| Revision as of 15:43, 25 February 2002 edit-- April (talk | contribs)3,263 editsm move content← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:09, 23 November 2024 edit undoRamiro Echeverría (talk | contribs)104 editsm I elimited the definite article |
| (838 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Redirect|WP:WQ|the page where quizzes can be created for other Wikipedians|Misplaced Pages:WikiQuizzes}} |
|
<h3>Some principles of Misplaced Pages etiquette ("Wikipetiquette")</h3> |
|
|
|
{{redirects here|WP:COURTESY|the renaming practice|Misplaced Pages:Courtesy vanishing}} |
|
* '''Try to say something positive for each complaint you make.''' A few compliments can proactively smooth feathers and make the author less likely to simply take offense at the criticism. A safe approach is to "sandwich" the complaint between compliments, with something positive at the beginning and end of your commentary. Remember what your mom taught you: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." :-) |
|
|
|
{{subcat guideline|behavioral guideline|Etiquette|WP:EQ|WP:ETIQ|WP:WQ|WP:WQT}} |
|
* '''Remove or summarise old complaints.''' Once you are fairly certain the person you're critiquing has seen your complaint (e.g., they've responded to it), be honorable about removing or summarizing it. Sometimes the author will feel reluctant to remove criticism out of fear it will make them appear afraid of criticism. You can go even a step further and thank them for addressing (or at least considering) your issue. |
|
|
* '''Say nice things when you can'''. Do not assume that by not complaining, the author "ought to know their work is ok". If you like what you read, tell them so. Typically, people only bother to use ] pages when they have an "issue" with the article, thus automatically giving a negative connotation to them, and making it inevitable for arguments to arise on the pages. Remember that when training an animal (and humans *are* animals), positive reinforcement is vital. If 9 out of 10 monkeys do what you want, in the long term rewarding the nine can do more than punishing the one. Isn't there a fable or saying or something about "the carrot is more powerful than the stick"? |
|
|
* '''Try posing comments as questions, especially if you're not totally sure.''' Instead of saying, "Everyone knows abortion is murder of the innocents," you could say, "Isn't abortion just murder of the innocents?" and it comes across as less like pure flamebait, as though you're willing to allow for other points of view. |
|
|
* '''Limit and qualify your statement'''. Blanket statements or statements asserting the truth of opinions can inflame the reader, and sometimes if you identify it as your own personal point of view, it can help make it seem less insulting to those who disagree. For example, instead of saying, "Isn't abortion just murder of the innocents?" it could be better to say, "Certainly I am not the only person who believes abortion is just murder of the innocents?" In this way, you can still emphasize your strong feelings on the topic, and communicate exactly the same opinion, but do so in a less inflamatory way. |
|
|
* '''Acknowledge that you understand the other point of view, by showing yourself able to restate it fairly.''' "I understand that you feel a woman's freedom of choice in the matter of abortion is important, but certainly I am not the only one who disagrees with this and thinks that abortion is just murder of the innocents." |
|
|
* '''Help in moderating other people's disagreements, when you come across them.''' Same concept as pulling two people engaged in a fist fight apart. Sometimes just pointing out that the discussion has gotten too heated and that they need to chill out can help a great deal to tone things down and to emphasize that in this community, public verbal sparring is _unacceptable_. "Hey guys, you're going around and around on this abortion debate; it seems illogical that we could solve this issue here on wikipedia when it's been fought over for years. Both of you seem to have strong opinions on this matter -- perhaps we should remove this debate and make room for someone with less bias." |
|
|
* '''Avoid writing on topics you are overly passionate about.''' The rule here is to write articles neutrally. It's hard to be unbiased when you're biased. ;-) |
|
|
* '''Finally, As a Last Resort''', when you've tried to work in a cooperative spirit and are not getting through, or when an editor keeps replacing npov writings with their own personal ideology, there is one last thing you can do to improve the situation. Walk away. Yes, walk away. Just bookmark the page, and come back in a week or two. Ideologues tend to give up when the general consensus to stick to the npov proves too strong to override. Also, Misplaced Pages's npov policy is supported and defended by many Wikipedians, so you don't have to singlehandedly uphold it. Attempting to do so sometimes just escalates the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{nutshell|Misplaced Pages etiquette, while often wiki specific, is rooted in common sense intuitions about working together. Be friendly and flexible. Act in good faith. Focus on improving Misplaced Pages articles.}} |
|
Most of the above suggestions can be summarized very succinctly: '''Be Polite.''' It's more important (and useful) than you may think. |
|
|
|
{{guideline list}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page offers some principles of ''']''', also referred to as "'''Wikiquette'''", on how to work with others on ]. |
|
<h3>How to avoid abuse of <nowiki>/Talk</nowiki> pages</h3> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia. |
|
We are editing each others' work, and when working on political and other incendiary topics, inevitably, a lot of the edits reflect our personal biases. Very often, political disagreements are interpreted as personal insults, or attacks on our intelligence, dignity, cherished values, or honesty. Male egos in particular can get wounded and concomitant attacks and defensiveness are all too natural. So, the ]s are there--and are used to duke it out verbally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Principles of Misplaced Pages etiquette == |
|
But we ''can'' avoid many of these situations. We have to bear a few things in mind: |
|
|
|
