→BW3: reply |
→BW2: Reply. |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:I agree with the part in italics, but I disagree with the part in parentheses. We're supposed to AGF of other editors, but not necessarily of everybody in the world. Freedom to criticize the accuracy of published sources is necessary for normal Wikipedian activity. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
:I agree with the part in italics, but I disagree with the part in parentheses. We're supposed to AGF of other editors, but not necessarily of everybody in the world. Freedom to criticize the accuracy of published sources is necessary for normal Wikipedian activity. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
::I'm not sure about that. Criticizing published sources is seen as irrelevant [[WP:OR|original research]] in article space. The [[WP:USER|policy on user pages]] is much more lax, but it does say that ''"[[WP:SOAP|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself.'' Whether those comments are soapboxing are a judgment call. In my view their presence casts a shadow of deception and fear not directly on editors, but on a point on view some editors ''may legitimately have.'' As I asked, would you feel the phrase "deceptive activities of groups who support male circumcision" on one's user page is completely reasonable? Do you think, as I do, that it might make that editor a kind of rallying point, or important community figure, for opponents of male circumcision? (A kind of Wikiproject: Countering Deceptive Anti-Circumcision Groups.) Do you think, as I do, that it might reasonably offend those editors who happen to support male circumcision, but believe in good faith that they can edit on the topic neutrally? |
|||
::That said, I agree that the quoted part in parentheses doesn't explicitly contradict the proposed remedy. I'm willing to live with it if Jakew refuses to remove the material. Mostly I just want one standard for all editors, and mostly I don't care what that standard is. [[User:Blackworm|Blackworm]] ([[User talk:Blackworm|talk]]) 06:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== BW3 == |
== BW3 == |
Revision as of 06:35, 10 November 2008
Proposed change to remedy
In response to this edit at User talk:Blackworm, I propose changing the last sentence of remedy C7 to "When the issue is points of view which differ between editors, editors should assume good faith, or at least formulate their comments as if they do." ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I implemented the above as proposed remedy C7.1. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I've changed my mind, and endorsed the original C7. As much as I despise hypocrisy, I really think that acting like you assume good faith isn't the same as assuming good faith. If Jayjg can only act as if he does, fine; I will strive for more. Blackworm (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Inappropriate status quo
I oppose this edit. My response isn't as important as an adequate investigation into the previous interactions I've had with all editors endorsing this RfC. Editors who feel such an investigation has been made to their satisfaction should be free to comment. I apologize if anything I said implied to you that I believed otherwise. Blackworm (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
BW2
Re proposed remedy: "BW2 Editors should discourage failures to WP:AGF by avoiding statements casting doubt on the sincerity of editors based on editors' points of view on controversial topics. (Adoption of this clause would seem to require Jakew to refactor his user page to remove comments about "deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision.")"
- I agree with the part in italics, but I disagree with the part in parentheses. We're supposed to AGF of other editors, but not necessarily of everybody in the world. Freedom to criticize the accuracy of published sources is necessary for normal Wikipedian activity. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about that. Criticizing published sources is seen as irrelevant original research in article space. The policy on user pages is much more lax, but it does say that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. Whether those comments are soapboxing are a judgment call. In my view their presence casts a shadow of deception and fear not directly on editors, but on a point on view some editors may legitimately have. As I asked, would you feel the phrase "deceptive activities of groups who support male circumcision" on one's user page is completely reasonable? Do you think, as I do, that it might make that editor a kind of rallying point, or important community figure, for opponents of male circumcision? (A kind of Wikiproject: Countering Deceptive Anti-Circumcision Groups.) Do you think, as I do, that it might reasonably offend those editors who happen to support male circumcision, but believe in good faith that they can edit on the topic neutrally?
- That said, I agree that the quoted part in parentheses doesn't explicitly contradict the proposed remedy. I'm willing to live with it if Jakew refuses to remove the material. Mostly I just want one standard for all editors, and mostly I don't care what that standard is. Blackworm (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
BW3
Re proposed remedy: "BW3. Editors should not assert that another editor's comments "tell" the reader something, nor that the editor "sees" anything, without being explicit about what it is the reader should presumably also hear or see. A preferred response is to express what the editor is "told" or has "seen," and perhaps also to ask the other editor if they agree that what is "told" or "seen" is indeed the case."
- I think I might support this, but I'm having trouble understanding what it means. I'm having particular difficulty understanding this part: "without being explicit about what it is the reader should presumably also hear or see." I think this remedy might be expressing the idea that it's preferable to say things like "I hear these ideas in your message" than to say things like "Your message tells me these things"; that is, shifting the stated responsibility for the perception onto the person doing the perceiving/interpreting rather than blaming the original message for the ideas. Maybe that's not what's meant. I find this easier to understand, from Blackworm's comment: "Editors shouldn't be bullied into changing their comments by the implication that their comments condemn them, without being clear about how, specifically, their comments condemn them -- and that, in a civil manner." How about this version: "Editors should not criticize another editor's comments without stating specifically what it is about the comments that are allegedly causing a problem." ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's preferable to say things like "I hear these ideas in your message" -- if "these ideas" are specified. But statements of the form "this edit tells me something about you," without any further specification about what the something is, seem to only cast fear, uncertainty and doubt onto the editor; in a vague, unclear way. I think that could easily be interpreted as some kind of suspicion that what "the something" is, is too awful to be mentioned. Your version captures the essence of the remedy, but I prefer my version as it is specific about phrasing like "that's telling," or "i see now." Blackworm (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)