Wikipedia talk:Etiquette/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Etiquette. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

TheCunctator deleted:

We know all too well that we can't tell you what to do.

(Whether he was right or wrong to do so, in light of recent events, I don't know -- but I would like to at least keep a record here that the page once read that.) -- SJK

I think you're according Cunctator's edits far too much importance, Simon. --LMS

I have to disagree with this Q/A:

But I'm free to do whatever I please here. This is a wiki, right?

Well, you're free, yes. But we do have some community habits and standards,...

The only correct answer to this question is No, you're not free to do anything here; Wikipedia 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 they're 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. Bomis should be much clearer about this. --Lee Daniel Crocker

Is it just me, or does the Wikipetiquette page read like a page out of B. F. Skinner's notebook? ;-) --Stephen Gilbert

Finally, As a Last Resort, when you've tried to work in a cooperative spirit and are not getting through, . . . 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 . . . proves too strong to override. Also, Wikipedia's . . . 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.

I consider the above-quoted passage to be very sound advice, but when it comes to quality control there are simply not enough people involved in the production of some Wikipedia articles to create a strong general consensus. Consequently, thoughtful contributors spend a great deal of time and energy responding to criticism and seeking a general consensus whereas amateurish contributors stubbornly defend (and restore) their mediocre work, ignoring or dismissing any and all criticism. Walking away is not a real solution, as it leaves the mediocre work intact and leaves the amateurish contributor in the position of blundering along to compromise the quality of other articles.

In more serious situations, the de facto solution employed by most rank and file Wikipedians who find themselves embroiled in a conflict seems to be an appeal to one of the Wikipedian sysops. This concerns me because I see it as the beginnings of a hierarchichal power structure being established at Wikipedia which will eventually be used to resolve even the pettiest of disputes. I would much rather see a group of rank and file Wikipedians involved in the mediation process with the Wikipedian sysops deferring to the judgment of said rank and file Wikipedians.--NetEsq

NetEsq, being myself a sysop, I see your point. Fortunately, most sysops are careful to solve disputes using their magic powers. Normally, we try to resolve by using the same possibilities that every logged in user has, which is basically editing, editing talk page, and expressing common sense. Only in extreme cases, we use the magic powers and f.e. protect a page that is the subject of an edit war or - in a very extreme case - block a user's IP if he repeatedly vandalises a page. Jeronimo

Walking away from a topic doesn't imply doing so permanently. Sometimes it gives you the opportunity to come back later with even better reasoned arguments. Your frustration is clear from some of the almost ad hominem comments that you make above.

We just had a situation where a sysop tried to use his sysop status to threaten someone with a ban. The community (Hmmm, I think I refered to that term at Talk:Law) was unanimous in its disapproval of the tactic, and he was experienced enough to get the message loud and clear. Appeal to Wikipedians in general is indeed more appropriate than appeal to sysops. The sysops are as much members of the community as the "rank and file". The appearance of a hierarchical structure is often innocently perpetuated by people who appeal to the structure that they perceive. Questions of this sort come up so frequently that going through them takes on the characteristics of a rite of passage.

Another factor in resolving edit wars may simply be that no available Wikipedian feels confident that he is competent enough to deal with the subject matter under debate. We already know that it takes no Wikipedians to change a light bulb because the room is bright enough already. Still a solitary fly who encounters an entire field of manure can only land at one spot. Eclecticology 18:08 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

I appreciate your considered responses, both of which acknowledge and address my concerns. To a certain degree I am anticipating problems which may or may not come into existence at Wikipedia because of my experiences with several other large scale projects which purport to be open communities until they encounter the "practical limitations" of openness. In other words, "if we have learned anything from history, it is that we have learned nothing from history."--NetEsq 11:24am Sep 6, 2002

There seem to be some opportunities for self promotion on Wikipedia. Is this totally frowned on or is it ok as long as it's not blatant? -- Anon

I'm not sure what sort of self-promotion you mean. Self-promotion articles are generally deleted pretty quickly - unless the article subject is one that actually deserves an encyclopaedia article. For example Daniel C. Boyer edits Wikipedia, but his article has endured because of his work outside Wikipedia. An article about me would quickly (and rightfully) be deleted. We have user pages for that :)

Similarly, an article on Google will endure, one on sannse.com wouldn't (especially as I haven't got round to using that domain name yet)

Another type of self-promotion I've seen, also quickly removed, is lots of links to a personal web-site. For example, someone added links to a travel web-site on all the country articles at one point, they weren't particularly useful and there is no reason for us to promote that site rather than others. But a link to wilwheaton.net on the Wil Wheaton article will be likely to stay -- sannse 19:34 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

See also: wikipedia:responses to common objections. Martin 15:29 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

is it "Wikipetiquette" or "Wikiquette". The second sound somewhat funny for a French. May I suggest "Wiketiquette" ? Ericd 00:35, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oui quiquette ;o) hahaha, right, it's funny. Greudin

Oh oui... Oh oui.... Ericd 11:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Group articles?

