On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
According to our article [[Facepalm]], this is a startrek internet meme indicating "an expression of embarrassment, frustration, disbelief, disgust, shame or general woe. It often expresses mockery or disbelief of perceived idiocy."
Well, that must be right.
Given that, I am wondering why we tolerate a template {{facepalm}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Facepalm
This does nothing to foster civil discourse among Wikipedians. I've just looked through how it is being used, and whilst I do see the occasional use in self-deprecation, generally it is used as a shorthand put-down: implicitly calling your correspondent an idiot, and his latest contribution self-evidently moronic.
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete {{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves to legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Thoughts?
{{facepalm}} (sorry... couldn't resist ;))
I bet any TFD goes off the rails...
On the one hand the template does have somewhat negative connotations. On the other hand it always stuck me as a slightly less confrontational way of saying "that's stupid". *shrug*
Tom