Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

[[Category:Wikipedia {{{1}}}s|Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]]

Background

There are two unusual aspects of Wikipedia culture that often lead to misunderstandings:

• Wikipedia is inconsistent
• Wikipedia tolerates certain activities that it does not condone

The nature of consensus editing, combined with editor churn, means that Wikipedia is not consistent. Where there are two or more equally correct ways of handling matters, and no consensus or guideline has been established, Wikipedia tolerates inconsistency except where it creates some sort of practical problem. For example:

• Spelling using either American English or other forms of English is accepted. Articles written using one spelling should not be changed to use the other. However, where spellings are mixed in the same article, a practical problem of readability is created, and so spelling is unified within the article.
• There are naming conventions for article titles, because inconsistency creates a practical problem in that articles are harder to find and the likelihood of creation of duplicate articles increases.
• Implementation of deletion policy is not consistently applied to marginally suitable articles. The vote-based nature of the deletion process results in decisions affected by the mix of people following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion during any given week. Consequently, some articles that are deleted are arguably more meritorious than others that have been kept. Since marginally useful articles are indeed of marginal value, this doesn't create a practical problem.

Understanding the inconsistent nature of Wikipedia and accepting it as a desirable thing inherent in the processes and values of the project helps relieve Wikistress and limits the temptation to make disruptive edits.

Another core value at Wikipedia is that many undesired editing practices are tolerated even though they are not condoned. For example:

• You can make three reverts in 24 hours on a given article. But more than one revert indicates something is badly wrong and in need of resolution; three in 24 hours is the absolute tolerated maximum.

State your point; don't prove it experimentally

Civil disobedience is the practice of violating laws which the individual holds to be bad laws. Ulysses S. Grant said in his inaugural address that he was going to enforce laws strictly, since that would lead to the repeal of bad laws. This proposed policy is opposed to both of these practices: instead it proposes that discussion rather than unilateral action is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with these policies. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the wikipedia itself proofs that the rule does not work, and that system administrators should not apply rules in a vindictive or excessive fashion in order to demonstrate the potential for abuse.

In the past, many contributors have found their Wikistress levels rising, particularly when an issue important to them has been handled in a way they consider unfair. The contributor may point out inconsistencies, perhaps citing other cases that have been handled differently. And the contributor may postulate: "What if everyone did that?" - a common rhetorical technique. These devices may not persuade for the reasons cited above.

In this situation, it may be tempting to illustrate the point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy the contributor objects to. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up after the "proof". Many consider such "point-proving" acts to be vandalism.

In general, such illustrative edits are not well-received and are hardly ever effective tools of persuasion. They simply come off as spiteful or vengeful, because, between the moment you edit the page and the moment someone notices you did there might exist a large window in which readers will be reading your point instead of the article. Wikipedians on the whole are are not especially prone to hebetude or cluelessness, and do not need to have arguments illustrated ad absurdum in order to understand them. Points are best expressed directly, without irony or indirection. That is the best way to garner respect, agreement and support.

To state this guideline most simply: Don't argue for things you don't actually want done.

Examples

• If somebody suggests that Wikipedia become a majority-rule democratic community...
  • do point out that it is entirely possible for Wikipedians to create sock puppets and vote more than once.
  • don't create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you.
• If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion...
  • do make your case clearly on VfD, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying.
  • don't create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on VfD.
• If someone lists one of your favourite articles on VfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles...
  • do argue vehemently on VfD in favour of your article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples.
  • don't list hundreds of non-deletable articles on VfD in one day in order to try to save your own.
• If articles you've started always end up on VfD...
  • do reconsider whether the things you're writing about really are deserving of Wikipedia articles.
  • don't start creating silly articles just to see how long it will take for someone to VfD them.
• If someone deletes information about a person you consider important from an article, calling it unimportant...
  • do argue on the article's talk page for the person's inclusion, pointing out that other information about people is included in the article.
  • don't delete all the information about any person from the article, calling it unimportant.
• If you feel that a particular attack should not be called "terrorist"...
  • do argue on the article's talk page that the term "terrorist" is POV and should be removed.
  • don't add the word "terrorist" to articles on dozens of other incidents, which a small minority of people believe constitute "terrorism".

If you must...

If after reading this you are still adamant in your desire to pursue a campaign of illustrative editing to demonstrate your point (as you might if your attempts at reasoned discussion have failed), please do so in a responsible fashion that minimizes the ill effects of your campaign. Bear in mind these key points:

• Think through your edits for a while before enacting them. If applicable, wait until you're sober.
• Don't disrupt frequently viewed pages, such as the main page, featured articles, or popular topics.
• Don't create undue work for others. Limit your campaign to, at most, a few pages.
• Make your campaign transparent. If there is doubt about which of your edits were in good faith and which were for rhetorical purposes, clarify this once your point has been made.
• Stop your campaign once your point is made. Don't engage in an edit war to save content you added for rhetorical reasons. People can still see what you did in the page history, and you can link to an old version of the page if you wish to draw attention to it from a talk page.
• Clean up after yourself, reverting content and listing pages for deletion as necessary once you're done making your point.
• Like leaving a restaurant without tipping in societies where tipping is customary, doing this often makes it clear that you're a boor.

Hoaxes

On a related note, please don't attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Some Wikipedians suspect that the majority of hoaxes here are attempts to test the system; in other words, the people who try to detect the problem are in fact creating it in the process. If you're interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a less destructive test method is to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and check to see how long they have been in place.

A final point

The fact that disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point is frowned upon does not mean that disrupting Wikipedia for other reasons is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Vandalism.