 |
This page in a nutshell: When you have a point to make, use direct discussion rather than parody. |
When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.
Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If direct discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.
Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics.
Like most guidelines on Wikipedia, this rule is not absolute and there exist special cases where disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is acceptable. One notable case is the Wikipedia blackout of January 18th, 2012, where the point to be made was deemed to be sufficiently important.[1][2] Extreme caution is urged when considering disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
[edit] Examples
- If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion...
- do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion.
- do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale
- If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it...
- do participate in the discussion, basing your argument on policies and guidelines.
- do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic, with hopes that others will make the same arguments for deletion.
- If someone deletes from an article "unimportant" information which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...
- do explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusion
- do not delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant".
- If you think someone unfairly removed a reference to a self-published source...
- do explain why the use of the source in question was appropriate in that instance, or find a reliable third-party published source for the information
- do not summarily remove all references to sources which appear to be self-published
- If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content...
- do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source
- do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced
- If you feel that it is too easy to add misinformation to Wikipedia...
- do watch recent changes and fact-check anything that looks at all suspicious
- do not create an elaborate hoax with hopes of getting publicity for it
- If you feel that a particular source does not meet Wikipedia standards...
- do express your concerns on the talk pages of articles which cite it, or at the reliable sources noticeboard
- do not add even more references to the source, with hopes of provoking opposition to its use
- If you think that this list of examples has become excessively long and boring...
- do opine that the guideline's purpose would remain clear even if half of the examples were deleted
- do not add 47 more examples just to show that people won't actually read such lists
[edit] Important note
A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it. As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which he or she does not really agree with, for the purpose of discrediting a policy or interpretation thereof.
[edit] References
[edit] See also
|
|
|
| Overview |
|
|
| Project-wide principles |
|
|
| Core content policies |
|
|
| Other content policies |
|
|
| Content guidelines |
|
|
| Behavioural policies |
|
|
| Behavioural guidelines |
|
|
| Editing guidelines |
|
|
| Style conventions |
|
|
| Classification guidelines |
|
|
| Wikimedia Foundation |
|
|
|
|
|
