| Revision as of 19:30, 14 March 2012 editRFC bot (talk | contribs)216,124 edits Adding RFC ID.← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:01, 15 March 2012 edit undoJohnBlackburne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,799 edits →Comments: +commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ==Comments== | ==Comments== | ||
| There are a number of issues with the core points it makes. In detail. | |||
| ''Interfering with consensus'' - this seems to fundamentally misunderstand the use of policy in a discussion. When an editor uses e.g. ] it has many benefits. It saves both the person writing it and reading it time: the writer no longer has to write out a detailed explanation of the policy, while anyone seeing that shortcut knows what it refers to and understands what they mean (they can of course follow the link if they need to). So there no need to supply a detailed explanation if the policy is being used properly. Shortcuts are especially useful in edit summaries and straw polls but can be used in any discussion between editors. | |||
| Compare e.g. when someone says they are ]. Even as a non-American I know what that means: it implies not only the act (of not self-incriminating) but that it is a constitutional right. I would not for a moment compare the policies of Misplaced Pages to the US Constitution but the effect of the shortcut is the same, to let the reader know what's meant and to let them know or remind them that it's an official policy. | |||
| Further, in the case of ] it is the person proposing or supporting an addition that needs to supply sources if challenged. The same applies to ] and in different ways to the other policies (though I suspect ] not ] is intended): the weight that is given to something in an article depends on it's appearance in sources, so ] can also be used to challenge changes that place to much emphasis on one aspect or viewpoint, asking the person proposing the change to justify it from sources. | |||
| ''Failure to get the point'' – This whole section is implying that editors frequently ignore others contributions, "fail to listen carefully", "summarily dismiss" and "reject off-the-cuff" contributions. I'm sorry, but this does not happen, at least not with the frequency implied. Even very long discussions are followed by the editors involved. If editors stop following they usually leave. New editors joining will usually read the whole discussion before contributing. This does not mean every editor replies to every point: editors only have a finite amount of time to contribute so will only contribute where they feel they have something to write. If all they have to write is covered by policy they may use a shortcut to that instead, to save themselves and other editors time. They will also often not write something if it just repeats what another editor has written. | |||
| While we should not scare off newcomers and should treat all editors with respect there is no need for "sensitivity" towards the efforts of editors, who ] their contributions and need to justify them from sources if challenged. And again, "careful presentations of the reasons for rejection" are not needed if there are straightforward policy reasons for it. Policies might be explained to new editors but experienced ones can be expected to know the policies, or where to find them if they need reminding. | |||
| ''Avoiding consensus building'' – It's unclear what this is saying as it seems to be rehashing the first section, so again has the process for dealing with original research the wrong way round. There's usually no need to say in detail which bits need sourcing, as they will be the bits without refs (ideally inline) to reliable secondary sources, so it is normally obvious. Editors can reasonably disagree over whether sources are reliable or secondary, but often this is so obvious, or sources are simply missing, that no discussion is needed. | |||
| It also mischaracterises the policy on primary and secondary sources. Primary sources can be used to establish simple ''facts'', but to make a ''point'' on anything a secondary source is needed. This especially covers issues of undue weight and how to cover fringe topics which must be determined from reliable secondary sources.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 03:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:01, 15 March 2012
 |
|
 | The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
This page is a proposal for either a new guideline Misplaced Pages:Disruption on talk pages or an elaboration to be added to Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. It provides an extension of three statements in Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing aimed at improving the editing environment on WP and avoiding inflammatory actions and possible Wikilawyering based upon quotations from Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Comments are invited. Brews ohare (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion may be closed as either Promote, No consensus, or Failed.
Comments
There are a number of issues with the core points it makes. In detail.
Interfering with consensus - this seems to fundamentally misunderstand the use of policy in a discussion. When an editor uses e.g. WP:OR it has many benefits. It saves both the person writing it and reading it time: the writer no longer has to write out a detailed explanation of the policy, while anyone seeing that shortcut knows what it refers to and understands what they mean (they can of course follow the link if they need to). So there no need to supply a detailed explanation if the policy is being used properly. Shortcuts are especially useful in edit summaries and straw polls but can be used in any discussion between editors.
Compare e.g. when someone says they are taking the Fifth. Even as a non-American I know what that means: it implies not only the act (of not self-incriminating) but that it is a constitutional right. I would not for a moment compare the policies of Misplaced Pages to the US Constitution but the effect of the shortcut is the same, to let the reader know what's meant and to let them know or remind them that it's an official policy.
Further, in the case of original research it is the person proposing or supporting an addition that needs to supply sources if challenged. The same applies to WP:SYN and in different ways to the other policies (though I suspect WP:V not WP:VS is intended): the weight that is given to something in an article depends on it's appearance in sources, so WP:UNDUE can also be used to challenge changes that place to much emphasis on one aspect or viewpoint, asking the person proposing the change to justify it from sources.
Failure to get the point – This whole section is implying that editors frequently ignore others contributions, "fail to listen carefully", "summarily dismiss" and "reject off-the-cuff" contributions. I'm sorry, but this does not happen, at least not with the frequency implied. Even very long discussions are followed by the editors involved. If editors stop following they usually leave. New editors joining will usually read the whole discussion before contributing. This does not mean every editor replies to every point: editors only have a finite amount of time to contribute so will only contribute where they feel they have something to write. If all they have to write is covered by policy they may use a shortcut to that instead, to save themselves and other editors time. They will also often not write something if it just repeats what another editor has written.
While we should not scare off newcomers and should treat all editors with respect there is no need for "sensitivity" towards the efforts of editors, who do not own their contributions and need to justify them from sources if challenged. And again, "careful presentations of the reasons for rejection" are not needed if there are straightforward policy reasons for it. Policies might be explained to new editors but experienced ones can be expected to know the policies, or where to find them if they need reminding.
Avoiding consensus building – It's unclear what this is saying as it seems to be rehashing the first section, so again has the process for dealing with original research the wrong way round. There's usually no need to say in detail which bits need sourcing, as they will be the bits without refs (ideally inline) to reliable secondary sources, so it is normally obvious. Editors can reasonably disagree over whether sources are reliable or secondary, but often this is so obvious, or sources are simply missing, that no discussion is needed.
It also mischaracterises the policy on primary and secondary sources. Primary sources can be used to establish simple facts, but to make a point on anything a secondary source is needed. This especially covers issues of undue weight and how to cover fringe topics which must be determined from reliable secondary sources.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 03:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Categories: