| Wikipedia guidelines |
|---|
| Behavioral |
|
Assume good faith |
| Content |
| Discussion |
| Editing |
| Organization |
| Style |
| More |
| List of policies and guidelines |
When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently. This may even entail an attempt to turn consensus against a policy by satirically applying it on various pages to show that it is ridiculous.
Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban. Issues with rules or practices should be addressed through plain discussion, not through parody or manipulation. If direct discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.
Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then consider leaving the issue alone and accepting that the outcome was not what you wanted. Do not resort to disruptive tactics in an attempt to sway consensus.
[edit] Examples
- If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it...
- do make your point clear in the discussion, noting examples of articles that could exist under the rationale for keeping the one in question.
- do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic just to get it listed for deletion and have others make the same arguments you are making.
- If someone deletes from an article "unimportant" information which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...
- do explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusion
- do not delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant".
- If you have added a reference which someone then removes because the source is self-published...
- do explain why the use of the source in question was appropriate in that instance, or find a reliable third-party published source for the information
- do not summarily remove all references to self-published sources from an article
- If you think someone unjustifiably removed "unsourced" content...
- do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source
- do not remove all apparently unsourced content on the page
- If you feel that a policy or guideline should be changed, and others disagree...
- do explain what you see as the problem with the rule as written, and perhaps post a notice of the discussion at the Village pump
- do not attempt to enforce the existing rule with the aim of provoking opposition to it
- If you feel that it is too easy to add misinformation to Wikipedia...
- do watch recent changes and fact-check anything that looks at all suspicious
- do not create an elaborate hoax with hopes of getting publicity for it
- If you think that this list of examples has become excessively long and boring...
- do opine that the guideline's purpose would remain clear even if half of the examples were deleted
- do not add 47 more examples just to show that people won't actually read such lists
[edit] Important note
A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only type of behavior which should be considered "POINTY". It is worthwhile to study the above examples, to gain an understanding of this guideline's purpose.
[edit] See also
- Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, to minimize potential motivations for point-illustrating
- Wikipedia:Be reasonable
- Wikipedia:Gaming the system
- Wikipedia:Wikilawyering
- Past decisions by the Arbitration Committee regarding this guideline
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||