It worries me that this very important subject matter is spread across at least 3 articles. Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I don't see this as situation as necessarily bad or redundant in a functional sense. That is, I think it's valuable to have 3 kinds of pages: 1) a succinct cheat-sheet that we can point people to from the Welcome page or in our personal greetings to new users, which I think is the purpose the Wikiquette page serves now. 2) A good cheat sheet that mediators could provide a link to when a talk page discussion heats up, which I think the "Staying cool" page is meant to be. 3) A deeper and more substantiated discussion of civility to which we might direct the philosophically or ideologically uncivil ("Duh, I know how to be polite, but this place is a jungle and so it's jungle rules that I'm going to go by") or anybody who's interested. I think that's what's going on with the "Civility" page. My worry is that with 3 places for people to contribute ideas on Civility, some pages are liable to miss out on some valuable ideas, and our lean-mean cheat sheets about how to be nice will become bloated tomes that just turn away the cranky and make them crankier. To guard against this, I suggest we formally declare these pages a "series" or group of pages, which each acknowledge each other in some prominent and official-looking way. That way, if someone stumbles on what is not quite the right page for their idea or their need, they will know immediately where to go, and likewise would-be mediators will learn that they have a choice of where to point their hypothetical mediatees, and so be able pick the most suitable one. Also if these pages are more prominently connected to one another, someone with a good idea for one of them will be led to consider whether it's a good one for any of the others, and add it, either beefing it up or trimming it down, as appropriate to the page for which the idea is destined. What do people think? 168... 17:35, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Civility: I suggest that anybody who is interested post responses there.168... 17:39, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Editing Talk Pages

Everytime we edit any page on wiki, we agree to the phrase "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." But there has arisen recently a discussion about it being OK to edit anyone's Headdings and comments on a talk pafge but not other people's talk, even when they are using very negative ad-hominem or building non existant strawmen by mis-representing what another person said. Sorting out all of this can take pages and pages of irrelevant discussion slowing down the process of dealing with the key issues at hand which need to be dealt with in the article. Not to mention itr makes what should be a gentlmanly discussion page into a sullied mud-slinging match with very little valuable input and a lot of wasted wiki server space. There must be Gigabytes on wiki's servers which are currently dedicated to preserving pages and pages of angry talk. As far as I can see there is no policy against editing another person's comments anywhere on wiki. But obviously the point does need discussion. I personally have had my talk page comments edited several times that I can recal and perhaps many times that I am unaware of. It does not bother me because the true record is held in the history pages, and if I have misunderstood someone's point then it is helpful for them to correct my question to make it more relevant. If I have another question in mind I can always post it again. I once started to also clean up a discussion page (Talk:Eber) which had become very nasty once and no-one involved in that page discussion complained. I think everyone was relieved that the wheet was sorted from the chaff. Anyway like I said I think this needs discussion so I am posting it here to see what everyone else thinks. ThankyouZestauferov 03:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The caveat about mercilessly edited writing was intended for article pages, not for Talk: pages. While the articles themselves should be NPOV, people should be allowed to express their POV in Talk: pages without having those they are debating change the comments to what they think they should have been. Jayjg 01:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Were you one of the developers Jayig? If so then it would be easy for you to correct the mistake. If it happens then everyone should abide. If not then it is a wiki right.Zestauferov 19:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just changed the level of this heading and then started to read the comment on whether it is “OK to edit anyone's Headdings.” I may be tired but that was scary. Rafał Pocztarski 01:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sanger's line about trolls

Is there a reason why the last line (about trolls) in Sanger's farewell advice is missing? If not, I'll append it. Fpahl 10:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. Fpahl 15:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

not indexed for search?

Hey Folks,

Being new here I did a search for "wikipedia etiquette" which did NOT produce a pointer to this area. I stumbled upon it while browsing the "read this if new to wikipedia" pages.

This seems too important a topic to be "hidden" -- any suggestions on how to get the search to produce a link to here?

