which they do not actually agree) alongside this. A (small) rewrite might be needed, because
in one's view, applying it consistentlyindicates a degree of good faith application of the rule and doesn't imply (to my eyes) any editing with surreptitious motives, while really the problem is making
edits with which they do not actually agree. Adding this sentence over there is a good idea, but what's already there will need slight tweaks to make sense in context. The change would definitely be for the better though! Leijurv ( talk) 19:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Malicious compliance is the act of intentionally inflicting harm by strictly following orders or rules, knowing that compliance with the orders or rules will not have the intended result. The term usually implies the following of an order in such a way that ignores the order or rules's intent but follows its letter. It is usually done to injure or harm while maintaining a sense of legitimacy.
it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof, through malicious compliance, such as by uncharitable, overly literal, and/or bad faith applications to other areas.I concede this is a bit much, but I do think that "in one's view, applying it consistently" is a bit misleading in how it could sound charitable and good faith, while really what's prohibited is the opposite. Leijurv ( talk) 08:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point be downgraded from a behavioural guideline to an essay? 04:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
someone can legitimately make a point, without disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, should help in addressing some of that misuse. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
an inexperienced editor inappropriately accused of WP:POINT is more likely to realize that they are being inappropriately accused of it- an inexperienced editor accused of WP:POINT isn't going to be familiar with how we talk about essays vs. guidelines, so I can't really imagine any difference from their point of view. If the problem is confusing language, reclassifying won't change anything, either. The only fix is to, well, fix the confusing language (and I agree the language is a bit confusing in both places, but this page at least provides examples). It sounds like what you may be suggesting is retargeting the shortcut, which isn't covered by this RfC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
{{main|Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point}}) should not be removed from WP:DE. I think these examples are good and deserving of being linked to. And I think WP:NOTPOINTy is important - perhaps bolstering that is a similarly relevant idea to downgrading WP:POINT. Leijurv ( talk) 21:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
One particular situation I've seen come up with POINT a lot is situations where a first editor adds something to an article that they perceive as biased, intending to balance existing text out; a second editor reverts them, and the first editor responds with something along the lines of "well, if that's the standard then we need to remove this" and cuts out the part they were trying to balance instead. I think it's important to underline that that isn't WP:POINTy and can even, sometimes, be the best way to deal with WP:DUE issues - since one of the ways due weight is assessed is the quantity of text in the article, it is at least partially a relative measure, so an undue focus on one area can be addressed either by adding more about other views or by trimming the amount of text on the view that's being given too much focus. And the overall amount of weight to give all aspects is something that has to be decided on an article-by-article basis, so "if that's where we're drawing the line for this article, then we have to remove this for balance" is at least a reasonable tack to take. Obviously such removals are not always correct - you have to look at the actual sourcing and coverage and its overarching balance - but I feel that it's a frequent enough point of confusion that it might deserve a sentence or two here, noting that there are valid reasons for someone to tack between adding and removing text in an article in order to try and find a compromise that balances it out. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
200.17.137.40 ( talk) 17:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)As well, it might be legitimate to remove content in response to the removal of other content. A genuine attempt to balance or clean up an article is not disruption to illustrate a point, even if it was precipitated by something the editor did not initially agree with. When there is any doubt, assume that someone is trying to improve the content and not illustrating a point.
perhaps we could add No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to the see also section, seeing as both articles have similar points Batmilk 🦇 ( talk) 16:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
|
|||
I'm not sure how this example fits under the scope of this guideline. Such comments could be disruptive, yes, but what would they illustrate? It also sounds rather specific for an example. PSWG1920 ( talk) 18:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess the example is fine, but I still don't see why we need to "clarify the scope" in the first section. It is clear from the examples that this can occur in deletion discussions. The Checkuser example shows that it can occur elsewhere. The reason I said that this sentence disrupts the flow is because it takes the discussion away from the tactics themselves. PSWG1920 ( talk) 13:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
See the New York Book Review article here: [1] SarahStierch ( talk) 02:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Addition of a new example to this guideline is discussed at WP:VPP#Requesting closing statements for archived discussions (subsection: "Rationale") -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTPOINTY points out that just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point.
