Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Don't-give-a-fuckism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DGAF templates up for deletion again

England?

The allegation that the phrase "can't be arsed" originates from North West England is rather odd, since it's long been a Scotticism. I'd change it, but I canna be arsed :-/ ...dave souza, talk 17:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ach, still no change. Time for a boring template.. dave souza, talk 19:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Detachment

Some minor copy edits, mostly to prompt a turn away from over-use of the 'apathy' concept, to something less passive-aggressive: detachment. To say that I hope this meets with the approval of others is to admit that I do slightly give a fuck. JNW (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Being Bold!

I am going to be bold and place a {{humor}} tag on this article. If anyone disagrees please remove it, I don't give a fuck. Mww113 (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have very strong feelings, bordering on fanaticism, on this subject and removed the tag again. --Yooden ☮
the humor tag helps innoculate the essay against the MfD that happen every so often. It is quite useful. Besides, if you are fanatic about this essay, then in a zennish sort of way, you aren't following it. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I can see the usefulness. I don't get deletionists, but we don't have to waste time on them unless necessary. <ponder/>
Also, here are some tags for you: <irony></irony> Spread gently on the affected area. --Yooden ☮

FUNNY, BUT...

This is actually really hilarious but it belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aedhelbrand (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's where it came from. It should be the first thing to be deleted once the servers start falling over and the foundation money runs out, because it won't be got rid of any other way. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

can't be arsed: Can we just say it might have come from either, and remove the {{fact}} tag?

It's gonna be real hard for y'all to come up with a reliable source.. but that's OK 'cause this is an essay, not an article. It doesn't need to be accurate! Can we just say it might have come from either, and remove the {{fact}} tag? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. It's not as if it's the first time the Scotch have ended up taking some credit for an invention not their own. --Sugarbutty 10:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. "Although the origins of this phrase are shrouded in mystery, presumably because no one could be arsed to write it all down somewhere..." Ling.Nut (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Whit a stooshie aboot naethin' ;) Thanks for resolving the issue, dave souza, talk 12:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Something you can understand

I know this has already been discussed at length, but I feel that I can put this in a way you people can understand. It may be entertaining to you to use the word 'fuck' in the title of your essay, but there are children who log onto wiki... you know, fuck it. I just don't give a fuck. 12.192.132.130 (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, fuck should be the least of your worries on Wikipedia, considoring we allow A-rated pornographic pictures. --eric (mailbox) 01:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There are fucking worse things than the word fuck on Wikipedia. I love this talk page. --mboverload@ 03:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename to "Don't give a fuck"

I think the current article's name is just playing around what it is meant to say: "Wikipedia:Don't give a fuck". The current name is quite awkward. By changing it to "Don't give a fuck" you signal that this page is for real and it's going to stay; it's not playing with the rules.

This page has been here for years and it is not going to be deleted. Can we move it to the proper name? Although I don't give a fuck, I do care what you think.--mboverload@ 03:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose and wish for even better. I was tempted to put a wp:fuck user box on my user page but even so I don't have a problem with "the F-word" and cursing in general, I would prefer more neutral language for it. "Don't-give-a-fuckism" is way more appealing to me and therefore would prefer it stays as is. I'm tempted for quite some time to create re-direct pages to this one like: I give a damn, I just don't care, I couldn't care less, etc...! And no, I'm not "prude" at all and if you think so: Fuck you and keep your fucking opinion for yourself and up yours! No offence meant of course:)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support* No one ever calls not giving a fuck dont-give-a-fuckism. You don't just get to name articles whatever, things have names and that's how the article gets named. As amusing as it is, no one gives a fuck if you think fuckism is funny. If people actually called it this, it wouldn't be a question of what to name the article because that's what it would be called, but it's not called dont-give-a-fuckism, so it should have an appropriate name like Not Giving a Fuck or I Don't Give a Fuck.

what the. . .

i thought joke pages get deleted on this site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.165.187 (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This one is more than a joke page and if you would read it and then edit by those means, you would've spared your time writing those remark, wouldn't you? ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This essay is juvenile . . .

This essay is juvenile. I would return it to the little boy who scribbled it. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion page is for suggesting improvements to the essay. Do you have any? --John (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The immaturity of the article is appalling. Take away the gratuitous obscenity and look what is left: a superficial view of Buddhism plus some meandering references to other essays that somehow never arrives at what should be the goal: WP:NPOV. Such a childish article is not worth improving.
Rudyard Kipling's poem If— expresses the intended sentiment better.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;
...Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a [Wikipedian], my son!
Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, Kipling fans. Can I suggest either taking this to WP:MFD or writing a cheery, muscular Christian counterblast to this essay you dislike. If you do this, can I suggest WP:KIPLING as a short-cut? --John (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The informal poll at the top of this page shows what a slim chance there is of getting rid of the essay. The forces arrayed against such a healthy cleansing are:
  • The illusion that using obscenity demonstrates virility, as demonstrated ad nauseum in media such as hip hop music.
  • The naïve notion that WP:NOTCENSORED depends on deliberately presenting and defending highly objectionable language.
  • An apparent incoherence on the part of the essay supporters to express properly what is at root well meant advice.
Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree on the merits of this essay. This is a consequence of WP:CONSENSUS, that we sometimes end up with things on the project that individual editors don't like, because most or enough people do like them. I suggest you get used to it. --John (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
John, will you explain the merits that you refer to? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
John you may need more time to plumb the merits of this essay. Perhaps this dictum by Mark Twain can encourage anyone who has difficulty with your suggestion "get used to it": It seems to show that there isn't anything you can't stand, if you are only born and bred to it..from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Besides, using a swear word in of itself does not necessarily make it uncivil. For instance, I may tell a user that they have an IQ of a grape, something that would definitely violate Wikipedia:Be civil and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, yet I used no swear words for my personal attack. Just the same, a user may compliment another user's editing skills by telling them "Dude, that article you wrote was f*****g awesome, man". --Whip it! Now whip it good! 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Whip it! you talk about uncivil personal attacks. Your examples would be useful if this essay were an uncivil personal attack on someone but it isn't. I mean no belittlement of your ability to mount a personal attack without using a swear word. More to the point is that you can probably do the inverse i.e. to swear just for the sake of it while making no personal attack, just a sullying of the discourse. A dude is originally a dandy or an inexperienced cowboy. Whichever one is addressing, what do you think is improved by adding a gratuitous expletive to the compliment "that article you wrote was awesome" ? It is quite intelligible as it stands. Are the prefix and suffix words that you added male adolescent codes for virility? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
DILIIGAF Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
...or DILLIGAF? Ling.Nut (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Enli Ninlil and Ling.Nut, my answer to your cryptically abbreviated and near-simultaneous questions is No, neither of you look like you have anything more to give here than unoriginal potty mouthing. That is mildly surprising because you are both good editors. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) This essay is a long-established fixture in Wikipedia culture. No one cares about people who come here to complain that it is potty-mouthed, rude, etc. I sympathize. Really. I know how it feels to be offended by something, and yet be unable to remove it. But there you have it. So the best response is to move along somewhere else and ignore this page, if it offends you. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is fixed in Wikipedia. This foul-mouthed essay did not exist prior to 15 aug 2006. Ling.Nut, is your declaration that "No one cares.." based on an exhaustive poll of every inhabitant of your village? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Two points, before I bow out, citing WP:DENY:
  1. Aug 2006 is ten years ago, in Wikipedia time. It's at least six months longer than you've been around, at least under this user name.
  2. WP:DENY. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I direct 3 points to Ling.Nut:
1. You were asked about the basis for your claim that "No one cares..". Is there anything you don't understand about the question?
2. You seem sure that WP:DENY applies here. WP:DENY is advice for handling vandals. Who are you calling a vandal and why?
3. Citing the time since I joined as an editor looks like an ad hominem disparagement. That is uncivil. On top of such banter please don't insult reader's intelligence by inflating 3 years to "ten years". That does not help your boast that the essay is a long-established fixture. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Say what you will, the consensus is that the essay stays.--WaltCip (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:CONSENSUS and appreciate that the goal is to convince others using reasons. Merely declaring what one thinks the consensus should be is not the way it works. WaltCip you must observe the many complaints expressed about this essay. You must also tolerate that editors may raise any new points on this page. Your phrase "Say what you will" appears to dismiss in advance reasoning that you have not heard. That is an uncooperative stance. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Because it's an essay, not an article. One person/two people leading a crusade against this page's name does not "many complaints" make, and certainly is not justification for ad hoc modification.--64.238.186.98 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Anon. 64.238 how many negative comments do you see on this page about this article ? I am concerned that you might have overlooked something. Editing in Wikipedia is done by reaching consensus not by counting heads, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If you're so sure that there is a consensus against this essay, take it to MFD and see how far you get.--WaltCip (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, the last time consensus was gauged, it resulted in a speedy keep. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename: To not give a damn. Reason: WP:NN

The sentence "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." is Rhett Butler's infamous farewell line from the 1939 film Gone with the Wind. The line itself is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Its significance as a cultural event is well sourced. The compound verb to not give a damn will serve well as prototype for the plethora of less notable variations that convey the same idea. Examples are to not give ....

a care / a fuck / any mind / a rat's ass / a rap / a shit / twopence / (many more) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh good God. I've been nice. Can't you take a hint? No one wants any changes to this page. Please. Find another page or forum to amuse yourself with. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Ling.Nut please review the exchange above and observe that your comments have been treated seriously, and yourself by implication as a temperate and responsible person. I think you owe equal respect to myself and other editors. Your latest post is a disapointment. God is not a subject here, and it would be nicest if you responded to points made instead of once again declaring your knowledge of what everyone does or doesn't want. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:NN is so incredibly and utterly irrelevant to this page that it isn't even funny. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
EVula are you sure you understand the WP:NN policyguideline? It applies to how we select subjects for articles in Wikipedia based on their notability. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This isn't an article.
Also, thanks for thinking I don't understand one of our core guidelines. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
From WP:NOT#ESSAY: do not use Wikipedia for..Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). BTW WP:NN is a policy and not a guideline. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Strange, since Wikipedia:Notability is prefaced with "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline", is the main page for Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, {{Notabilityguide}} specifically states guidelines, and on {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} the page is listed on the "Content guidelines" row.
As for your referencing WP:NOT#ESSAY, you're still missing the enormous point that the project namespace (anything prefaced with "Wikipedia:") is not an article, which is what the entire parent section (WP:NOT#Content) is about. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I concede WP:NN is a guideline not a policy. Thank you for pointing that out. WP:NN favours the infamous "damn" quotation over other versions found in particular dialects or in obscene cursing. WP:NOT#Content is not as you seem to think entirely about articles. In it we find WP:SOAP that refers to "articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages". WP:NOT#ESSAY concerns Wikipedia as "a place to publish" which it asks us not to (ab)use for some purposes. The "place to publish" means the website and there is no implication that the same abuses are okay on all pages other than articles. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Oy. I think you'll find very few people all that willing to argue against you, because the type of people who'd look here will generally be the type that agree with the essay. Which is to say, we don't give a fuck. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I was shocked when I first seen this mostly because I didn’t get the warm fuzzy feeling of professionalism. I suppose it could be a ratings booster because it is very funny.--Windowasher (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a comedy show that seeks user ratings.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nooo...It must be a fuck. A fuck is something everyone can do. A damn is something only religious people can do. 174.23.236.77 (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides your glaring non sequitur neither of your claims about what people can or can't do has merit. A child cannot have sexual intercourse and an atheist can damn you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nut-shell

I moved the little summary bit from the DGAF and Wikipedia section to a "Nut-shell tag". After changing it a bit. Colincbn (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Hey I don't know much about Wikipedia but when I try to use WP:FUCK as a shortcut to this page the edit gets blocked as "potentially unconstructive". That needs to be changed, we need to be able to use any of the available shortcuts freely. Also, edits shouldn't be deemed unconstructive by automatic filters before they're made. Just putting out some thoughts, say whatever you want, I'm not looking at this thread after this because I don't give a fuck about it. 71.113.25.147 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Complaint understood. There is a technical and policy difference between being an "IP Editor" and an "autoconfirmed editor". The technical limitation you ran into I suspect has something to do with that.
Not sure if it is policy or a technical limitation that is being implemented in the case. Sometimes policy and technical implementations aren't perfectly aligned.
However, the restriction sounds unreasonable in the case, if the problem is technical rather than policy. Not sure, but I'm kinda' sure, the right place to complain is at MediaWiki, if it is technical, rather than policy. The link to MediaWiki is in footer right of every page, click on Developers/More, then BugZilla. If they think it is by policy rather than a technical problem, I'm sure they could guide you from there (probably WP:VPP or somewhere like that).
You'll probably have to be more specific about whether the search or the edit was blocked.
I suppose I could just log out to test for the problem, but I fell on my DGAF.
Hope that helps. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't page deleted? I just don't understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajram13 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

big dick for tiny pussy

if we can have a page about not giving a fuck, why cant we have a page titled big dicks for tiny pussy ? is it okay if i start such an article?Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that would fall clearly under WP:Point. However if you wrote a legitimate essay about a real Wikipedia issue and the best title for it was "Big dick for tiny pussy" then I would back you up all the way. This is because WIkipedia is not censored. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Haiku

Well, Who thinks this page benefits by the self aggrandizing haiku added by a "user" who has made no edits besides the haiku in question? And might I add that as a Japanese speaker I'm not even sure that qualifies as a haiku... Colincbn (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

After more thinking my only serious problem is with the use of the authors username in the title and DGAF Haiku userbox. Colincbn (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I removed it entirely. If you give a fuck enough to display a haiku, you're clearly not not giving a fuck. –xenotalk 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the haiku. Regarding whether or not it qualifies as haiku, the original form and what the Japanese consider haiku don't matter. The form has been adopted/adapted/co-opted by Western audiences. See [1]. They have their own definition and usage of the form. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Granted, whether "traditionalists" like it or not, the term Haiku has come to have a broader meaning than it did in the early 19th century. And although the 17 mora = 17 syllables argument is not actually true, given the nature of the Japanese and English languages, the fact that in English the word "Haiku" has come to denote a 17 syllable poem, whether or not it references a season or has a "cutting word", is indisputable. However my main problems with this addition are not with whether or not it is a haiku, but with whether or not it adds to the article. I personally do not feel that it does, I think that the addition of the haiku cheapens it and adds to the image that DGAFism is not a serious endeavor. That being said, while I dislike the haiku itself, my main problem is with the addition of the authors username in both the section title and the haiku userbox. If it was just the haiku with no mention of the obviously inactive user (although s/he may be editing as an I.P.) I would not be as strongly against it. Also I realize it may seem that I am giving a fuck, but in fact I am simply stating my opinion, I have not nor will I edit this part of the article again regardless as I follow the voluntary 1RR. Cheers Colincbn (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As commented at user talk:Noraft I won't object if it is re-inserted, but I think it's unnecessary and imo displaying a haiku is clearing giving too much of a fuck. If it is re-inserted, it should probably just live in the existing section. –xenotalk 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

a fun find

Years ago (1969 or so) I ran for the president of the student whatever of my college on the apathy ticket, claiming that every student who did not vote was in fact voting for me. I wuz robbed. Carptrash (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Purpose

What is the purpose of the title being "Don't-give-a-fuckism" as opposed to "Don't care-ism?" Is it that Wikipedia is for cool people and only cool people can swear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.19.21 (talk • contribs) 05:58, June 30, 2010

Yes, that is the exact purpose of the title. Please don't change it or else we will all become a little less cool. SnottyWong chatter 13:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Wikipedians are mostly "not cool" but that's okay with many of us, or, to put it another way, we don't give a fuck. However I do agree with Scottywong that if you can't play nicely here, then don't play at all. Carptrash (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

giving a shitism as conceptual opposite

Some adherents of don't-give-a-fuckism find common ground wirh those who don't give a shit, but this is clearly a rejection of the logical impossibility of not-giving-a-fuck while giving a shit, indicating that even apathy can be passionate. When asked to explain how this seemingly self-contradictory state can be possible, leading philologists tend to say "Shove it up your ass" in response, invoking perhaps forced anal intercourse, such as one might encounter in prison or an American Idol audition.[citation needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.24.107 (talk • contribs)

In its current form, this page is a net detriment to Wikipedia

In my view, the divisive and emotional effect of the excessive use of the word fuck in the title, abbreviation, and text of this page are overall more harmful to Wikipedia than helpful, and I'll add my voice to those who have already pointed this out (including established Wikipedians here as well as in previous MfDs). Doing a Special:Whatlinkshere/WP:FUCK shows that this is frequently cited in heated disputes where language escalates -- precisely when the goal should be to restore civility to a discussion. And if you sample its use, you'll find that this includes plenty of interactions with new editors, where our goal should be to not bite.

The intent of use may often be de-escalatory (although sampling the context shows that there are also clearly escalating uses like "the point is I dont [sic] give a Fuck [sic] of [sic] what you guys think of me"), but the overall effect on an outsider viewing a profanity-laden discussion page is that it's a more hostile environment. Imagine entering a room where people are having a conversation. One person says, "The politics of Israel are fucking fascist." The other person says: "As we like to say around here, I don't give a fuck and neither should you." I don't think most people would view either side of this conversation as friendly and non-aggressive, and the ingroup reference to profanity creates an immediate impression of the shared culture of the two participants in the dialog -- an impression which acts as a social filter.

Wikipedia's contributor base is predominantly young and male. I think these kinds of biases tend to be self-reinforcing, and pages like this don't help us to grow a more diverse community. In spite of clear guidelines like Wikipedia:Civility, they may leave the impression that Wikipedia is an environment that encourages uncivil, rude behavior and language. Wikipedia encourages people to work together productively and in good faith. Not violating people's cultural norms and expectations without good reason is part of that, and has nothing to do with censorship, but simply with choosing norms of communication and behavior that are more likely to achieve a desired outcome.

Simply put, the rational reasons for keeping the page under the current name, title, and abbreviations that have been presented are weak at best, and ultimately, I believe the Wikipedia: namespace should be governed by the rational self-interest of the Wikipedia community. So, I'll add my support to moving this either to a different, milder title, or to user space. And yes, I realize that the page encourages me to not give a fuck. I hope that those who strongly believe in its contents will exemplify that principle and tolerate a page move. ;-) --Eloquence* 08:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While that is an intelligent, well-reasoned, and even eloquent argument, I tend to disagree. Not so much with the points you raise but with the idea that as a whole this page is a net detriment. Yes you raise good valid points, but I feel there is more to it. For one thing I think the title and context of the essay are inflammatory for a purpose. If this essay was more "family friendly" I think most people would give it less attention, and therefore less thought, than the idea deserves. Yes it may be an attention grabbing gimmick. But I think it is a gimmick that works. True many editors will misuse it as you have stated above. But usually in those discussions you can find people misusing links to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith as well. I don't see it as the fault of the essay that some may link here inappropriately. I found this page through a userbox on an admin's userpage. I feel that usage is quite acceptable, and the simple fact that the userbox and this page use the word fuck is what grabbed my attention. I also think the points made here are very valid and are important aspects of being a good wikipedian. As such I feel the small evil of "naughty language" seems more than compensated for by spreading the ideas expressed in the essay. But that is just my opinion. Colincbn (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you agree that the current language is a small evil, why not spread the ideas expressed in the essay without them? Then there's no evil, and the good remains. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
...and it is an opinion which I share. Per the Essay tag at the top of the page, the views expressed should be considered "with discretion". In other words, if pointing to this project page in a discussion might be seen as uncivil, or might induce incivility, don't do it. It's not what this essay is either for or about - an aspect which, I think, is more than adequately summed up in the preceding comment, else I would expand on it myself. Also, I don't think moving it to another name would change editorial incivility one iota, since editorial incivility comes from the editor, not this page; and, despite the statement that this "has nothing to do with censorship", moving the page to a "milder title, or to user space" would, I think, be precisely that. Nortonius (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Censorship is when a regulatory authority imposes a ban on some sort of expression. Eloquence is making an appeal for the community to voluntarily alter the essay. That's not censorship. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
No, all over the world, in all kinds of situations, ranging from living under an oppressive regime to stubbing their toes when small children are in the room, people are practising self censorship! That's the kind of "censorship" I had in mind, and obviously I don't think it's necessary here. Nortonius (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Eloquence*, and I'm curious if the two supporters above are male and under 35? If so, is there anyone here older and/or female that has an opinion? I think this essay has good intentions, but is in fact a net detriment since it could espouse the same message in a less inflammatory way, thereby avoiding its current common misuse. I do not believe that it would be less credible or garner less attention without use of the word "fuck." ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm male (female would be "Nortonia", unless I were hiding my gender, but then I suppose I might be "Nortonium"...?!), but I'm waaay over 35. My reaction on first seeing this page was to laugh, and do a little editing in keeping with its existing spirit. Did you notice the Department of Fun WikiProject infobox at the top of the page? There are other, "serious" places in WP where you can find discussion of civility: two are indicated above by Colincbn, and another, related classic is WP:Beware of the tigers. This essay isn't meant to be taken or used in an "inflammatory way" - if someone does that, then more fool them - and, don't forget, it's a "project page", not in article space. OTOH, try searching WP for "don't give a fuck": at the time of writing, this page comes in fourth, behind three articles where the expression occurs once in the text of an article (and in a redirect) and twice in the title of articles; then, it is followed by a large number of results for pages where the expression also occurs. What can we do, eh?! As I said, I laughed... Nortonius (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I am also male and over 35, so there. Colincbn (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Will you be tackling "don't be a dick" next? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you never give a fuck

you may never get one. This would be sad. I understand that "Giving a fuck in real life is much more important than giving a fuck on-wiki" isn't a particularly catchy slogan. But catchiness isn't everything. See, for example, here or here. David in DC (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Best. Wikipaedia. Article. Ever.

checkY

Not. Actually. An. Article.

✗ Fail

Yeah, I simply don't give a fuck whether it's an article or an essay. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 05:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Don%27t-give-a-fuckism/Archive_2&oldid=1142665586"