Smooches

Wikipedia etiquette now redirects to Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Rafał Pocztarski 01:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Criticize ideas, not people

This was lying around my brain:

Criticize ideas, not people. However, if someone's behavior has gotten out of hand, someone should let them know. But there's no need to be mean or scream and yell. It's also best if such a message does not come from someone who has recently antagonized them. Consider privately asking a third party to help if you are a party to a dispute with a misbehaving Wikipedian, or just don't want to cope.

A helpful addition somewhere here? Or perhaps some other page? -- Beland 04:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NCDave & TheCustomOfLife/Mike H.

NCDave seems to think that Talk pages are places to debate the issues discussed in the articles themselves. Wikipedia is not a message board, so no, his recent edits to Wikiquette are not correct. I can see what he's TRYING to say, but when you get into words like "right" and "wrong," you really are missing the point of NPOV. Mike H 05:45, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I made the change is that the current wording is ambiguous. I fixed it, with no change to the original, intended meaning. I just made it more clear.

In response I got reverted and insulted and (over on Talk:Terri_Schiavo) my motives impugned.

(Mike H = TheCustomOfLife, a revert warrior with a grudge.)

Here's a "diff" link showing what I did. Now, don't y'all agree that is clearer and less likely to be misunderstood? NCdave 10:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You cannot edit Wikipedia:Wikiquette, have your edits be in violation of what Wikipedia is not (mainly that Wikipedia is not a message board, or a soapbox), and then try to say, well, Wikiquette says I can do this! when you just edited it in YOURSELF. I would also take a look at the arbitration policy before saying you can talk on the talk page about things that are morally right or wrong without trying to link it to the article...many times you've been guilty of that. Mike H 16:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to paraphrase me, TheCustomOfLife/Mike H, please do it accurately. My edit did not say that. Click on the diff link that I included! You completely reversed the meaning. How could I have possibly put it any more clearly? The disambiguated version that I created said, "The Talk pages are not a place to debate value judgements about which views are right or wrong or better." Did you overlook the word "not"? NCdave 15:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TheCustomOfLife/Mike H. reverted it again. So here's a version that perhaps will meet with his approval. NCdave 07:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That version works just fine. Mike H 08:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Guideline

I just changed the notice from "policy" to "guideline". For my rational, see Category talk:Wikipedia official policy. Isomorphic 05:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Changing the meaning of a posting

Is there a guideline against editing a person's signed comments on a talk page to change their meaning? I know the record is in the history, but I don't think people usually go wandering through the history to see what someone really said. I've seen people insert or delete words that completely reverse the meaning of a post. That seems like vandalism to me. Shoaler 21:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette sound a bit naughty to a French

I suggest Wiketiquette... Ericd 10:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I only know two or three words in French, the silly 'Merkan that I am, so I have no frame of reference for your comment. Could you elaborate for those of us who don't know? Thanks. slambo 20:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's expand your vocabulary. "Quiquette" (kiquette) is a somewhat childilsh world for penis. And Wi sound "Oui"... This sounds somewhere betweeen "Yes Penis !" and "Yes I want your Dick !". Ericd 22:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Is that true?--Exir Kamalabadi ^{Criticism is welcomed!} 12:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is ! Ericd 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject, how should I pronounce Wikiquette? It's kinda tricky. A word like Wiketiquette sounds better to me... similar to Connecticut. A lot easier to say. --Scapegoat pariah 07:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Craig Cobb complaint

Craig Cobb Wikipedia Biography-Craig Cobb's factual additions submitted BY CRAIG COBB summarily deleted entirety by NawlinWiki. I submit that I know more about my own life than either NawlinWiki or the author of the original page, whether he/she was or was not NawlinWiki and others.

Further, Wikipedia certainly does allow personages to edit their own pages. Yet every single fact I submitted was stripped out by editor NawlinWiki with not even a single query to me.

I respectfully request that my fair editing of the page, which left almost every single negative or critical detail in (excepting anti-Semitic; I am anti-Jewish) , which entry I corrected in only one of its several places.

At the very least, some portions of my edit should be retained, and a "this page is in dispute" entry be logged on top. It is unfair to use the original with no additional corrected factual info from myself. Some of the "facts" were incorrect--years etc.

Thanks to all the other fairer editors for your joint considerations. I did also upload a photo of myself, but only as a .jpg Wikipedia Commons link. Having a bit of tech trouble fitting it on the right. I would be glad to give you all a copy of the edited page which NawlinWiki deleted without polite (or any) query to me.

Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (added User / DTS and new section break -- TerryE (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC))