Wikipedia talk:No angry mastodons: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:30, 31 December 2006

Welcome to the discussion

Opposing view section

[I will do my best to cite the following, even if I have to go to a real library with real books, should citations become appropriate--TJ]

Books on popular psychology, and classes in intervention and anger management, stress the technique of restating the other party's point of view in neutral terms. Properly done, this reassures the other party that the doer is really listening and thinking about the issues, and is trying to have a useful confrontation (or even a rational discussion) rather than a destructive argument.

OTOH, arguing intimates have two large advantages:

A large investment (they are literally in bed with one another), and
The presence of body language and other non-verbal cues to help with their interpretation of each other.

The foregoing suggests these points:

The neutral-restatement technique is worth learning. The good news is that it's not that hard.
Given only written text, we must apply the technique with extreme delicacy and politeness, or what would be extreme in face-to-face conversation. This is an extension of e-mail etiquette: e-mailers who know each other can often read between the lines and avoid misunderstandings; strangers must be more formally polite and circumspect.

One good restatement technique is illustrated below. To use it, just

Start with a polite introduction;
Give the restatement;
End with a request for feedback.

"Let me see if I understand your meaning. You think it saves money to wash dishes in the dishwasher because that uses less hot water to clean a batch of dishes than a person at a sink would use. Is that your point?"

The skill of neutral restatement is very close to the (absolutely necessary) skill of NPOV article-writing. Avoid loaded terms. Translate jargon into common language. Don't be afraid to ask. [Did I get this right?]

Mastering this technique helps to avoid some common mistakes. For instance, there is a very human tendency to construct straw man arguments for opinions one disagrees with. A notable example is feminism, which often gets characterized in negative terms by people who are not themselves feminists. Editors who hold opposing views can collaborate toward a balanced and neutral article by each contributing a good presentation for their own side, so long as neither constitutes original research.

A related mistake is to speculate about the intellectual capacity or the mental health of other editors. People do not rise to their best selves when they are reminded of their worst selves or accused of faults they do not possess. Editors who make these accusations exhibit poor self control. Leave the angry mastodons in the ice age and focus on the article.

Finally, no technique works every time. It can be hard for people to do justice to opinions they disagree with. Edit wars can start when one party thinks they understand both sides, but actually mischaracterizes key aspects of the opposition. The opposing side's assumption of good faith soon expires if the problem persists. It is time to step back if other editors respond with, "That's not what I said," or "Please stop putting words in my mouth."

Discussion

[This is a start. If you like it, I might try to fold in your remarks on things to avoid (like straw men), under the "learning" point. Let me know (here is fine). Best wishes, --TJ 14:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to include a few specific tips on the right way to do this. For instance, by offering a brief introduction and an invitation to feedback. "Let me see if I understand your meaning. You think it saves money to wash dishes in the dishwasher because they use less hot water to clean a batch of dishes than a person at a sink would use. Is that your point?" Durova 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are so on the same wavelength. I have refactored slightly, and "taken the text home" (downloaded it) to work without server stress. Probably back tomorrow AM (EST).--TJ 20:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to leave your last paragraph last, but this is how the logic worked out. You wrote such a lovely concluding sentence for that paragraph. Do you have time to do it again? This needs more grace. Your writing has a lot of grace; mine, but a little.

After that (and anything else you'd care to discuss), ~~I propose that we substitute the above text for the existing "Be considerate of the opposing view" section.~~--TJ 12:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs stuff. Will research & return.--TJ 00:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Mastodons

You know, the first time someone does get trampled because they were busy editing and didn't see the angry mastodon coming down the street and barreling into their house, the author of this entry is going to feel very silly.

On the other hand, if it never happens, I'll look silly instead. As long as it saves people from such a gruesome death as being trampled by angry mastodons, however, I'm willing to live with that.

~Kylu (u|t) 05:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- hmm.. mastodonts are very easy to avoid. How about.. Angry Sable tooth Tigers? 81.70.252.138 05:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so certain that mastodons would have been that easy to avoid. When I was in Thailand an elephant sneaked up behind me and almost stole a bunch of bananas I had left on the ground. I saved the bananas only because I happened to turn around: three ton animals can move quietly. :) Durova 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, mastodons are extinct, as far as I know. -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 01:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, you say that now, but maybe it's because you've always just happened to look the wrong way when they run past! (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

That shortcut, NAM, invokes too much of the warlike past.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 11:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I think deleting the shortcut based on acronym similarity in this case is ridiculous. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard not to take offense at the word ridiculous. Maybe that's because I am typing this at 5 in the morning; big grin. At any rate, NAM does not mean anything to the average person, and to one who lived through the difficult times of the Vietnam era, the word doesn't many anything except Vietnam, much as frag means tossing a hand grenade in the general direction of your lieutenant or captain. In my small and pitiful opinion it is not a useful abbreviation and, in my further sleep-deprived opinion, it is considerably offensive in its own right. I am deleting it on those grounds, and I sincerely hope it will stay deleted lest I feel inclined to toss a grenade or two. (Hey, another big grin, OK?)

Sincerely, and in great good faith, GeorgeLouis 12:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I used improper verbiage. Here's the problem: this is a good abbreviation for the article name, and shortcuts are just handy quick links. If you object to the shortcut, at least discuss it with the community first, since it's already in heavy use. If you can find a WikiProject Vietnam or something that this would be a better link for, then I'd say that would be a good argument for your perspective. Otherwise, you can't just ban the usage of it because it reminds you of something. Not everyone likes WP:BALLS and WP:DICK either, for example, but they're valid and heavily-used shortcuts. On the slippery slope, one could also extend this disapproval to a lot of different shortcut abbreviations (particularly the one-letter ones), although I see your point and it's not invalid. The main thing is, this needs to be discussed a little bit, and if you want to create the new WP:KEEPCOOL shortcut, then the page for it needs to be made. The link on the article page here is just a link; it doesn't itself create the shortcut.
Thank you for being so humble and civil. The community needs more of that (and maybe I need to work on it as well). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, okay, maybe I'm a liar about it being in heavy use. I'm not sure the fact that not a lot of articles link to it is disproval of my statement, though. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we compromise and put it up at redirects for deletion? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add a comment, it seems the NAM/'Nam association mostly resonates with U.S. citizens from a certain era. Since fewer than 10 pages do link this way perhaps it would be good to cut and paste new links from them? My main concern about the acronym shortcut was that it could give this essay the superficial appearance of a policy. A shortcut that uses the word mastodons would be more in keeping with the spirit of the piece. Durova 13:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but there are a lot of pages using short redirects like that that aren't policy – many of which will be in the future.
Sorry, what exactly did you mean about cutting and pasting new links? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was checking last week I saw a contentious talk page where someone mentioned the NAM shortcut in the middle of a list of policies and guidelines. To keep the NAM links from turning into redlinks, just go to the "what links here" at the toolbox on the far left of this screen, look for the NAM shortcut links, and paste some other link onto that text - so they'll still go to this essay. There were only 7 pages today, so it ought to be quick and easy for whoever deletes the shortcut. Durova 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as for WP:BALLS and WP:DICK, they certainly lend an air of juvenalia to Wikipedia (of which this place does not need more), as does, if you will pardon me, WP:CHILL. I am exercising my second reversion on NAM, both on the basis of the reasoning stated before (reference to the Vietnam War) and for the reason that the word is simply a collection of letters that will not be easily remembered by the average user.

However, I will grant you WP:CHILL (for those users who are under 30 or just want to show they are up to date on American slang) if you will grant me WP:KEEPCOOL, which is an expression commonly used by the fossils among us, and I don't mean mastodon bones. I'm sorry, but I don't have a clue how to create a page by that name, with the redirects and all, but if nobody else wants to do it, I will parse it out somehow, some time.

Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHILL led to another page until the other day. I really haven't had anything to do with the shortcuts (and feel rather flattered to see people make them). Durova 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHILL previously redirected to Wikipedia:The World Will Not End Tomorrow. In my opinion, it is a far better fit for the content here at "No angry mastodons." Also, the shortcut is not in heavy use, mainly in old AfD discussions, so moving it really didn't affect much. So I moved it. Since it isn't a new redirect, moving it here doesn't much impact the existing level of "juvenalia," if that's what you call the language of a middle aged man such as myself (most definitely not under 30). WP:KEEPCOOL sounds fine to me, if no one else does it first, I can create it later tonight when I have bit more time. dryguy 20:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dryguy, thanks for creating the redirect. GeorgeLouis, if you want, we can bring the issue of whether to delete WP:NAM to a consensus through an RFD. I really feel like that it should be left on since it is a functional redirect. If the community votes to delete it, then that's the appropriate time to remove it from the shortcuts list, I think. I can go ahead and list it if desired. In the meantime, I won't put the redirect back on the article page. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and opened up the RFD. Please let me know if you have any objections.
(GeorgeLouis, thanks for being so jovial and polite about this, by the way.) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This shorcut survived RfD, so there is no reason to not list it here. If you disagree, I'm not the one to take your fight up with—see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 8#WP:NAM → Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. BigNate37_(T) 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New essay

In response to the expert rebellion/expert retention issue I've written my second Wikipedia essay, Wikipedia:Light one candle.

It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. - Chinese proverb

Welcoming responses and improvements. Durova 16:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit.

The population of angry mastodons just tripled. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 23:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 Welcoming responses and improvements. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 16:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
+== Dammit. ==
+[[Stephen Colbert|The population of angry mastodons just tripled]]. o'''[[User:Otherone|THE]]'''r'''[[User Talk:Otherone|ONE]]''' <sub>([[Special:Contributions/Otherone|Contribs]])</sub> 23:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)