User:Lexein/Don't say "violate"

The goal of this essay is to persuade editors to change common use of a word, in order to make the environment of editing Wikipedia a more pleasant and rewarding experience.

Use "against" instead

Limit usage of "violate" to extreme or blatant circumstances. Increase usage of "against (policy/guideline/discussion)" in discussions and edit summaries, since it infers an action against consensus, from which most policies/guidelines/discussions stem. It's understandable to be assertive, in an attempt to stamp out what appears to be bad behavior early, but consider etiquette. In cases of bold, revert, discuss, be explanatory, not accusatory or demanding. Be specific when referring to policy or guideline: link to specific sections, and even quote specific sentences, with context, if it will help an editor understand what they did which was against a guideline.

Rationale

At Wikipedia, violates (guideline), and violation (of pillar), are words to avoid in many (but not all) policies, guidelines, manuals of style, essays, edit summaries, and discussions for several reasons:

1. Limited application:
   • "Violate" directly applies in the context of law, like copyright and WP:BLP, and indirectly to some behavioral policies like WP:CIVIL.
   • "Violate" directly applies to egregious behavior which may require blocking or even banning of an editor.
2. Incongruity: In general, per WP:Five pillars#5, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". It has policies and guidelines, the majority of which stem from community consensus. The notion of "violating consensus" is incongruous and inappropriately forceful.
3. Falsifies the pillar: "Violates" cements policies, guidelines, style guides and essays, as firm rules as if they have the strength of law, in the mind of a so-chastened editor. This undermines the spirit and letter of WP:Five Pillars#5.
4. Forces a misconception: It extends the illusion that there is an "administration" responsible for "rules", when really, mostly, it's just us, by consensus (excluding law-related matters like copyright, libel, etc., as indicated above). This misconception persists in IRC and Help discussions on a daily basis, and leads to confusion, undue deference, and distrust of an apparent vast bureaucracy which does not exist.
5. No such thing: Its root implies violence, harm, and damage, to which most edits on Wikipedia do not, and cannot, rise. Statistically, good-faith edit rarely violate anything sufficiently to rise to the level of requiring blocking or banning of an editor.
6. Pointy: The use of "violates" is overstatement for effect, and usually provocative, so its use can be considered uncivil. It substantially contributes to unconstructive dialog, may impede WP:editor retention, and goes against WP:Don't bite the newcomers. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and slamming an editing error with "violates" is not helpful.
7. Devalued: Overuse of the word "violate" devalues it. Some things are violations, but most things just aren't.
8. Against etiquette: The notion that only "violates" gets people's attention discards most of WP:etiquette, and assumes bad faith of editors who make editing goofs. "Against consensus" is more true, and more in keeping with the spirit of the Five Pillars, than "violates rule", especially for those editors who aren't egregious violators, and who simply don't need strong measures.
9. Appropriate level of force: Our warning templates start by assuming good faith, but increase in severity for those cases in which behavior persists or worsens. Even antivandalism bots are more polite than to declare "violating rules" at first offense.

Arguments in favor of "violate"

1. An opposing editor has written, "In English, "violate" is a common way to describe things not in accordance to rules, legal or otherwise: parking violation, traffic violation, rules violation in sports, etiquette violation, dress code violation, protocol violation, access violation in computers, etc etc etc etc. Wikipedia DOES have rules and it's very much possible to violate them--accounts are blocked, banned, and otherwise sanctioned for rules violations all the time."[1]

   Counterargument: As stated previously, "violates" is perfectly acceptable when applied where actual damage can be perceived to have been done. Edit goofs should not be interpreted as such damage. This essay proposes only a reduction in inappropriate use of the word "violates".

2. The influx of bad edits from IP editors and newly-registered editors is completely overwhelming; there's no time to bother with courtesy.

   Counterargument: The widespread automated tools available to address those bad edits are already courteous, and/or don't use the word "violate". Recent Change patrollers should set up their manual tools and scripts to use "against X" language as well. Then they'll never have to type that word, if they don't want to.

Explanation of "falsifies the pillar"

Consider these two questions:

1. Of the Five Pillars, is pillar #5 ("Wikipedia does not have firm rules") false?
2. Is pillar #5 being made to appear false, by the treatment of many things which should not be considered firm rules, as firm rules?

Using the word "violates" cements policies, guidelines, style guides and essays, in the minds of so-chastened editors, as firm rules, as if they have the strength of law. This undermines, or falsifies, the spirit and letter of the pillar, as a consequence of the position which insists on "violate".

Analogies

Putting a fork on the wrong side of the plate is not a violation of etiquette. Most of the time, so-called "violations" at Wikipedia amount to nothing worse than a misplaced fork, whether deliberate or accidental. No violence or damage occurred: it's trivially fixed with an edit, in most cases.

Wikipedia is unique. It lets people figuratively drive the car immediately, before getting any driver training. The good thing is, even their worst good-faith crashes (not obvious vandalism) don't break anything that a revert with an instructional (helpful) edit summary can't fix. "Violation" figuratively throws editors in jail first, when they could instead be diverted to WP:HELP, training, or the WP:Teahouse. This is not about tough love, it's about sticking to the foundational principles, and being courteous and generous.