I'm a bit puzzled by your angered reaction. You're making it sound like I was expressing some sort of grudge against you. I assure you I don't. Please calm down a bit.
I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think I'm angered and why you persist in attacking me personally.
99% of the people on that page are hardly representative of 99% of the population of the Earth, especially seeing as the remaining 1% is much more likely to be on Wikipedia in the first place.
So basically you just made up that figure? It really doesn't matter anyway, since you're not dealing with the general population, you're dealing with Wikipedians. You make Wikipedia rules to deal with Wikipedians, not Wikipedia rules to deal with the general population.
People usually prefer to work in an environment in which they are not exposed to things that hurt their feelings.
Of course people *prefer* it, but that's not a realistic expectation, especially in the context of contrversial topics on Wikipedia, and it's certainly not something that should be enforced. There's a reason why there are no laws against hurting peoples feelings.
Not really -- the policy was set up precisely *because* personal attacks hurt people's feelings and therefore make Wikipedia a less enjoyable experience.
I doubt many people would disagree that Wikipedia policies exist for the purpose of making a better encyclopedia. Preserving anyone and everyone's personal feelings at all costs is not only impossible even by the most well intentioned people, it's also very counter-productive to enfore a "you must be politically correct and hand-holding" rule.
The personal attacks rule exists to squash counter-productive behavior, not to enforce some insane politically correct standard.
That is correct; that would be the ideal situation. A dispute on Wikipedia should ideally always centre around content issues, and never a Wikipedian's person. Unfortunately, not all Wikipedians can always control their temper enough...
It has nothing to do with temper. If someone is behaving badly, it is *necessary* to discuss that. Otherwise you're simply accepting that bad behavior and allowing it to continue.
Indeed I would prefer if people not do this, even when they are right. Trolls, too, are people with feelings that can be hurt, and I don't think anybody would want to be called a troll.
Then you're really out on a limb here, since you'll have trouble finding support for a "don't call people trolls no matter what" rule. By supporting that view, you can't really claim you're acting in the interest of the consensus formed on the policy.
There was no accusation of you being abusive. You're reading too much into it.
You did say I had a low EQ and made the association between the two, so I just read the implication and cried buckets of tears over it (yes, that was sarcasm, but with a point to demonstrate that there are very fragile people). Since your alleged goal is to avoid offending people at all costs, you should have been more careful with your language and that would be a violation of your interpretation of the policy.
I apologise if it does. I guess it was naïve of me to assume that you would find this revelation as useful as I did.
And this is exactly why such an undefined rule is silly, because you can never know when you're going to offend someone.
Here you are making the assumption that I would have placed myself in the 99%. However, I never did. You are also making the assumption that I think the 1% are necessarily bad people, just because they have a low EQ.
So then where do you place yourself then? When people say something like "I never said X" and then refuse to clarify what their stance is, it usually means that the "assumption" was dead on.
Unfortunately, there is no deterministic algorithm that universally classifies any statement as either a "personal attack" or not.
Which is why it should be defined soley in terms of the reason it was created--to punish seriously counter-productive behavior. Defining it in terms of the general population instead of Wikipedia producitivity makes no sense.
I didn't say you don't have a life. You're reading into it again. The term "real life" is usually used to refer to social interaction with other people outside the Internet and computers. I'm sure you have a life, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's primarily an online/Internet life.
Saying someone's life is primarily online is what is usually meant by saying someone doesn't have a life, don't try to weasel your way out of this one. In any case, that kind of accusation, regardless of what you call it, is typically considered insulting. Again, I'm totally crying buckets of tears here.
If you're going to be a spokesperson for EQ, personal attacks and whanot, it would help to have a better understanding of what a personal attack is.
I don't think many people here will disagree that the average EQ is quite a bit lower on Wikipedia than in the general population (nor do I think many people will consider that a bad thing). It is no surprise that the average EQ on [[Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks]] is even lower.
Now how would you be able to make an asessment like that unless you're suggesting you have a high EQ yourself? You seem to like to pull all kinds of figures out of your ass without substantiating them. I also have to wonder though, if what you say is true--that most Wikipedians have a low EQ, then what's the point of a rule that they couldn't understand?
In fact, in my previous posting I actually agreed with you that it's not clear what constitutes a personal attack -- except to people with a high enough EQ that they have an intuitive feel for it.
So then would you think that the only admins enforcing the rule would be required to have a high EQ? Because that doesn't seem to be the case.
Unfortunately humans aren't logical, much less predictable and algorithmic. Especially whether a true statement is seen as offensive/an insult/a "personal attack" is incredibly unpredictable.
How much a certain type of behavior contributes negatively to Wikipedia progress is something which can be logically and objectively analyzed. You keep thinking in terms of personal offense, rather than the resulting producitivity (or lack thereof) of said personal offense, which IS measurable.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------