Misplaced Pages

:Wikilawyering: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:00, 3 March 2008 editOKBot (talk | contribs)103,883 editsm robot Adding: ar:ويكيبيديا:محامي ويكيبيديا← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:00, 8 August 2024 edit undoAlien333 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,601 edits +shortcut for TWL 
(211 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Pejorative term applied to abusing Misplaced Pages policies to undermine the community}}
{{essay|]<br />]}}
{{selfref|"WP:WL" redirects here. You may also be looking for ] (]), ], ] (]), the ] (]), ] (]), ] (]), ], or ].}}
⚫ {{policy in a nutshell|align=center|Utilising the rules in a manner contrary to their spirit in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Misplaced Pages community.}}
{{selfref|"WP:WL" redirects here. You may also be looking for ] (]), the ] (]), or ] (]).}} {{dablink|"WP:LAWYER" redirects here. You may be looking for ], ], {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system#Spurious legalisms}}, ], or the ].}}
{{essay|WP:WL|WP:LAWYER|WP:LAWYERING|WP:LETTER|WP:PETTIFOG}}
'''Wikilawyering''' (and the related legal term '']'') is a pejorative term that refers to certain quasi-legal practices, including:
⚫ {{policy in a nutshell|align=center|Using the rules in a manner to achieve a goal other than compliance with the rule (for example, to "]" an editing dispute) is frowned upon by the Misplaced Pages community.}}
# Using formal ] terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Misplaced Pages ]; ] terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Misplaced Pages ]]]
⚫ # Abiding by the letter of a ] while violating its spirit;
⚫ # Asserting that the technical interpretation of ] should override the principles they express;
⚫ # Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.


'''Wikilawyering''' is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Misplaced Pages. It may refer to:
⚫ Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted in a commonsensical way to achieve the '''purpose''' of the policy, or help dispute resolution. Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning. Occasionally wikilawyering may raise legitimate questions, including fairness, but often it serves to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution.


*Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.
For example, while it is often impossible to definitely establish the actual user behind a set of ], it is not a defense that all the sockpuppets which emerge were not named in the request for arbitration.
⚫ * Abiding by the letter of a ] while violating its spirit or underlying principles.
⚫ * Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the ] they express.
⚫ * ] or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
*Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Misplaced Pages systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.


The term may also be used in other cases, e.g., when a person superficially judges other editors and their actions by jumping to conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing Misplaced Pages policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution.
⚫ As another example, the ] is a measure of protection against edit warring. An editor who intentionally reverts the same article three times every day is not breaching the letter of this rule, but violates the ''spirit'' of the rule - and can thus be sanctioned for revert warring.


⚫ Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with ] to achieve the '''purpose''' of the policy, or help with dispute resolution. Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning. It can serve to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution. In the ], lawyers may use ] to win a case. "Wikilawyering" can refer to emulating legal practices that may win a court case, but are likely not helpful for ] on Misplaced Pages, which is ].
See for an actual example of conflation of judicial proceedings and Misplaced Pages arbitration procedures (It is possible the poster intended this to be satire in an attempt to make a point about a particular editing dispute).


⚫ As another example, the ] is intended to prevent ]. An editor who reverts the same article three times day after day is violating ], of the rule, and can thus be sanctioned for edit warring.
== Appropriate use of advocacy ==


==The mild commonplace meaning==
Use of authentic legal skills by legal professionals or other persons trained and skilled in the arts of negotiation and advocacy is welcome in proceedings of the Arbitration Committee and on Misplaced Pages in a variety of contexts. Please see ] for some suggestions regarding effective advocacy. Precis: ] trumps process.


Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are written in a manner that usually is more fuzzy and open to interpretation than laws are. They create certain rules and principles which are applicable in many situations but are not a "how to write a good article" instruction, nor do they replace good decision making. So, the "rules" and guidelines are just a part of the decision making process, and there is usually latitude on how they are interpreted or to what degree they influence a broader decision. Also, without even getting into secondary sets of rules, there are about 73 official policy pages and about 280 official guideline pages, many that are obscure, unknown, overlapping, or with wording that is not carefully written. So, in those cases, whatever you are trying to do (such as win a debate or battle) you can probably find or interpret rules to help you win the battle though enforcing that rule is not per se the concern of yours. So, in those cases, your objective isn't to enforce the rule, but instead use the rule to achieve a different purpose or outcome. In short, you are using technicalities to achieve a different objective than what the rule was designed to restrict or enforce. While not a good thing, this is not some horrible rare behavior, it is a common practice and the most common meaning of "wikilawyering".
== Negative connotations ==


==Related policies==
⚫ Some Wikipedians allege that the charge of wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims. It is also said that newer users tend to believe nuanced complex policy (particularly ]) conforms to their point of view, and will repeatedly refer to policy rather than providing rationale for their edits.
All editors are expected to follow Misplaced Pages's ] (P&G). Civil, succinct, and relevant analysis of P&G is not wikilawyering, but is the best way to mutually resolve disputes. On the other hand, when editors use irrelevant P&G technicalities to try to win a content dispute, ] and ] might apply. When editors use inappropriate P&G argumentation to drive other editors away from a discussion or perhaps even the project itself, ] and ] may be in play.


==Degrees of severity==
The word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations, much like the term "]"; those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous (see ] and ]).
Types of wikilawyering vary in severity. At the mild end of the spectrum is just using technicalities to try to win on a content decision that is unrelated to the raised technicality. At the severe end of the spectrum is "weaponizing" the Misplaced Pages system to try to "get", deprecate or eliminate the presence of an editor for objectives related to personal or content battlers rather than to resolve the issue raised.


⚫ == Use and misuse of the term ==
In cases where it is possible a user is simply mistaken or naive and not deliberately deceiving others, efforts should be made to educate them rather than labeling their actions as "wikilawyering".
{{Anchor|Misuse of the term|reason=Old section name.}}
⚫ Some Wikipedians allege that the charge of wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims. It is also said that newer users tend to believe nuanced complex policy (particularly ]) conforms to their own point of view, and will repeatedly refer to policy rather than providing rationale for their edits.


The word ''wikilawyering'' typically has negative connotations, sometimes mild, sometimes more severe. Those utilizing the term should take care that they are not violating behavioral guidelines such as ] and ]. Most important is to use it to discuss specific actions and not editors.
⚫ == Misuse of the term ==


The types of wikilawyering vary from mild commonplace even inadvertent behavior to quite severe deliberate misuses of the Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and systems. It can also be about a specific action or a broader characterization of the individual. So an assertion that it is occurring is not necessarily a strong accusation.
⚫ Occasionally, editors who engage in ] discussions about the language of a policy or guideline, or propose minor changes in the wording of a policy or guideline, will be accused of wikilawyering. In such cases, it may make sense instead to ] and engage in the discussion productively rather than tar those editors with the wikilawyering brush. And simply being a stickler about Misplaced Pages ] and ] does not make an editor a wikilawyer; remember that Misplaced Pages has an ] closely modelled on a court of law, a system of ], ] &amp; ] review procedures, and various other formal processes.


As with any critical term, care should be taken to, at most, criticize the practice or action and not attack the person. For example the message "Therefore I conclude that you are stretching the ] policy here beyond ], i.e., you are ]<!--circular redirect intentional, to make the link blue in the example phrase-->", while aggressive, is not an insult, but rather a pointer to an identifiable wikibehavioral pattern. Similarly, "This proposal is wikilawyering a bit, because ..." is a comment on the content or nature of the proposal, not on the personality or motives of its author or supporters.
⚫ == See also ==


Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wikilawyer. This is not a good-faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term.

⚫ Occasionally, editors who engage in ] discussions about the language of a policy or guideline, or propose minor changes in the wording of a policy or guideline, will be accused of wikilawyering. In such cases, it may make sense instead to ] and engage in the discussion productively rather than tar those editors with the wikilawyering brush. And simply being a stickler about Misplaced Pages ] and ] does not make an editor a wikilawyer; remember that Misplaced Pages has an ] closely modelled on a court of law, a system of ], ] and ] review procedures, and various other formal processes.

Another example of misuse of the term is when it is known that an editor is actually a lawyer. Sometimes the editor who is also a lawyer, is accused of wikilawyering simply because of how they explain their positions. However, simply being a lawyer does not mean that one is wikilawyering whenever they participate in discussion.

⚫ == See also ==
===Policies, guidelines and essays===
⚫ * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system#Spurious legalisms}}
⚫ * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Forum shopping}}
* ]
* ] (humor)
* ] (rationalized ])
* ]
* ], because wikilawyers don't always read what they link to

===Articles===
⚫ * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
⚫ * ]
* ]
⚫ * ]
* ] * ]
⚫ * ]


==Further reading==
⚫ ]
*


{{Misplaced Pages essays|civility}}
]

]
⚫ ]
]

Latest revision as of 15:00, 8 August 2024

Pejorative term applied to abusing Misplaced Pages policies to undermine the community "WP:WL" redirects here. You may also be looking for The Misplaced Pages Library (WP:TWL), Wikilinks, WikiProject Lacrosse (WP:LAX), the whitelist (WP:WHITELIST), WikiLove (WP:LOVE), watchlist (Help:Watching pages), Misplaced Pages's policy on legal threats, or the Misplaced Pages game WikiLadders. "WP:LAWYER" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Legal disclaimer, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (legal), Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system § Spurious legalisms, Meta:Wikilegal, or the Wikimedia Foundation's legal contact page. Essay on editing Misplaced Pages
This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.		Shortcuts
This page in a nutshell: Using the rules in a manner to achieve a goal other than compliance with the rule (for example, to "win" an editing dispute) is frowned upon by the Misplaced Pages community.
A Misplaced Pages editor engaging in Wikilawyering by using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Misplaced Pages policy

Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Misplaced Pages. It may refer to:

  • Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.
  • Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.
  • Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.
  • Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
  • Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Misplaced Pages systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.

