User:Siroxo/Polemics

Polemic rhetoric is rarely necessary or helpful in Wikipedia. Polemical arguments tend to create more heat than light, especially when used in an attempt to undermine an opposing viewpoint. Such arguments are often not helpful in achieving consensus, and they can blur or cross the line of incivility.

Examples of polemical phrasing some might encounter in their daily life or on Wikipedia:
 * "Are you kidding me?"
 * "Is this a joke?"
 * "I can't believe this"

Examples of polememical rhetoric:
 * Accusing someone of making claims they haven't made, often ones that are related, but represent an uncharitable interpretation of the claim.
 * Emphasizing negatively, whether true or not, that something "is from" another editor (eg. "your reference", "your idea"), with the intent to undermine the legitimacy of the accompanying argument.
 * Moving the goalposts

Problems
The problems with such polemics is that they tend not to address the issues at hand. These are techniques to win a debate, and wikipedia is not about winning.

A classic way to undermine an opposing argument is the ad hominem. Polemics thrives on the ad hominem. For example, suggesting, even with a question, that something proposed in good faith is a joke is, at it's core, an ad hominem. And not only is that an unproductive argument, it's also uncivil.

They make people feel bad about themselves, their work, and their co-editors, and that's bad for the construction of an encyclopedia.

Alternatives
Abide by the principle of charity and consider the best interpretation of opposing viewpoints.

Address things dispassionately, and acknowledge that you're speaking for yourself. "I see issues with that source", "I see some problems with that idea".

Evaluate your goals. Are you here to build an encyclopedia? If so, work towards that. If, in this moment, you are here to prove someone or something wrong or foolish, take a break until you are here to build an encyclopedia again.

Use your own reactions to inform your own viewpoints, and formulate constructive criticism of opposing viewpoints, instead of using your reactions as an argument against the opposing viewpoints. For example if you think "they must be joking", you can understand that something in the opposing view does not align with your understanding, so much so as to provoke a humor response. You can use that understanding to inform your reply, but that raw, emotional understanding doesn't need to be your reply.