Essay on editing Wikipedia
| This page in a nutshell:
Dissent is not disloyalty, but it is also not an excuse to be disruptive.
|
Editors who express
dissent about Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines may be accused of being disloyal
or of not working to improve the encyclopedia. In discussions on or about Wikipedia, avoid trivializing others' opinions by attributing the difference of opinion to others' character flaws, immorality, trolling, or other wanton
bad faith
. Instead, try to recognize the fundamental philosophical differences underlying the disagreement, accept the validity of opinions other than your own, and
discuss the issue
rather than the participants.
When dealing with dissent, the following advice may help:
- Avoid
ad hominem
arguments. That generally means
no personal attacks
, which are usually considered to be a form of
incivility
.
- In general, it is best to
assume good faith
.
- Remember,
Wikipedia is not a battleground
; discuss the issue, not the person.
- Remember, if an editor
discusses
a view, that does not necessarily mean they subscribe to such a view. Similarly, if an editor
links
to something, that does not necessarily mean that views expressed in that link reflect the opinions of the editors who linked to it.
- Avoid implying
guilt by association
. Editors are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others.
- Avoid creating
straw men
.
Dissent
plays an important role in
democracies
as it enables citizens to contest laws and actions of the government.
Wikipedia is not a democracy
, however, even though it incorporates some elements which are also present in democratic governments, such as forums for review of decisions, administrators and
bureaucrats
, and rules. Moreover, like democracies, Wikipedia allows editors to express dissent regarding the content on the encyclopedia or the rules governing the project.
There are limitations to this, though. For example,
soapboxing
is
not allowed
, nor are
personal attacks
, nor is
disruptive editing
. Some forms of dissent on Wikipedia, such as respectfully proposing changes on talk pages, can be done without leading to any negative consequences for the editor. Other forms of dissent, such as engaging in personal attacks or disrupting the encyclopedia-building process, may lead to editors being blocked or even banned. This shows one of the many differences between a democracy and how Wikipedia is governed.
Another difference is that in many democracies, citizens are given a wide latitude to criticize specific government leaders, even to the point of using
pejoratives
in
protests
or the
editorial pages
of newspapers. On Wikipedia, however, insulting another editor in this manner?including those in
administrative
,
arbitrative
, and
bureaucratic
positions?is strictly forbidden and can lead to blocks or bans.
In Wikipedia, the text of articles can be changed by the consensus of editors, even longstanding content that has been given
Featured article
status. Indeed, even the
policies and guidelines
can be changed by the consensus of editors, though substantial changes to policies and guidelines tend to require a much larger
level of consensus
across the entire Wikipedia community. It is acceptable to advocate for changes to policies and guidelines by doing so in the appropriate talk pages. That said, expressing dissent regarding a particular policy or guideline by
deliberately disrupting the encyclopedia-building process
is not acceptable. For example, if an editor disagrees with the
Wikipedia's notability guidelines for sports
, it is acceptable for that editor to argue their position on
the talk page of the sports notability guideline
. However, the editor should
not
go around deleting content because it does not conform to their views on sports notability.
If a Wikipedian expresses dissent regarding policies or guidelines inappropriately, such as through disruption or personal attacks, they may be blocked or given other
sanctions
. As is stated in the policy on
Wikipedia not being a soapbox or means of promotion
, editors' expression of their opinions in the
Wikipedia namespace
must be "non-disruptive". This does not prohibit proposals to change policies and guidelines, however, nor would one lose editing privileges for doing so. The key elements to expressing dissent constructively are as follows:
- Right approach:
Dissent on Wikipedia concerning policies and guidelines should be grounded in a sincere goal to improve the encyclopedia and its editing process, and all criticism should be
constructive
criticism
which proposes concrete and actionable improvements. If your goal is not to improve Wikipedia, but rather to attack it, then a better forum for expressing your views would be a personal blog or another non-Wikipedia forum, such as a letter to a newspaper editor or any of the various websites critical of Wikipedia.
- Right place:
Use the right place to express dissent. If you disagree with
Wikipedia's policy on no original research
, expressing this view on hundreds of article talk pages is
not
appropriate and could be viewed as disruptive behavior. The correct place to express your concerns with this policy would be the talk page of the policy itself.
- Right tone:
Using inflammatory language and rhetoric is usually counterproductive. Express your views using polite and calm wording. Using "softer" wording such as "may" can work better than words like "should" or "must".
