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
I wouldn't judge it on the connotations, I'd judge it on the use. Self deprecatory such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Winters is fine.
Some of the other times it has been used are more troubling, but is it any worse than some of the intemperate language we sometimes see? I'd prefer that we keep it and try to resolve the conflicts rather than the symptoms of those conflicts.
WereSpielChequers
On 3 October 2011 11:07, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l