However, this isn't the most common misconception about this page, which would be this part: editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree
. Basically, I believe that the page's scope is much smaller than simply "disrupting Wikipedia" - it's quite possible and common for people to "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" without "making edits with which they do not actually agree". In fact, the vast majority of the cases I've seen involving the improper invocation of
WP:POINT are reactions to impolite (of course, to various degrees depending on the editor) edits by someone with whom the editor disagrees - often
uncivil, sometimes
disruptive, and rarely ever specifically what's described in this page - doing something opposite to what they believe.
As the talk archives show, chronic misuse (and potentially abuse) of this page has been noted since at least 2005. I believe that the misapplication arises for two connected reasons: 1) people don't read pages closely, relying on the given shortcuts, title, and/or nutshell; and 2) the shortcuts, title, and nutshell do not adequately describe the behavior outlined in this page. Now, for the shortcuts, we can't do anything, since they're so ingrained in the culture here, but the other two we can. I think that part of the reason the title is so broad is because the content now at WP:GAME and WP:IDHT was once here; they've now been moved to other pages. However, this leaves us with a title which overreaches the scope of the page - something noted in the talk page sections above (from 2010). Since this page is so heavily known, would it be a good idea to move it to a more descriptive title? I feel like it would cause some hand-wringing, deserved or not. And, there would still have to be a different title to move to. I don't know, but I feel like in its current state, this is not working. ansh 666 10:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect."
The funny thing about that is, if you are on the wrong side of the rule, they will say, "The rule says such-and-such! We need to apply the rule!" If you argue, "We don't need to apply the rule consistently; the rule isn't perfect," they'll say, "If you don't like the rules, you can leave Wikipedia and post your content elsewhere. The door's that way."
But if you try to apply the rules consistently, they hit you with, "Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect." So basically, it's another way of saying, "We do whatever we want, and justify it however we want, and it's the prerogative of the users who make up the 'rough consensus' to be as consistent or inconsistent as they want."
As I was pointing out at Wikipedia:Don't just cite a page of rules; cite the relevant part of the rule and explain how it applies to the specific situation, people will often say, "Go read WP:XYZ." Yet, if you want to do something POINTy, you can't just say, "Go read WP:XYZ"; you have to respect the community's prerogative to ignore the rules as it sees fit. If you, the individual editor, enforce the rules consistently, you're being disruptive; on the other hand, if you, the individual editor, disobey the rules, you're also being disruptive.
So really, disruption just means going against the flow; it means ignoring the complexities of all the self-contradictory ways in which the wind is blowing. It means exposing hypocrisy and trying to do something about it unilaterally.
It's kind of like how in the U.S., if you break the law, you can't argue to the cop or the judge, "I should be allowed to break this law, because the laws aren't perfect." But if the government breaks the Constitution, and you bring this up, they'll say that it would be impractical to follow the Constitution to the letter. For example, there are two parts of the Constitution that say that the trial of "all crimes" or "all criminal prosecutions" shall be by jury, but in misdemeanor cases, it's routine, and the default, for the case to be heard by a judge instead.
So, those in authority, or in the majority, cite the importance of the rule of law when it suits them, saying that without it, we'd have anarchy, tyranny, etc. Yet, when it doesn't suit them, they cite the need for flexibility, practicality, etc. St. claires fire ( talk) 15:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This article basically seems like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but without the handy note that using the "other stuff" argument that that argument should actually be taken serious if applicable (though many "professional" editors might still use that argument to dismiss what the page they themselves link to assesses), anyhow these pages are so similar that they could be merged, or at-least this page could become a mere paragraph, the WP:RULES should not become too repetitive.
-- 42.112.158.223 ( talk) 03:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
"If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion... do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion. do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale. "
Why is this unacceptable behavior. If an article doesn't meet some kind of community established guideline. Shouldn't you take action to police said guidelines if another article doesn't meet them.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 03:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Point making is disruptive editing, which means that it is already covered by WP:DE - it's a WP:CREEP issue to have a separate policy telling us that this form of disruptive editing is also forbidden.
