| Revision as of 04:27, 10 March 2008 editRaymond arritt (talk | contribs)13,222 edits cleanup and remove some redundancy← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:35, 10 March 2008 edit undoDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits please discuss these changes on the talk pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{essay|WP:SPADE|WP:DUCK}} | {{essay|WP:SPADE|WP:DUCK}} | ||
| {{nutshell| |
{{nutshell| It's okay to call a spade a spade, but be sure to use discretion and politeness when you do.}} | ||
| {|width="250" align="right" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="border: 2px solid #aaa; font-size: 85%; padding: 4px; margin: 0 1em; margin-right:0; background-color: #f9f9f9;clear:right;" | {|width="250" align="right" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="border: 2px solid #aaa; font-size: 85%; padding: 4px; margin: 0 1em; margin-right:0; background-color: #f9f9f9;clear:right;" | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| Users too often cite policies, like our ] and our ], not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but rather 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 ] to each other. Name-calling and labeling editors is not the appropriate way to handle such situations. If the behavior is problematic, use the ] process. | 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 ] to each other. Name-calling and labeling editors is not the appropriate way to handle such situations. If the behavior is problematic, use the ] process. | ||
| ].]] | ].]] | ||
| Accusations should not be made |
Accusations should not be made without cause, and being too blunt may not be the most productive course of action. Even in cases where you are correct about another user, accusations of POV pushing, tendentious editing, bad editing, and the like, while factually true, may nevertheless lead to sufficient antagonism that constructive collaboration becomes impossible. Some people will take a detached statement evaluating their work negatively as a personal insult no matter what. Consider whether excessive courtesy, even if unearned, may help meet your goals. | ||
| == The duck test == | |||
| This line of thinking is sometimes referred to as "the ]" after the aphorism ''If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck...''. | |||
| However, imagine that the duck did not believe it was a duck. The best way to convince it that it is ]n would be to calmly inform the duck that it is, in fact, a duck. Then show proof (webbed feet, bill, etc) proving as much. Shouting at the duck would probably be less than productive. | |||
| == The Jack Kennedy test == | |||
| This negative version of this line of thinking is sometimes referred to as "Jack Kennedy test" after the ] quote: "]". | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 04:35, 10 March 2008
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: It's okay to call a spade a spade, but be sure to use discretion and politeness when you do. |
| "What do you expect of me? I've always been one to call a spade a spade." "Fine," said Yevgenia. "But don't imagine that's always a virtue." |
Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but rather 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 civil to each other. Name-calling and labeling editors is not the appropriate way to handle such situations. If the behavior is problematic, use the dispute resolution process.
.jpg)
Accusations should not be made without cause, and being too blunt may not be the most productive course of action. Even in cases where you are correct about another user, accusations of POV pushing, tendentious editing, bad editing, and the like, while factually true, may nevertheless lead to sufficient antagonism that constructive collaboration becomes impossible. Some people will take a detached statement evaluating their work negatively as a personal insult no matter what. Consider whether excessive courtesy, even if unearned, may help meet your goals.
The duck test
This line of thinking is sometimes referred to as "the duck test" after the aphorism If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck....
However, imagine that the duck did not believe it was a duck. The best way to convince it that it is Anatidaen would be to calmly inform the duck that it is, in fact, a duck. Then show proof (webbed feet, bill, etc) proving as much. Shouting at the duck would probably be less than productive.
The Jack Kennedy test
This negative version of this line of thinking is sometimes referred to as "Jack Kennedy test" after the Lloyd Bentsen quote: "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy".
See also
- Misplaced Pages:Don't call the kettle black
- Misplaced Pages:You can't squeeze blood from a turnip
- Misplaced Pages:Don't call a spade a spade
- To call a spade a spade