http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#The_use_of_sarcasm
It may be bad practice, but making a rule is nonsensical. Unless smarminess and passive aggression are to be made blockable offences.
- d.
On 10/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#The_use_of_sarcasm
It may be bad practice, but making a rule is nonsensical. Unless smarminess and passive aggression are to be made blockable offences.
My god, this sounds like an Onion article:
"Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia bans sarcasm"
From the article:
"... In a comment wikipedia user Jonathan Swift claims that satire should be next..."
Look, if a wikipedia user is uncivil, he's uncivil. We are all relatively intelligent people, we know when a person is uncivil, whether he uses hyperbole, sarcasm, satire, iambic pentameter, or whatever. A blanket ban on sarcasm seems outrageously misguided.
I mean, show me an example of a user that's mean in a sarcastic way. Doesn't that ALREADY fall under WP:CIVIL? Talk about instruction creep.
--Oskar
Oskar wrote:
Look, if a wikipedia user is uncivil, he's uncivil. We are all relatively intelligent people, we know when a person is uncivil, whether he uses hyperbole, sarcasm, satire, iambic pentameter, or whatever.
Your sarcastic use of the noble iambic pentameter in this sentence is offensive to me as a poet. Please be more civil in future.
But seriously...
A blanket ban on sarcasm seems outrageously misguided. I mean, show me an example of a user that's mean in a sarcastic way. Doesn't that ALREADY fall under WP:CIVIL?
I asked more or less this question on the talk page just now, and the original proposer claims that it "is not a 'ban' on sarcasm per se", but rather "an explanation that sarcasm is a form of rudeness, as some people seem not to be aware of it". He proposes to include it in "the list of 'minor offenses', alongside other similar forms of incivility."
Given that inadvertent incivility due to the limitations of the written medium is a constant problem, compounded by different senses of humor, a mild reminder (e.g. on that list of minor offenses) isn't necessarily inappropriate, pointing out that sarcasm can be misinterpreted and can be uncivil if too biting or if directed at a particular person.
On 10/10/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I asked more or less this question on the talk page just now, and the original proposer claims that it "is not a 'ban' on sarcasm per se", but rather "an explanation that sarcasm is a form of rudeness, as some people seem not to be aware of it". He proposes to include it in "the list of 'minor offenses', alongside other similar forms of incivility."
I note that he's reverted to his new version a few times against multiple dissent. Apparently sarcasm is much worse for the editing environment than actual bad editing practices.
In fairness to him, I must note that we already have a [[m:Don't be dense|<s>rule</s> guideline]] against stupidity, which has in fact abolished all stupidity on Wikipedia and therefore removed any possible motivation editors may have to resort to sarcasm, even in extremis.
- d.
Why do I read David's posts? Sure, he's one of the better writer on the listserv, and actually had interesting stuff to say, but there are other people who can string a few coherent words together, like Erik or Ray. But I'm not crazy enough to follow all the conversations here, so I pick and choose what I read. David's writing is funny, sarcastic and ironic. All indications that he has a brain and a sense of humour. Should be ban humour next? After all, someone may feel like they are being made the butt of a joke, and that would be so much worse for the morale of the project than would be the ban on humour.
Ian
Guettarda wrote:
Why do I read David's posts?
Sometimes I ask myself the same thing. Must be the liquor talking. Oh, wait...
<snip>
David's writing is funny, sarcastic and ironic. All indications that he has a brain and a sense of humour.
Note however that due to a lack of "humor" he may not be comprehensible by 'Merkins.
Should be ban humour next? After all, someone may feel like they are being made the butt of a joke, and that would be so much worse for the morale of the project than would be the ban on humour.
Golly, that's a bit harsh... or maybe you're not going far enough... why don't you just, er... make a militaristic anti-humour campaign? You could have badges and a logo and IRC channels and bots and everything!
Isn't the measure of the over-beaurocraticisation (forgive me this) of an organisation its loss of a sense of humour? See, eg. the British government.
On 10/10/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the measure of the over-beaurocraticisation (forgive me this) of an organisation its loss of a sense of humour? See, eg. the British government.
People say this sort of thing, but the people themselves seem to be otherwise. e.g. There's a stereotype of accountants as grey and dull, but all the accountants I know are goddamn weirdo *freaks*.
- d.
On 10/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the measure of the over-beaurocraticisation (forgive me this) of
an
organisation its loss of a sense of humour? See, eg. the British
government.