* ]. Misplaced Pages has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles. |
|
* The basic purpose of the ]s is to help improve the article to which the talk page is attached. |
|
|
|
* Remember the ]: Treat others the way you would want to be treated. |
|
* Misplaced Pages is not a debate forum--that's not what it's designed for. If you want to debate, there exist more appropriate venues such as ], public ]s and other ]s. |
|
|
|
* Be polite. |
|
* The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean that (1) the person hates you, (2) the person thinks you're stupid, (3) the person is stupid, (4) the person is evil, etc. There are many things you can falsely infer from the fact that someone disagrees with you. It is best not to infer anything at all along those lines, and let that person live with his or her own opinion in peace. |
|
|
|
* Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming verbally from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written. Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful when choosing the words you write: what you actually are trying to convey might not be interpreted in the same way by others who read it. |
|
* Before adding a comment to a talk page, ask yourself: |
|
|
|
** Likewise, be careful with how you interpret messages, discussions, and responses made by other users: what you believe to understand from messages and discussions might not have translated 100% correctly compared to what others actually meant to say and how. |
|
** Is this really necessary? Why can't I simply edit the article with a summary and leave it at that? Won't it be obvious what I've done and why? |
|
|
|
* ] work towards an agreement, and keep the principle of ] as the primary objective and goal when working out disagreements and ] with others. |
|
** Will I actually succeed in changing any minds? If not, what point does the discussion have, given that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create encyclopedia articles? |
|
|
|
* ]. |
|
** Am I adding this comment simply because I want to defend my ego and advance my own cause? |
|
|
|
* Do not intentionally ]. Apologize if you inadvertently do so. |
|
** If I really ''want'' to continue this debate, is it of general interest, or would it be better to take it to e-mail? |
|
|
|
* Do not ignore reasonable questions. |
|
* Efficiency often requires silence. |
|
|
|
* If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate. |
|
|
* Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on ]. |
|
|
* Although it is an understandably difficult task to perform while you're engaged in an intense or heated argument or dispute, if other editors are not behaving as civilly as you would like or expect them to be, respond to those users in the discussion with ''more'' civility, not with less. That way, you can be certain that your behavior and demeanor is not moving towards open conflict and ], and that you're not stooping to their level of behavior in order to "bite back". By your own actions and by staying positive and civil, you're actively doing something about the problem. Try to treat others with dignity and respect at ''all times'' — even uncivil editors are people as well. |
|
|
* It may help to politely let the others know if you are not comfortable with their tone (e.g., "I feel that you have been sarcastic above, and I don't feel good about it. Let's try to resolve the issue at-hand"). |
|
|
* Be prepared to apologize. In animated or heated discussions, we can often get caught up with our emotions and say things we later wish we hadn't said as a result. If this becomes the case, say so and apologize. |
|
|
* ]. |
|
|
* Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. |
|
|
* Give praise when it's due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages or (better yet) leave them a ]. |
|
|
* Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated. |
|
|
* Help mediate disagreements and arguments between others. |
|
|
* ] and ''"thank you"''. |
|
|
* Take it slowly. If you are angry, spend time away from Misplaced Pages instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or in a week. You may find that someone else made the desired change or comment for you. If you think mediation is needed, enlist someone to help. Find another Misplaced Pages article to distract yourself — there are {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles on the English Misplaced Pages. Take up a ], lend your much-needed services at ], or ]. |
|
|
* Request a list of other articles to work on, provided by ]. |
|
|
* Remember ]. |
|
|
* Review the list of ], and exert conscious efforts during editing or content expansion in order to avoid them. |
|
|
* ], and stay within compliance of Misplaced Pages's ] (except where ] apply). |
|
|
* When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (both in the ] and on the article's talk page, if necessary) and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion with other users over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking and rationale to others in a civil manner can often result in the users agreeing with you; being dogmatic, defensive, or uncommunicative will often evoke the same behavior in others, and can get you embroiled in an ]. |
|
|
* Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, ] your posts to ] as well as other discussion pages. (don't use signatures with any edits made to articles). |
|
|
* Do not use jargon that others might not understand (or, in cases of "Misplaced Pages jargon", set the word or phrase in question to be a ] to a Misplaced Pages or help page that explains the particular term). Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt or confusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Avoid indirect criticism=== |
|
So let's please, please ''conscientiously'' avoid trying to use Misplaced Pages as a place where partisan controversies can be settled. |
|
|
|
{{shortcut|WP:INDCRIT}} |
|
|
Avoid use of unexplained ] and other means of implying criticism or making indirect criticism when you are writing in edit comments and talk pages. Write clearly, plainly, and concisely, and do so in a way that allows other editors to easily respond to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind that sarcasm cannot easily be conveyed in writing and may be misinterpreted or mistranslated. Insinuation and ] should be avoided when expressing constructive criticism. This also helps the editor receiving the criticism to correctly understand your demeanor and respond to your concerns. This can particularly help editors for whom ] or aid those who have trouble natively understanding written English. |
|
<h3>Objections and replies about the use of <nowiki>/Talk</nowiki> pages</h3> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When this style of communication is necessary in the interest of being concise or illustrative, it is best to explain the intended meaning of your use of scare quotes or other indirection immediately afterward. |
|
'''What look to you like partisan controversies are usually very useful discussions that result in an improved article.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, criticism communicated in any manner and concerning any subject must be ], should reflect the assumption of good faith as described in the ], should not constitute or exhibit the ], and should comply with other ]. If directed generally towards an editor's behavior or other aspects of talk page commentary, any and all criticism made {{strong|must not}} constitute a ''personal attack'' as described in Misplaced Pages's "]" policy. See also the essay "]" for a viewpoint on the latter form of criticism. |
|
:That is ''sometimes'' the case--but often it isn't. Debates on such pages as ], ], and ] have very often strayed into discussions that have ''nothing'' to do with improving the article. That, at the very least, is the sort of thing we're talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== How to avoid abuse of talk pages == |
|
'''The controversy might look irrelevant, but eventually the topic will come back around to something having to do with the article.''' |
|
|
|
{{shortcut|WP:AVOIDABUSE}} |
|
|
* Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They are a good place to ''comfort'' or undo damage to egos, but most of all, they are for reaching agreements that are best for the articles to which they are attached. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and take the time to provide good reasons why you think that your method, way, or strategy is better by starting or responding to discussions on relevant talk pages. |
|
|
* The improvement process employed by Misplaced Pages is constant, and the critical analysis of prior work is a necessary part of that process. If you are not prepared to have your work thoroughly scrutinized, analyzed, and criticized, or if your ego is easily damaged, then Misplaced Pages is probably not the place for you. |
|
|
* Do not ''label'' or '']'' people or their edits. |
|
|
** Labeling editors or their edits with terms like "racist" or "sexist" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you must criticize, do it politely and constructively. Avoid usage of invectives and expletives, even if used without an intention to attack any editor, as these may be easily construed to be personal attacks and may not productively add to a collegial and congenial environment. |
|
|
* Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies. |
|
|
** In responding, quoting a post is acceptable, but paraphrasing it or stating how you interpreted it is often better. Qualify your interpretation by writing, "As you seem to be saying" or "as I understand you" to acknowledge that you made an interpretation. Before going on to say that someone is wrong, concede you might have misinterpreted them. |
|
|
** Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to some, but it is virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow. |
|
|
*Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit merely corrects spelling or grammar. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Working towards a neutral point of view == |
|
:Sometimes that does happen, and so much the better. But why not get right to the relevant topic and skip the intervening wrangling? Moreover, of course, very often in our experience the discussion ''doesn't'' come back around to anything having to do with the article--it results, instead, in hardened positions. (As though defending hardened positions had anything to do with writing an encyclopedia!) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When dealing with suspected violations of ]: |
|
'''Well, the talk page controversies get people excited about Misplaced Pages. Would you rather that they not be excited? A controversy-less wiki would be boring. Maybe the controversy actually brings <i>more</i> people to Misplaced Pages.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Inquire politely on the article's talk page about aspects of the article you consider non-NPOV (unless they are really egregious), and suggest replacements. |
|
:The controversies do bring some people back to Misplaced Pages, perhaps--but it's equally reasonable to say that they also turn off a lot of ''other'' people, the sort of people who don't ''ever'' engage in such controversies. (Such as most women.) You should also bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is extremely exciting quite apart from the controversies--exciting enough all by itself to keep us coming back. |
|
|
|
# If no reply comes, make the substitutions. (Use your watchlist to keep track of what you want to do.) |
|
|
# If a reply comes, try to agree about the wording to be used. That way, when an agreement is reached, an ] is very unlikely. Waiting to make an edit until an agreement has been reached has the disadvantage that the article stays in an unsatisfying state for a longer period, but an article that changes frequently does not create a good impression with other Wikipedians or of the project as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== A few things to bear in mind === |
|
'''But I'm free to do whatever I please here. This is a wiki, right?''' |
|
|
|
* Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be neutral, instead of endorsing one viewpoint over another, even if you believe something strongly. Talk (discussion) pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as social media, public ], and other ]s. Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a ] for ]. |
|
|
* If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that the person hates you, that the person thinks that you are stupid, that the person is stupid, or that the person is mean. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it is best to just leave them alone. What you think is not necessarily right or necessarily wrong—a common example of this is ]. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted yours. Remember that anything written on Misplaced Pages is kept permanently, even if it is not visible. |
|
|
* Misplaced Pages invites you to ], though it is wise to remember that it is possible to be ''too'' bold. Before initiating discussion, ask yourself: is this necessary to discuss? Could I provide a ] with my edit and wait for others to express opinions if they like? Might my actions have consequences that I have not considered? |
|
|
* You can always take a discussion to ] or to your user page, if it is not essential to the article. |
|
|
* If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with that person more than you need to do. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia and is unpleasant. Following someone you dislike around Misplaced Pages—]—can be disruptive. If you do not get along with someone, try to become friendlier. If that does not help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them. |
|
|
* Though editing articles is acceptable and encouraged, editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally ''not'' acceptable, as it can alter the meaning of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Avoid editing another editor's comments unless necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Other words of advice == |
|
:No, you're not free to do anything here; Misplaced Pages doesn't belong to you. This is something most people learn to deal with by the time they're seven years old or so, though some people clearly never learn. This server is the private property of Bomis, Inc., who graciously chooses to allow nearly everyone to do certain things that serve its goal of creating an encyclopedia. If you don't agree with their goals or their methods, you can certainly discuss that with them, but if they make a decision it is theirs to make. If you can't support those goals, then go buy your own server. |
|
|
|
{{shortcut|WP:DOOR}}{{Hatnote|WP:DOOR is formerly a shortcut to ].}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parting words of advice from ]:<ref>Posted by ] on on February 14, 2003</ref> |
|
'''A little partisan controversy never hurt anybody. We all know we're ultimately engaged in building an encyclopedia. Why try to stop people from doing what comes naturally? A little controversy won't spoil anything--I don't see what you're concerned about.''' |
|
|
|
* Be open and warmly welcoming, not insular; |
|
|
* Be focused single-mindedly on writing an encyclopedia; |
|
|
* Recognize and praise the best work: work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced; |
|
|
* Work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project; |
|
|
* Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Misplaced Pages with respect and good will; |
|
|
* Attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and; |
|
|
* Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For more advice of a similar nature, see ]. |
|
:Good point, maybe we ''are'' blowing things out of proportion, a little. Even if Misplaced Pages would continue to grow and thrive ''with'' the controversy, some of us think it would be better off without it. It seems we have wasted hundreds of hours, altogether, engaged in pointless debates that we could have avoided with tact, maturity, and attention to the task at hand. We could have been rather further along than we are now, perhaps with more participants, as well. If we can start a good anti-partisan-bickering habit now, then, in the years ahead, future Wikipedians will thank us for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== See also == |
|
<h3>Debate vs. research</h3> |
|
|
|
; Policies and guidelines |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
; Other related pages |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Notes== |
|
Arguing as a means of improving an article is a pale shadow of an equal amount of time engaged in <b>research</b>. It may attract people to the project, but it seems logical that these would be people interested in arguing, which leads down a dark path we ought not tread. |
|
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}} |
|
One habit that would be good for folks to get into is to actively seek to summarize discussions, especially those which have elaborated all views on the subject. This doesn't (necessarily) mean replacing the entire discussion with what ''you'' think, merely trying to recast the entire discussion as, e.g., a set of bullet points, removing any points that have been taken back or proven incorrect. If you can restrain yourself to do this in an unbiased fashion (which admittedly is hard), it can result in text which is almost good enough for the main article. |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
Misplaced Pages's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia.
Keep in mind that sarcasm cannot easily be conveyed in writing and may be misinterpreted or mistranslated. Insinuation and double entendre should be avoided when expressing constructive criticism. This also helps the editor receiving the criticism to correctly understand your demeanor and respond to your concerns. This can particularly help editors for whom English is not a first language or aid those who have trouble natively understanding written English.
When this style of communication is necessary in the interest of being concise or illustrative, it is best to explain the intended meaning of your use of scare quotes or other indirection immediately afterward.
Of course, criticism communicated in any manner and concerning any subject must be civil, should reflect the assumption of good faith as described in the relevant guideline, should not constitute or exhibit the biting of newcomers, and should comply with other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If directed generally towards an editor's behavior or other aspects of talk page commentary, any and all criticism made must not constitute a personal attack as described in Misplaced Pages's "no personal attacks" policy. See also the essay "Avoid personal remarks" for a viewpoint on the latter form of criticism.
