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.
Strange then that 99% of the people on the talk page
for "no personal
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.
Also, there is no Wikipedia policy against hurting
People usually prefer to work in an environment in which they are not
exposed to things that hurt their feelings. It is normally considered an
unwritten rule of society to avoid hurting other people's feelings (this
is called "civility"). It is also normally considered an unwritten rule
to avoid personal attacks -- but since we have had contributors in the
past who apparently didn't know this, we have created the page
[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]].
The policy is against personal attacks only, whether
or not it hurts
someone's feelings is entirely irrelevent.
Not really -- the policy was set up precisely *because* personal attacks
hurt people's feelings and therefore make Wikipedia a less enjoyable
Now following your premise, we can *never* criticize
Wikipedian again without using totally politically correct,
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...
You couldn't accuse someone of being a troll
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. (I'm restricting myself
to people who have been on the Internet enough to know what a "troll" is
in the Internet sense.) Nevertheless, many people often feel justified
in using this personal attack against people on the mailing list,
especially when most other participants on the mailing list agree with
them. This does not mean that it is the right thing to do.
to belong to the 1% of people who have a low EQ
(empathisation quotient) which enables him to comment in an insulting
way without realising the effect it has on other people, solemnly
believing that he's "only telling the truth". Most of the abusive
ranters I see on this list are like that.
Your accusation of me being abusive
There was no accusation of you being abusive. You're reading too much
and having a low EQ hurts my feelings.
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.
Ooops, I guess that puts you in that 1% too!
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. I never said this either. (In fact, personally, I find people with a
low SQ much worse ;-) but fortunately, they're rare on Wikipedia!)
Now this is a very good
example of hypocrisy, he just got done saying that "personal attacks"
(as in applying a label to someone's behavior) is wrong, then just
proceeded to do it himself right now!
Whether something is a "personal attack" is often a subjective thing --
some people might not object to being called a hypocrite, while others
do. Similarly, some people may or may not object to having their low EQ
pointed out to them. I didn't expect that you would consider it a
personal attack, as I would not have thought that you would consider a
low EQ a bad thing.
Unfortunately, there is no deterministic algorithm that universally
classifies any statement as either a "personal attack" or not. For
someone with such a strong tendency towards systematisation rather than
empathisation, such an algorithm would be very useful, almost essential.
But alas, it doesn't exist. Given that Wikipedians tend to be human
beings with feelings, it is nevertheless necessary to get a feel for it
if you want to interact with them in a civil and pleasant way...
one of those online communities that tend to attract these
kinds of people, so the percentage of them is higher here than in the
general population. Unfortunately, even, these kinds of people tend to
be more dedicated editors, since high-EQ people tend to have more of a
Wow, you just attacked me by saying I don't have a life, where does
the hypocrisy end?
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.
Once you start
to try defining "personal attack", you'll begin to
realise how hard it is; then maybe you'll begin to understand how hard
it must be for someone who doesn't have the intuitive ability to
classify remarks as "personal attacks".
Well you don't seem to have an intuitive ability to do it either,
since you just engaged in several "personal attacks" against me. You
even proceded to call the many people on the "no personal attacks"
talk page low EQ having, abusive people for wanting a definition.
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. The average SQ is probably correspondingly higher, hence why
people are seeking clarification (in the form of a deterministic
algorithm) of what constitutes a "personal attack".
Also, since you're such a fan of logic, surely you will understand that
just because I said that most of the abusive people on the mailing list
seem to have a low EQ, it doesn't follow that everyone with a low EQ
must automatically be abusive. So no, I didn't call anyone "abusive"
except for those people that are abusive.
Apparently, Timwi is one of the great enlightened ones
better than those obviously inferior people on the talk page who agree
with me that it's not clear what constitutes a personal attack.
It is pretty obvious that most people know better than you what
constitutes a personal attack, but I didn't say that I was one of them.
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.
In any case, if you're relying on
"intuition" it means that you're
probably not relying on logic, which is a very, VERY bad thing when
you're talking about a policy. If a policy can't be based on logic,
then it shouldn't exist.
Yes, this is the stereotypical systematiser's thinking. Rules and
policies must be based on precise, defined axioms. They must be logical,
structured, deterministic, predictable, and algorithmic. I normally tend
to agree with that. 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.
I understand that in your mind this makes the policy quite unfair: how
can you follow a rule that is unpredictable? Well, you see, even the
empathisers make mistakes: they sometimes accidentally insult each
other. But their empathisation skills (usually) make them aware of it
after the fact, and they tell them that they should apologise, even if
their original statement was true, to alleviate the other person's hurt
feelings. And then the other person's empathisation skills will tell
them that the first person is really sorry and didn't mean to hurt their
feelings. Then they can be friends again. And both have learnt a lesson!
The next time the same person won't make the same mistake again because
now they know that the relevant statement can be taken as an insult.
That said, it IS possible to define it if you are an
thinker with a high IQ.
Only if the thing you are trying to define is something purely
objective, which unfortunately the issue of personal attacks isn't.
I also love your assumption that personal attacks
should be defined in
terms of how hurt people's feelings are rather than how
counter-productive they are to Wikipedia.
The two things are strongly correlated.