Wikipedia:Don't be prejudiced: Difference between revisions
Dayewalker (talk | contribs) I disagree. |
rewording for clarity without changing content |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{nutshell|[[WP:AGF|Assume good faith]] and give every user a fair chance}} |
{{nutshell|[[WP:AGF|Assume good faith]] and give every user a fair chance}} |
||
As editors, we see a lot of different personalities and modus operandis. We see many similarities and differences between editors. Sometimes we even see users who are [[WP:Sockpuppetry|too similar]]. Sometimes our experiences with certain users can make us [[prejudice]] and [[stereotypical]]. Although it's not technically against policy in itself to be [[prejudice]], it is |
As editors, we see a lot of different personalities and modus operandis. We see many similarities and differences between editors. Sometimes we even see users who are [[WP:Sockpuppetry|too similar]]. Sometimes our experiences with certain users can make us [[prejudice]] and [[stereotypical]]. Although it's not technically against policy in itself to be [[prejudice]], it is at odds with the aims of this project and can conflict with the goals of the project. It is always important to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that ''anyone can edit''. |
||
Prejudice is sometimes based on editors' editing style, political views, religious belief, age, gender, ethnicity, location, interests, employment, clique, or other personal details. Sometimes |
Prejudice is sometimes based on what other perceive in an editors' editing style, political views, religious belief, age, gender, ethnicity, location, interests, employment, clique, or other personal details. Sometimes intentions are obvious; [[WP:DUCK|blatant sockpuppets]] and [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandals]] who have been adequately warned have already been given a fair chance and should be dealt with appropriately. Similarily, [[NPOV]] issues should be handled accordingly. However, we should otherwise give all users a fair chance and not jump to conclusions; [[WP:AGF]] is one of Wikipedias most important principals. It is also important that we remember that even the worst vandals may decide to change their ways and edit constructively. |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 17:07, 9 January 2010
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Assume good faith and give every user a fair chance |
As editors, we see a lot of different personalities and modus operandis. We see many similarities and differences between editors. Sometimes we even see users who are too similar. Sometimes our experiences with certain users can make us prejudice and stereotypical. Although it's not technically against policy in itself to be prejudice, it is at odds with the aims of this project and can conflict with the goals of the project. It is always important to assume good faith and that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Prejudice is sometimes based on what other perceive in an editors' editing style, political views, religious belief, age, gender, ethnicity, location, interests, employment, clique, or other personal details. Sometimes intentions are obvious; blatant sockpuppets and vandals who have been adequately warned have already been given a fair chance and should be dealt with appropriately. Similarily, NPOV issues should be handled accordingly. However, we should otherwise give all users a fair chance and not jump to conclusions; WP:AGF is one of Wikipedias most important principals. It is also important that we remember that even the worst vandals may decide to change their ways and edit constructively.