Hedging
your words can improve the tone; it also ensures clearer emphasis when due, since the absence of hedging language tends to suggest urgency, severity, or even aggression. Avoid absolute language, as well, such as "never" or "always";
qualifiers
can help indicate uncertainty and better describe your position. Similarly, avoid numerous
exclamation marks
, extensive
underlining
, and
all-caps text
, all of which are typically taken as excessive displays of emotion and can even be confusing. Other editors are more likely to agree to a more nuanced proposal, especially when presented without
hyperbole
.
- Right proposal:
Calling for the removal of a policy?which by definition has massive, project-wide consensus and would have massive, project-wide effects?is neither feasible nor strategic. Generally, editors are far more open to hearing proposals for more incremental modifications to a policy, or some type of very limited exception to the policy, than to radical changes. Policies and guidelines, just like community norms, may shift or
deprecate
over time, but rarely are they abruptly abandoned.
- Right speed:
Avoid appeals to urgency and demands for "immediate action". While such rhetoric may work well at a political rally or a protest, on Wikipedia the wheels of change turn very slowly since the encyclopedia has a huge number of editors' views to take into account. As a result, even a minor modification to a policy or guideline may take a long time and lots of discussions on the talk page to achieve enough consensus to implement it.
- Right interaction:
Build a dialogue with other editors; do not simply keep repeating the same statement. Although summaries or clarifications of previous points may be due, repeating the same argument without acknowledging the responses and criticisms to it can be seen as problematic behavior. Doing so gives other editors the impression that
you aren't listening
or, worse, that you are intentionally trying to be disrupt the discussion. Moreover, mere repetition is generally not persuasive, since otherwise it would have probably been convincing the first time. When other editors suggest rewording your proposal, try to accommodate their views. If you keep making accommodations with other editors, then eventually a proposal with some degree of consensus may emerge.
So long as these elements characterize your criticisms, your dissent can help improve the encyclopedia. Although Wikipedia is not a democracy,
Wikipedia is not perfect
, either. Just as constructive edits can help bring Wikipedia closer to achieving
its purpose
, so too can constructive dissent.
|
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
- Adminitis
- Akin's Laws of Article Writing
- Alternatives to edit warring
- ANI flu
- Anti-Wikipedian
- Anti-Wikipedianism
- Articlecountitis
- Asshole John rule
- Assume bad faith
- Assume faith
- Assume good wraith
- Assume stupidity
- Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith
- Avoid using preview button
- Avoid using wikilinks
- Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
- Barnstaritis
- Before they were notable
- BOLD, revert, revert, revert
- Boston Tea Party
- Butterfly effect
- CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh?
- Complete bollocks
- Counting forks
- Counting juntas
- Crap
- Don't stuff beans up your nose
- Don't-give-a-fuckism
- Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!
- Don't delete the main page
- Editcountitis
- Edits Per Day
- Editsummarisis
- Editing Under the Influence
- Embrace Stop Signs
- Emerson
- Fart
- Five Fs of Wikipedia
- Seven Ages of Editor, by Will E. Spear-Shake
- Go ahead, vandalize
- How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
- How to get away with UPE
- How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle
- How to vandalize correctly
- How to win a citation war
- Ignore all essays
- Ignore every single rule
- Is that even an essay?
- Mess with the templates
- My local pond
- Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
- Legal vandalism
- List of jokes about Wikipedia
- LTTAUTMAOK
- No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
- No one cares about your garage band
- No one really cares
- No, really
- No sorcery threats
- Notability is not eternal
- Oops Defense
- Play the game
- Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
- Please bite the newbies
- Please do not murder the newcomers
- Pledge of Tranquility
- R-e-s-p-e-c-t
- Requests for medication
- Requirements for adminship
- Rouge admin
- Rouge editor
- Sarcasm is really helpful
- Sausages for tasting
- The Night Before Wikimas
- The first rule of Wikipedia
- The Five Pillars of Untruth
- Things that should not be surprising
- The WikiBible
- Watchlistitis
- Wikipedia is an MMORPG
- WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
- What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes
- Why not create an account?
- Yes legal threats
- You don't have to be mad to work here, but
- You should not write meaningless lists
|
|
|
|
---|
About essays
| |
---|
Policies and guidelines
| |
---|
|
|