The term may also be used in other cases, e.g., when a person superficially judges other editors and their actions by jumping to conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing Misplaced Pages policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution.

Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help with dispute resolution. Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning. It can serve to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution. In the legal field, lawyers may use technicalities to win a case. "Wikilawyering" can refer to emulating legal practices that may win a court case, but are likely not helpful for resolving disputes on Misplaced Pages, which is not a bureaucracy.

As another example, the three-revert rule is intended to prevent edit warring. An editor who reverts the same article three times day after day is violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule, and can thus be sanctioned for edit warring.

The mild commonplace meaning

Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are written in a manner that usually is more fuzzy and open to interpretation than laws are. They create certain rules and principles which are applicable in many situations but are not a "how to write a good article" instruction, nor do they replace good decision making. So, the "rules" and guidelines are just a part of the decision making process, and there is usually latitude on how they are interpreted or to what degree they influence a broader decision. Also, without even getting into secondary sets of rules, there are about 73 official policy pages and about 280 official guideline pages, many that are obscure, unknown, overlapping, or with wording that is not carefully written. So, in those cases, whatever you are trying to do (such as win a debate or battle) you can probably find or interpret rules to help you win the battle though enforcing that rule is not per se the concern of yours. So, in those cases, your objective isn't to enforce the rule, but instead use the rule to achieve a different purpose or outcome. In short, you are using technicalities to achieve a different objective than what the rule was designed to restrict or enforce. While not a good thing, this is not some horrible rare behavior, it is a common practice and the most common meaning of "wikilawyering".

Related policies

All editors are expected to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines (P&G). Civil, succinct, and relevant analysis of P&G is not wikilawyering, but is the best way to mutually resolve disputes. On the other hand, when editors use irrelevant P&G technicalities to try to win a content dispute, WP:Consensus and WP:Disruption might apply. When editors use inappropriate P&G argumentation to drive other editors away from a discussion or perhaps even the project itself, WP:Bullying and WP:Harassment may be in play.

Degrees of severity

Types of wikilawyering vary in severity. At the mild end of the spectrum is just using technicalities to try to win on a content decision that is unrelated to the raised technicality. At the severe end of the spectrum is "weaponizing" the Misplaced Pages system to try to "get", deprecate or eliminate the presence of an editor for objectives related to personal or content battlers rather than to resolve the issue raised.

Use and misuse of the term

Some Wikipedians allege that the charge of wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims. It is also said that newer users tend to believe nuanced complex policy (particularly WP:Neutral point of view) conforms to their own point of view, and will repeatedly refer to policy rather than providing rationale for their edits.

The word wikilawyering typically has negative connotations, sometimes mild, sometimes more severe. Those utilizing the term should take care that they are not violating behavioral guidelines such as WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. Most important is to use it to discuss specific actions and not editors.

The types of wikilawyering vary from mild commonplace even inadvertent behavior to quite severe deliberate misuses of the Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and systems. It can also be about a specific action or a broader characterization of the individual. So an assertion that it is occurring is not necessarily a strong accusation.

As with any critical term, care should be taken to, at most, criticize the practice or action and not attack the person. For example the message "Therefore I conclude that you are stretching the WP:What Misplaced Pages is not policy here beyond common sense, i.e., you are wikilawyering", while aggressive, is not an insult, but rather a pointer to an identifiable wikibehavioral pattern. Similarly, "This proposal is wikilawyering a bit, because ..." is a comment on the content or nature of the proposal, not on the personality or motives of its author or supporters.

Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wikilawyer. This is not a good-faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term.

Occasionally, editors who engage in semantic discussions about the language of a policy or guideline, or propose minor changes in the wording of a policy or guideline, will be accused of wikilawyering. In such cases, it may make sense instead to assume good faith and engage in the discussion productively rather than tar those editors with the wikilawyering brush. And simply being a stickler about Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer; remember that Misplaced Pages has an Arbitration Committee closely modelled on a court of law, a system of elections of administrators and bureaucrats, Featured Article and Good Article review procedures, and various other formal processes.

Another example of misuse of the term is when it is known that an editor is actually a lawyer. Sometimes the editor who is also a lawyer, is accused of wikilawyering simply because of how they explain their positions. However, simply being a lawyer does not mean that one is wikilawyering whenever they participate in discussion.

See also

Policies, guidelines and essays

Articles

Further reading

Misplaced Pages essays (?)
Essays on building, editing, and deleting content
Philosophy
Article construction
Writing article content
Removing or
deleting content
Essays on civility
The basics
Philosophy
Dos
Don'ts
WikiRelations
Essays on notability
Humorous essays
About essays
About essays
Policies and guidelines
Categories: