Re: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: Game-playing on Wikipedia

Re: Copyright and Britannica...

Nathan J. Yoder

2 Jul 2005 2 Jul '05

2:32 p.m.

...

"You are a hypocrite" is a personal attack. "You seem to apply a lenient standard to yourself and a strict standard to others" is a description of behavior, particularly if you cite examples.

Those mean the exact same thing! You just gave the definition of a hypocrite. You're making a meaningless distinction here and I seriously doubt you follow your own logic. Are you saying you've never called someone a troll or accused them of using sock puppets? Can you honestly say that you've been using a very long-winded, politically correct version of a troll accusation? And I do give examples, but you seem to keep ignoring that repeatedly because it suits you to ignore it. You REALLY do not have the authority to make an arbitrary distinction like that as it's outlined in *zero* policies.

...

There are several policies which do require you to be Mr. Nice Guy in addition to general exhortations about Wikiipedia:Wikilove: Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.

...such as? Give an example if you're going to make a claim. Oh wait, you can't give examples when you're *wrong* :-/

...

All the rest of Wikipedia is open to you including all the policy discussions.

Wrong, users who are well-liked and admins/arbitrators are not subject to this rule. David Gerard himself, under that silly logic, personally attacked me in my very own injunction against personal attacks. Who held him responsible?

...

You are subject to a personal attack parole for one year. Just don't do it. You are by no means done here.

The only possible way for me to do it would be to either not contribute or just not call people out on bad behavior, since you guys obviously are not enforcing on personal attacks, but rather content and arguments you don't like.. ---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------

Show replies by thread

Jerome Jamnicky

2 Jul 2 Jul

4:24 p.m.

New subject: Personal attacks and low EQs

Nathan J. Yoder wrote:

...

"You are a hypocrite" is a personal attack. "You seem to apply a lenient standard to yourself and a strict standard to others" is a description of behavior, particularly if you cite examples.

It will be useful to you if you criticise the person's behaviour rather than criticise the person. Maybe you see no distinction, but the fact is that criticising the behaviour is less likely to cause offense and lead to a flamewar. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not provide a course in social skills for the benefit of those who can't or won't learn by themselves. In fact it's likely to be impossible to completely unambiguously codify it, which makes things vulnerable to _lawyering_ by people acting in bad faith. There is a continuous stream of people who are indistinguishable from antisocial wikilawyers. In order to differentiate yourself from those people, I'd suggest you try to make it quite clear that you're acting in good faith. Then you might escape from your present situation and give people some hope that you won't cause more trouble than your contribution to Wikipedia is worth. [snip] --- Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Nathan J. Yoder

4:39 p.m.

New subject: Personal attacks and low EQs

...

Calling someone a hypocrite IS criticizing their behavior. Having to write out "your behavior is hypocritical" in place of "you are a hypocrite" is just tedious and redundant. The accusation (and others like it) is also very well deserved when someone continually acts in bad faith on a talk page by trying to constalt twist parts of and ignore other parts of your argument.

...

Unfortunately Wikipedia does not provide a course in social skills for the benefit of those who can't or won't learn by themselves.

Wow, that sounds like a personal insult, did you just imply I have no social skills?

...

In fact it's likely to be impossible to completely unambiguously codify it, which makes things vulnerable to _lawyering_ by people acting in bad faith.

It makes it even more vulnerable to scrupulous admins who act in bad faith all for a rule of questionable benefit.

...

I'd suggest you try to make it quite clear that you're acting in good faith.

Ok? I am making it clear that I'm acting in good faith. Sadly, the same can't be said of the list owner David Gerard, who is saying I need to be conditioned like an animal (with a cattle prod). His entirely immature behavior and personal attacks on this list and censorship of me are in bad faith. ---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------

Jerome Jamnicky

3 Jul 3 Jul

9:29 p.m.

New subject: Personal attacks and low EQs

Nathan J. Yoder wrote:

...

Calling someone a hypocrite IS criticizing their behavior. Having to write out "your behavior is hypocritical" in place of "you are a hypocrite" is just tedious and redundant.

It's useful because Wikipedia is not written by Vulcans. The emotional impact of differently-worded but logically equivalent statements is different, and this affects how constructive the discussion is.

...

The accusation (and others like it) is also very well deserved when someone continually acts in bad faith on a talk page by trying to constalt twist parts of and ignore other parts of your argument.

I'm sure some admins should be removed from their position, but that's an argument I haven't got enough time to get into. My email was an attempt to point out some things which I hoped would be useful for you to hear.

