User:Animum/WP:POINT and its uses
|This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.|
WP:POINT – we've all read it, heard of it, or seen it thrown across the room at someone else at one point or another, and while it does have many good applications, such as prohibiting other people from wasting our time for frivolous reasons, many misconstrue it to mean that any argumentative tactic that illustrates a point well, such as reductio ad absurdum, is disruptive and should not be used, when in reality, more often than not, the user who accuses another of violating the guideline just wants to ignore what the other is saying. There is a difference (note that I couldn't think of any other scenario, so assume I'm neutral with respect to this issue):
- Assume, or the sake of argument, that I were a steward and desysopped all underage admins because anyone who isn't an adult shouldn't be an admin.
- That's both stupid and a violation of the guideline.
- Assume that someone suggests that all underage admins should be desysopped because non-adults shouldn't be sysops, all to show that they indeed can make fine admins.
- If you object both to mass desysopping and to making teens sysops, it shows that they make fine administrators and exemplifies flaws in your thinking.
So, if you accuse someone of breaching the guideline when they're not, please don't: What the other person is doing is not a WP:POINT violation, and going so far as to go through the trouble of commenting to say that you think it is, is much more of one.