People say this sort of thing, but the people themselves seem to be otherwise. e.g. There's a stereotype of accountants as grey and dull, but all the accountants I know are goddamn weirdo *freaks*.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I was speaking on the level of the organisation, not the individuals who make it up - over-PC, fear of anything which might offend, quick to prosecute, &c.
I find it's the lion tamers that tend to be grey and dull.
On 10/10/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I was speaking on the level of the organisation, not the individuals who make it up - over-PC, fear of anything which might offend, quick to prosecute, &c.
I find it's the lion tamers that tend to be grey and dull.
From what I've seen of the British government, they're a riot. I mean,
come on, booing in the parliament! That's awesome! You should see how it is over here, it's all touchy-feely crap and bad architecture.
--Oskar
On 10/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I was speaking on the level of the organisation, not the individuals who make it up - over-PC, fear of anything which might offend, quick to prosecute, &c.
I find it's the lion tamers that tend to be grey and dull.
From what I've seen of the British government, they're a riot. I mean,
come on, booing in the parliament! That's awesome! You should see how it is over here, it's all touchy-feely crap and bad architecture.
Getting back to the original point, there's actually far more scope for sarcasm when you are forced to call someone "the honourable gentleman from foo". Sadly, they don't seem to utilise that opportunity as well as they might.
Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Guettarda stated for the record:
Getting back to the original point, there's actually far more scope for sarcasm when you are forced to call someone "the honourable gentleman from foo". Sadly, they don't seem to utilise that opportunity as well as they might.
Wasn't there a Congresscritter who became famous for a comment on the order of "my honorable opponent deserves to be kicked by a jackass, and I'm just the one to do it!"?
- -- Sean Barrett | Eight, sir; seven, sir; six, sir; five, sir; sean@epoptic.com | Four, sir; three, sir; two, sir; one! | Tenser, said the Tensor. Tenser, said the Tensor. | Tension, apprehension, and dissension have begun.
On 10/10/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Getting back to the original point, there's actually far more scope for sarcasm when you are forced to call someone "the honourable gentleman from foo". Sadly, they don't seem to utilise that opportunity as well as they might.
Ian
We do.Try reading the test templates sometime.
On 10/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Getting back to the original point, there's actually far more scope for sarcasm when you are forced to call someone "the honourable gentleman from foo". Sadly, they don't seem to utilise that opportunity as well as they might.
Ian
We do.Try reading the test templates sometime.
I have a feeling Ian was referring to the British House of Commons rather than Wikipedia...
In reply to the whole thread, the problem with banning sarcasm is that it would prevent a good proportion of British editors from editing at all. Sarcasm is not inherently impolite (though of course it *can* be) and is an absolutely crucial part of British humour and indeed regular speech.
On 11/10/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to the whole thread, the problem with banning sarcasm is that it would prevent a good proportion of British editors from editing at all. Sarcasm is not inherently impolite (though of course it *can* be) and is an absolutely crucial part of British humour and indeed regular speech.
See, that's just your imperialist thinking, trying to get one up on Johnny Foreigner by a warp in procedure to allow "humour" and not just humor. You can't fool Americans - they *know* King George III is still hiding out in Argentina. AND THEY WON'T REST UNTIL HE'S CAPTURED.
- d.
On 10/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
You should see how it is over here, it's all touchy-feely crap and bad architecture.
I don't suppose you've ever seen that Gothic revival monstrosity in the middle of London? ;)
[I cite this thread as an example of how humour can be beneficial to process.]
On 10/10/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
You should see how it is over here, it's all touchy-feely crap and bad architecture.
I don't suppose you've ever seen that Gothic revival monstrosity in the middle of London? ;)
[I cite this thread as an example of how humour can be beneficial to process.]
It can't possibly be any worse than the unfathomably ugly room that we call our Riksdag: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Riksdag_assembly_hall_2006.jpg
(note: it used to look even worse! )
The worst part is, it looks really nice from outside!
--Oskar
On 10/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I don't suppose you've ever seen that Gothic revival monstrosity in the middle of London? ;) [I cite this thread as an example of how humour can be beneficial to process.]
It can't possibly be any worse than the unfathomably ugly room that we call our Riksdag: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Riksdag_assembly_hall_2006.jpg
Wanna bet? [[Erotic gherkin]]
- d.
Oldak Quill wrote:
Isn't the measure of the over-beaurocraticisation (forgive me this) of an organisation its loss of a sense of humour? See, eg. the British government.
Wikipedia has reached this stage a long time ago with the introduction of humour warnings (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Humorantipolicy and others).
greetings, elian
On 10/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Note however that due to a lack of "humor" he may not be comprehensible by 'Merkins.
