|
|
|
| Zobacz też: |
| “ | Civility, Maturity, Responsibility | ” |
 |
This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked. |
| Wikipedia guidelines |
|---|
| Content |
| Article Inclusion |
| Notability |
| Classification |
| Editing |
| Discussion |
| Behavior |
|
Etiquette |
| Style |
| Manual of Style
See also policies |
Contents |
Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented.
In the past, some contributors have found their wikistress levels rising, particularly when an issue important to them has been handled unfairly in their view. The contributor may point out inconsistencies, perhaps citing other cases that have been handled differently. And the contributor may postulate: "What if everyone did that?"
This neglects two important things about Wikipedia: it is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone. (Some argue that these are not defects.)
In this situation, it is tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up or revert the "proof."
In general, such edits are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Some readers consider such techniques spiteful and unencyclopedic, as passers-by are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus.
Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Gaming the system is subversive and in some cases, a form of disruption. It usually involves improper use of (or appeal to) a policy, to purposefully derail or disrupt Wikipedia processes, to claim support for a viewpoint which clearly contradicts those policies, or to attack a genuinely policy-based stance.
Examples of gaming include (but are not limited to): –
Gaming can sometimes overlap with policies and guidelines such as disruption (including "disruption to illustrate a point"), incivility (including posting of repeated spurious 'warnings'), personal attack, and failure to assume good faith.
If there is no evidence of improper intent or there is a genuine mistake, it is not usually considered to be gaming. But it may well be, if the action is deliberate, or it is clear there is no way they can reasonably claim to be unaware.
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.
Wikipedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant – it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.
Note that it is the disruptive editing itself, not the mere holding of the opinion, that is the problem.
On a related note, please don't attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it; this wastes everyone's time, including yours. See Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes.
Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator. Editors involved in arbitration are likely to find that violating the spirit of this guideline may prejudice the decision of the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents for examples of the Committee's views on various types of disruptive behavior.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||