...

Unfortunately Wikipedia does not provide a course in social skills for the benefit of those who can't or won't learn by themselves.

Wow, that sounds like a personal insult, did you just imply I have no social skills?

No. If I sounded condescending then I apologise.

...

In fact it's likely to be impossible to completely unambiguously codify it, which makes things vulnerable to _lawyering_ by people acting in bad faith.

It makes it even more vulnerable to scrupulous admins who act in bad faith all for a rule of questionable benefit.

And there's no way to unambiguously define it, so what to do? Make discussion on Wikipedia a complete free-for-all? I don't think anybody in the world knows how to make that work without having it turn into Usenet.

...

I'd suggest you try to make it quite clear that you're acting in good faith.

Ok? I am making it clear that I'm acting in good faith.

I meant with behaviour in general, not just an assertion.

...

Sadly, the same can't be said of the list owner David Gerard, who is saying I need to be conditioned like an animal (with a cattle prod). His entirely immature behavior and personal attacks on this list and censorship of me are in bad faith.

No comment. ---- Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Alex Regh

4 Jul 4 Jul

3:08 a.m.

New subject: Personal attacks and low EQs

Hi! On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 07:29:54 +1000, Jerome Jamnicky wrote:

...

Calling someone a hypocrite IS criticizing their behavior. Having to write out "your behavior is hypocritical" in place of "you are a hypocrite" is just tedious and redundant.

No, actually, those two statements are not "logically equivalent". Calling somebody _a_ something implies that this person engages in this behaviour regularly, while saying "your behaviour here is something" does criticise only a behaviour at a certain place and time. "You lied about X" is therefore far less (potentially) insulting than "you are a liar". Not to mention the fact that it is impossible to say the latter about any Wikipedian whom one does not personally know, and very well, too - because I doubt that there are any people who spend so much time on WP that their behaviour here, even if they were constantly lying (or doing anything else) on WP, would constitute most of _all_ behaviour they ever exhibit. Alex (who wanted to keep out of the debate, but that had to be said) -- If you don't go over the top, you can't see what's on the other side. --- Jim Steinman --- Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de

Jerome Jamnicky

3:40 a.m.

New subject: Personal attacks and low EQs

Alex Regh wrote:

...

Hi! On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 07:29:54 +1000, Jerome Jamnicky wrote:

Calling someone a hypocrite IS criticizing their behavior. Having to write out "your behavior is hypocritical" in place of "you are a hypocrite" is just tedious and redundant.

No, actually, those two statements are not "logically equivalent".

I didn't claim that they are, nor did I mean to imply it. The point I tried to make is that changes in wording can change the emotional impact, even in the extreme case that the meaning is exactly the same. Obviously this would also apply in the case where the meaning is similar but different. (And I should have written "can be different" in place of "is different" in my previous mail.)

...

Calling somebody _a_ something implies that this person engages in this behaviour regularly, while saying "your behaviour here is something" does criticise only a behaviour at a certain place and time. "You lied about X" is therefore far less (potentially) insulting than "you are a liar". Not to mention the fact that it is impossible to say the latter about any Wikipedian whom one does not personally know, and very well, too - because I doubt that there are any people who spend so much time on WP that their behaviour here, even if they were constantly lying (or doing anything else) on WP, would constitute most of _all_ behaviour they ever exhibit.

Yes, thank you for putting this so clearly.

...

Alex (who wanted to keep out of the debate, but that had to be said)

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Nathan J. Yoder

5:15 a.m.

New subject: Personal attacks and low EQs

...

That depends on the context, you shouldn't read implications outside of context.

...

Not to mention the fact that it is impossible to say the latter about any Wikipedian whom one does not personally know, and very well, too - because I doubt that there are any people who spend so much time on WP that their behaviour here, even if they were constantly lying (or doing anything else) on WP, would constitute most of _all_ behaviour they ever exhibit.

This is all the more reason to NOT assume that they're implying that they're referring to that person lying all the time. If the person making the accusation doesn't know them, then if anything the implication is that they're referring to being a liar just for that incident. Really, this is all just splitting hairs for the sake of protecting thin skinned people. This shouldn't become PCpedia, catering towards people who are easily offended and read implications where there are none is silly. ---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------

6873

days inactive

6875

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

6 comments

3 participants

tags (0)

participants (3)

Alex Regh
Jerome Jamnicky
Nathan J. Yoder