FLORIDA, Tuesday (Wikinews) — In a move to enhance the civility of the editing environment on top-10 collaborative social networking site Wikipedia, sarcasm has been banned from all Wikipedia editing spaces as incivil.
"I was voicing my strong disapproval of a bad policy, as it was obvious that the proponents were absolutely acting as Hitler would have," said editor Harrison Bergeron. "Then they started quoting Uncyclopedia article web addresses at me! Even after I'd alerted them to their violation of Godwin's law! Well. That sort of thing is unacceptable. It creates a bad working environment for everyone. We obviously needed a new rule immediately."
Wikipedia God-King Jimbo Lear was quick to back the move. "We already have a guideline against stupidity, which actually worked to abolish all stupidity on Wikipedia and therefore removed any reasonable motivation editors may have had to resort to sarcasm, even in cases of extreme provocation, as all editors are now extremely clueful and on the ball."
The move has been hailed in vigorous, blunt, strident, robust and bold tones by many Wikipedians.
"I must say, I'm glad I have this rule to helpfully point out to those rude assholes whenever they tell me that some say that critics hold my writing to be excessively verbose, convoluted, overly redundant and also tautological as well," said an editor who deleted his name from the original version of this page. "They should just shut the fuck up."
Wikipedia User:JSwift1729 was quick to add important proposals against other antisocial behaviour on the wiki, such as smarminess, passive aggression, satire and humour. Humor is also under consideration. "It's really helpful that we can change people's thoughts, opinions and behaviour by changing text on a policy page," Swift modestly said. "We're also looking into banning smarty-pants, people who assume bad faith by saying that a deletion nominator needs to learn about the world outside Google, and people who make the grossly offensive personal attack of saying that Michael Crichton novels and Rush Limbaugh radio shows aren't as good reference sources on global warming as peer-reviewed scientific papers. And it's against neutrality, too. After we're done with them, we'll be taking on the people who think they're better writers than others."
Some have resisted the changes. "Fortunately," said Bergeron, "edit-warring the policy page back to my consensus version put paid to them. Edit-warring is considerably less damaging to editing than saying something someone thinks is mean. Your rights end where my feelings begin. We're building a social networking site here."
==Sources==
* Harrison Bergeron "Mommy! He was *mean* when I called him a Nazi!". WT:BLP, October 8, 2006 * Harrison Bergeron "No, really! *Really* mean! Punch the *shit* out of him, Mommy!". WT:CIVIL, October 9, 2006
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Online_encyclopedia_Wikipedia_bans_sarca...
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 10/10/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I asked more or less this question on the talk page just now, and the original proposer claims that it "is not a 'ban' on sarcasm per se", but rather "an explanation that sarcasm is a form of rudeness, as some people seem not to be aware of it". He proposes to include it in "the list of 'minor offenses', alongside other similar forms of incivility."
I note that he's reverted to his new version a few times against multiple dissent. Apparently sarcasm is much worse for the editing environment than actual bad editing practices.
In fairness to him, I must note that we already have a [[m:Don't be dense|<s>rule</s> guideline]] against stupidity, which has in fact abolished all stupidity on Wikipedia and therefore removed any possible motivation editors may have to resort to sarcasm, even in extremis.
It's comforting to know that we have a rule which protects the proposer of the anti-sarcasm rule from being stupid. :-)
Ec
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 10/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#The_use_of_sarcasm
It may be bad practice, but making a rule is nonsensical. Unless smarminess and passive aggression are to be made blockable offences.
My god, this sounds like an Onion article:
"Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia bans sarcasm"
From the article:
"... In a comment wikipedia user Jonathan Swift claims that satire should be next..."
Look, if a wikipedia user is uncivil, he's uncivil. We are all relatively intelligent people, we know when a person is uncivil, whether he uses hyperbole, sarcasm, satire, iambic pentameter, or whatever. A blanket ban on sarcasm seems outrageously misguided.
I mean, show me an example of a user that's mean in a sarcastic way. Doesn't that ALREADY fall under WP:CIVIL? Talk about instruction creep.
--Oskar
I think this is a F$Cking BRILLIANT idea!!!! :-|
SKL
David Gerard wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#The_use_of_sarcasm
It may be bad practice, but making a rule is nonsensical. Unless smarminess and passive aggression are to be made blockable offences.
For some of our literalists, almost anything can be viewed as sarcasm. They don't even understand irony. :-D
Ec