User:Deckiller/Communication

Communicating on Wikipedia can be a difficult task, despite all the tools available to editors. As Wikipedians, we tend to shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to communication, whether it be technical or writing issues, efforts to deceive and confuse other editors, or forced deceit of ourselves. It is not very difficult to create sockpuppets on Wikipedia, or overlook spelling and wording issues due to a lack of spellchecker, or even poorly format text due to poor usage of the preview feature. Vandals receive up to five warnings, which lets them communicate their sickening viewpoints a bit too much for our taste. Whatever the reason, Wikipedia has minor flaws which people seem to exploit to shoot themselves in the foot &mdash; is that even proper usage of the word exploit? It's more like a "black hole", sucking editors into what should be easily dodged problems. In essense, communication on Wikipedia is a problem because of differences in opinion and issues with wording.

Differences of opinion
People want to promote their ideas or beliefs &mdash; it's only human nature. Some editors, such as User:Willy on Wheels, like to vandalize with sockpuppets to deface the encyclopedia, thus physically articulating their hatred. Others use sockpuppets for slimy purposes, such as bypassing blocks or "cloning" their opinion in votes or discussions. However, sockpuppets are only the nub of the puzzle piece.

The English language covers a massive range of cultures and viewpoints &mdash; perhaps more than any other language. Therefore, the English Wikipedia has become a tug of war for these different viewpoints, especially among controversial articles. Although we try to maintain a neutral point of view, this is not always attainable in the fullest. That's why we have talkpages; unfortuantely, people like to exploit these talkpages using the aforementioned methods.

Then we have the internal philosophy: the deletionist, mergist, and inclusionist struggle. Some want to delete all fictional topics; others wish to see complete coverage of all trivial matters. The neutral group - the mergists - usually wins because they have the ability to compromise. Compromise demands communication between all available parties; otherwise, something or someone is left out, rendering the negotiations obsolete.

In a nutshell, balance is the key to Wikipedia - those who constantly drill this word into their head will find great success in maintaining a neutral opinion &mdash; an opinion that takes into account all pieces of the puzzle globe. Otherwise, users will find themselves advocating a completely biased viewpoint, which is something that is absolutely untolerable and unacceptable on an encyclopedia. Getting love tapped from both sides is better than getting rammed from one side.

Issues with wording
Now that we've established the specific mindset necessary to communicate successfully and well, we must cover how one communicates in this manner. To succeed in communicating clearly, one must write plainly, succinctly, and accurately.

"Plain" English is not "Simple" English; feel free to use some larger adjectives and nouns. However, do not ramble on about a small topic, dropping in about 80 million redundancies along the way. Use the same common sense required in writing articles &mdash; avoid misplaced formality ("in order to", "whilst", "upon", "thereof") and just plain silly words ("prosaic", "preponderance", "amalgamation", and so on). Using such words and phrases do not make you sound more intelligent; they make you sound unconfident and comical. Wikipedia is a business; write with the objective of GETTING YOUR POINT ACCROSS QUICKLY, not creating a puzzle globe for Wikipedians to solve. We already have that icon to solve. Intelligence is not measured by vocabulary; it's measured by a balance between mass communication ability and wording integrity.

Succinctness is also important. Get to the point by avoiding phrases like "a variety of _____ - ___ to be exact - ....". Picture it this way: the more time someone spends writing in circles, the less time we spend improving the encyclopedia and solving the problem. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for more.