Misplaced Pages

:Call a spade a spade: 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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:23, 31 January 2010 editAndrew the Assasin (talk | contribs)26 edits (Reverted edits by Andrew the Assasin (talk) to last version by Short Brigade Harvester Boris) (undo)← Previous edit Revision as of 16:29, 31 January 2010 edit undoBongwarrior (talk | contribs)Administrators158,949 editsm Reverted edits by Andrew the Assasin (talk) to last version by HalfShadowNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{policy|WP:SPADE}} {{essay|WP:SPADE}}

{{nutshell| It's okay to call a spade a spade – to speak plainly – but remember to ], and to stay focused on improving the encyclopedia.}} {{nutshell| It's okay to call a spade a spade – to speak plainly – but remember to ], and to stay focused on improving the encyclopedia.}}



Revision as of 16:29, 31 January 2010

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.
Shortcut
This page in a nutshell: It's okay to call a spade a spade – to speak plainly – but remember to remain civil, and to stay focused on improving the encyclopedia.
It's not a "manual geomorphological modification implement". Or a "combat emplacement evacuator".

To call a spade a spade is to describe something clearly and directly. Rather than using oblique and obfuscating language, just "tell it like it is."

Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review.

Although editors who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors, and editors who consistently vandalize are vandals, there is still a requirement for editors to be reasonably civil to each other. But being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable or credulous.

It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately, but a bit of politeness and tact while doing so will get them to listen more readily. One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks. Discuss troubling edits, in reasonable terms, on that article's discussion page. If the behaviour of a user remains troublesome, use the dispute resolution process. When referring to a particular bad edit, it is always best to include a diff.

The duck test

Shortcuts
"Well, it could be a rabbit in disguise..."

The duck test — "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" — suggests that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics.

There are certain standards and terminology that are often used to judge assertions:

1.  Beyond a reasonable doubt
2.  Clear and convincing evidence
3.  Preponderance of the evidence
4.  Duck test (suspicion)

See also

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
Category: