Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Opinion poll 2004

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikipedians opinions regarding the "no personal attacks" rule

Supporters

  • Ed Poor thinks that people who try to influence others by calling them names should be ashamed of themselves! and people who try to change people by shaming them are idiots! (sarcasm intentional)
  • Jimbo Wales,
  • doktorbuk Freedom of speech is not the same as insults and offensive slurs.
  • Bryan Derksen,
  • maveric149,
  • Chuck Smith,
  • Larry Sanger (with the exception of naming and shaming trolls, which I highly recommend you read about; in almost all other cases, I very strongly oppose anything that can be construed as "personal attack"),
  • JHK
  • Eclecticology (essential for maintaining peace in the family)
  • Martin (especially on talk pages on articles - user talk pages don't matter as much)
  • Fennec (in a fairly broad manner)
  • Jwrosenzweig (I agree with Larry Sanger)
  • BCorr|Брайен (I also agree with Larry Sanger)
  • Michael Snow (I don't even support Larry Sanger's exception. Calling somebody a troll is a personal attack like any other, and we've reduced the word to near-meaninglessness. Identify and criticize the behavior that makes someone a "troll", don't just call them names.)
  • zeno (I share Michael Snow's view on calling people trolls)
  • Sam [Spade] I agree, "troll" is a personal attack
  • gracefool (agrees with Michael Snow)
  • Mike H If you have a grievance with another contributor, take it up on e-mail if need be.
  • Hyacinth 19:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • DJ Clayworth 19:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) personal attacks never help. But see below.
  • Arno 10:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC). Personal atatcks are inexcusable, period.
  • Erich 06:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) but how?
  • Scott Gall 07:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't like personal attacks (my definition of personal attack does not include claims about edits, for example saying "**** that edit," but does include claims about contributors, for example "[insert user's name here] is a Nazi.") I don't see why they should be right. (Some words like Nazi are not always personal attacks.)
  • --Knucmo2 22:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) As a logician, and Wikipedian, I find ad hominem attacks utterly unproductive, and illogical...Most ad hominem attacks sidestep the actual crux of the argument to make a puerile, vapid personal attack on someone else. Debates, especially of a philosophical variety, are especially productive.
  • BlankVerse ∅ 13:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • TVPR, that scumbag, thinks it's as childish as it gets. Name-calling should really be reserved for the pre-litterate stage.
  • SUPPORT - Coolcat - Should be enforced more agressively.
  • AI 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • -Willmcw 09:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • -Ragib 23:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If personal attacks were permitted or encouraged, Wikipedia would become uncivil, and could become an anarchy. Robert McClenon 16:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • See personal attack examples at personal attack, I don't think anyone would start to discuss these "arguments".Tkorrovi 22:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • support. We need to keep maniacs from making unbalanced attacks. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ben Aveling 09:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) It's hard to always know exactly how to respond, mistakes will happen, therefore one should always err on the side of generosity.
  • --ChrisJMoor 10:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC) As a proponent of nonviolent communication, I believe that personal attacks are totally unacceptable and counterproductive to the quality of content and community spirit under all conditions.
Stifle 16:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (but ban trolls)

Opponents

  • Lee Daniel Crocker (see below),
  • 24 (see below),
  • JHK (because I think there might be cases where Lee is right, and believe strongly in peer pressure and shame culture.)
  • NetEsq (concurring with Lee Daniel Crocker - see below)
  • --Knucmo2 22:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC). However, I believe in freedom of speech, and sometimes, its maybe best to let out some bedevilling and rising tensions on the discussion pages. Are there any forums on Wikipedia where perhaps such debates may take place? Perhaps this is a viable alternative. As most Wikipedians are calm, erudite people, I think personal attacks are a minority. I certainly do not support harsh punishments for those who violate this rule only a few times...perhaps repeat offenders maybe...
  • Snowspinner 01:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC) mostly because apparently if anything falls under 80% support we immediately hold a formal poll on it, and isn't that neat?
  • Because the phrase "personal attack" simply provokes argument about what is "personal" and what is "attack", and because people want to go too far and claim that the "no personal attacks" rule means "no personal remarks" and also because the benefit of the doubt seems to be given the wrong way I think that the "be civil" rule is good enough. When one needs to point out objectionable behaviour one then can, as long as one is polite, without being accused of personal attack. Paul Beardsell 00:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd rather someone came straight out and called me a name than indulged in the passive-aggressive rules-lawyering that passes for discourse here. Evolving a system of courtly insult, so that we are all like C18 fops throwing our handkerchiefs at each other, is not a good substitute for honest discourse. Mind you, I'm a grown-up. I expect the odd personal remark to come my way. My wife calls me worse than anyone here has yet managed. Maybe I should block her occasionally. Grace Note 23:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The concept of personal attacks is somewhat arbitrary. I have witnessed a good friend being given the lecture on this concept for calling someone an ethnocentrist. Excuse me? The concept of Ethnocentrism is a widely accepted principle of Sociology, and is hardly an ad hominem attack. Again, the arbitrary values of the concept of a personal attack make this a worthless rule. Kade 03:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Your friend could've just said that the viewpoint being advanced was ethnocentric, rather than labeling the person who advanced the view. That is what made it an attack. (Incidentally, is this poll actually still open?) -- SCZenz 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Seems a rather semantic difference, if you ask me. I think the real judgement of whether or not it's a personal attack has to come from the nature of the word. I'd rather not have people breathing down my neck if, as a Political Science major, I diagnose their views as concurrent with Fascism, simply because fascist is considered a dirty word. Nor will I make an idiot of myself by indulging in euphemisms for the benefit of a "Politically Correct" crowd. Kade 06:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It is a vital difference, because directly attacking the person increases wikistress and damages the community. If you "diagnose" someone as a fascist "as a Political Science major," that's either original research (if in an article) or unhelpful (if on a talk page). In conflicts on Wikipedia, the question is what will make things better and what will make things worse; ad hominem attacks will always make things worse. It's not political correctness or censorship; it's a rule to make the encyclopedia functional. (See WP:NOT.) -- SCZenz 06:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Please, eschew the scare quotes. If you think I'm a kook and not an academic, say so, don't be condescending. And like I said, if someone is expressing a POV, or an argument on a talk page that strikes of fascism, I won't refrain from referring to it as such simply because it's an ugly word. It's not an ad hominem, it's an empirically verifiable fact. Complaining about how an unfortunate few who take the internet too seriously might be offended is not in the best interests of a Wiki. It's more akin to walking on egg shells. Kade 20:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry if you misunderstood my quotations; I was literally quoting you. I simply meant that your standing as an expert (or expert-in-training) on a subject doesn't count for much on Wikipedia unless you cite reputable sources. If you want to claim that someone's remark strikes of fascism, though, I wouldn't call that a personal attack. If you want to call someone a fascist, all I can say is don't. -- SCZenz 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • An absurd policy, at least when applied to Talk pages. Is this a "community" or what? Any real human community is going to see some emoting. To stamp it out or legislate against it is obviously despotic in spirit. Particularly silly is the inclusion of "homophobic" among the classes of remark in violation of this policy. I happen to be homophobic, quite literally, and I don't think anyone has any business telling me to stuff my phobia and "behave myself". Let's say I leave a comment on a user Talk page that is obviously stemming from my homophobia: is it ipso facto an attack? No, in fact some of my "online homophobia" has, more than anything, been an attempt to get past the phobia by communicating with gays... This is just one example of how one person's "personal attack" is something far different to some other person, and who's to judge between the two? Plainly, no one: not Jimbo, not the President of the United States, not the Sultan of Umpabamomo-- no one can just step in and say "I decree this is in fact a personal attack". So, the policy is worse than worthless and should be withdrawn. As someone above said, the "Be Civil" policy is sufficient. JDG 09:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Being unable to assert that someone is trolling or otherwise misbehaving is flat wrong. It's a wonder the ArbCom isn't shut down, afterall, that's a personal attack if you bring action against a user (you're effectively accusing them of some conduct). I'm all for making policy to ban statements like "so and so is a moron" (that's attacking the person, not their conduct), but making a policy banning statements such as "so and so is a troll", or "so and so is trolling" (attacking their conduct, not them) is wrong. —Locke Cole 23:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Other

Stuck between support and opposition:

  • Jmabel 08:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see below)
  • NPOVenforcer 05:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC) I support truthful CONSTRUCTIVE negative personal characterizations and oppose untruthful or otherwise non-constructive ones. We need constructive, informative negative personal characterizations to warn people about bad users so that third parties know what the bad users are up to. Such so-called 'attacks' include noting that a person is a POV-pusher, a selective fact-suppressor, a liar, a libeler, or uses any of various deceptive tactics, or has a specific motive to do as they do, when such personal characterizations are truthful. If we don't warn each other about these people, then we will be doomed to being victimized by them. Besides, we can not do RFAs without negative personal characterization; if we ban personal attacks, than we should also ban RFAs so as not to be hypocritical. Any other personal attacks though are non-constructive and should not be allowed. Examples of non-constructive personal attacks are: false personal attacks of any kind; discrediting someone by calling them a 'troll'; discrediting someone by deprecating their intelligence, age, level of education, mental health, or other ability; discrediting multiple users that agree by saying that they are the same person; discrediting a person by saying that they hold a belief or ideal that they clearly do not.
  • Matt Stan 23:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC) It is the wrong question. If the techniques used to engender cooperation are not kept distinct from the techniques of personal attack, then it is not an question that can be answered. If I am right, and it is the wrong question, and the respective techniques haven't been clearly enough enumerated, then is merely putting my idea here "shaming" all the people who have expressed a view/voted on this issue - all those who've already given an aye or a nay without having thought the thing through? Does it matter whether I intended it be shaming? I'm saying that it might have been better first to engage in providing definitions, representative samples, of what constitutes personal attack. Once that is done, surely the only answer that could come back would be one of agreement with the proposition, in which case the question wouldn't need to be asked. How could I be wrong? If I am wrong, and have just whirled into a learned topic about which I know nought, then is it not right that someone should haul me up for my presumption? Provided I don't perceive that hauling up process as a "personal attack" then we can all move on.
  • karmafist 21:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) It's a great policy in theory, but it has no teeth in practice.
  • Aphswarrior - Name calling is always unacceptable, but personal attacks are slightly different. I believe that if a user is repeatedly using tactics for purposes that defy codes of conduct on wikipedia, then something needs to be done about it. The most efficient way to go about this is to use personal attacks. These would be acceptable if they contained only reasons why the person should be isolated etc., but it is far too easy to go onto name calling. Therefore I am unsure as to whether Personal Attacks (not name calling) should be allowed...

move personal debates to e-mail?

Supporters of the "move personal debates to e-mail" rule include:

Opponents of this rule include:

  • 24 (strongly, either the "unpleasantness" is irrelevant to wiki or it is vital to wiki - in the former case cut it out, in the latter case everyone must hear it out because it probably isn't "personal" but illustrates an ideology or cosmology or ethics dispute)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks/Opinion_poll_2004&oldid=1037288132"