This policy also causes issues, as it is commonly misunderstood; it generally only applies if an editor is editors are making edits with which they do not actually agree with, but it is often cited in other situations, such as when WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST arguments backfire by causing an editor to also nominate the example articles for deletion.
I think both of these can be solved by downgrading this policy to an essay, and copying the line As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point".
to
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Point-illustrating.
BilledMammal (
talk) 15:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently.(from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Point-illustrating) I think it might be confusing to add the suggested phrase (
edits with which they do not actually agree) alongside this. A (small) rewrite might be needed, because
in one's view, applying it consistentlyindicates a degree of good faith application of the rule and doesn't imply (to my eyes) any editing with surreptitious motives, while really the problem is making
edits with which they do not actually agree. Adding this sentence over there is a good idea, but what's already there will need slight tweaks to make sense in context. The change would definitely be for the better though! Leijurv ( talk) 19:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Malicious compliance is the act of intentionally inflicting harm by strictly following orders or rules, knowing that compliance with the orders or rules will not have the intended result. The term usually implies the following of an order in such a way that ignores the order or rules's intent but follows its letter. It is usually done to injure or harm while maintaining a sense of legitimacy.
it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof, through malicious compliance, such as by uncharitable, overly literal, and/or bad faith applications to other areas.I concede this is a bit much, but I do think that "in one's view, applying it consistently" is a bit misleading in how it could sound charitable and good faith, while really what's prohibited is the opposite. Leijurv ( talk) 08:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point be downgraded from a behavioural guideline to an essay? 04:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
someone can legitimately make a point, without disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, should help in addressing some of that misuse. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
an inexperienced editor inappropriately accused of WP:POINT is more likely to realize that they are being inappropriately accused of it- an inexperienced editor accused of WP:POINT isn't going to be familiar with how we talk about essays vs. guidelines, so I can't really imagine any difference from their point of view. If the problem is confusing language, reclassifying won't change anything, either. The only fix is to, well, fix the confusing language (and I agree the language is a bit confusing in both places, but this page at least provides examples). It sounds like what you may be suggesting is retargeting the shortcut, which isn't covered by this RfC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
{{main|Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point}}) should not be removed from WP:DE. I think these examples are good and deserving of being linked to. And I think WP:NOTPOINTy is important - perhaps bolstering that is a similarly relevant idea to downgrading WP:POINT. Leijurv ( talk) 21:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
One particular situation I've seen come up with POINT a lot is situations where a first editor adds something to an article that they perceive as biased, intending to balance existing text out; a second editor reverts them, and the first editor responds with something along the lines of "well, if that's the standard then we need to remove this" and cuts out the part they were trying to balance instead. I think it's important to underline that that isn't WP:POINTy and can even, sometimes, be the best way to deal with WP:DUE issues - since one of the ways due weight is assessed is the quantity of text in the article, it is at least partially a relative measure, so an undue focus on one area can be addressed either by adding more about other views or by trimming the amount of text on the view that's being given too much focus. And the overall amount of weight to give all aspects is something that has to be decided on an article-by-article basis, so "if that's where we're drawing the line for this article, then we have to remove this for balance" is at least a reasonable tack to take. Obviously such removals are not always correct - you have to look at the actual sourcing and coverage and its overarching balance - but I feel that it's a frequent enough point of confusion that it might deserve a sentence or two here, noting that there are valid reasons for someone to tack between adding and removing text in an article in order to try and find a compromise that balances it out. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
200.17.137.40 ( talk) 17:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)As well, it might be legitimate to remove content in response to the removal of other content. A genuine attempt to balance or clean up an article is not disruption to illustrate a point, even if it was precipitated by something the editor did not initially agree with. When there is any doubt, assume that someone is trying to improve the content and not illustrating a point.
perhaps we could add No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to the see also section, seeing as both articles have similar points Batmilk 🦇 ( talk) 16:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)