Wikipedia talk:Divisiveness

Not needed
This proposal appears not to be needed. I would edit it, but that would imply that I found it useful. --Dschor 18:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent events show that this proposal may be timeous. --Doc ask?  22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(My dictionary says "timeous" is Scottish for "timely". WAS 4.250 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I don't understand what this page is proposing, other than that it would be nice if everybody was friendlier to one another (which is a good idea, but wishful thinking rather than practical).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of talk about user boxes. What they are good for. What they are bad for. "Divisiveness" seems to be the key complaint. We have no guideline on "divisiveness" concerning user boxes or anything else (well, a little on how polls are evil when they are divisive). This guideline aims to clarify the concern about "divisiveness". A key missing element in the user box issue is what is and what is not an acceptable "userbox". How about if it is not userbox, but looks like one and is still divisive? What about any kind of us versus them bumpersticker label? The issue is divisiveness, not the form it takes. Here is a place to work out what qualifies as "divisive" and/or what to do about it. I suggest here that the key is not to say "I am a jew" is divisive or not divisive; but to say if people are claiming it is then the proper response is to ADD to it and say for example "My mother was a jew, so I consider myself a jew even though I am also an atheist" or any other elaboration so we are not dividing into factions, but instead are celebrating our individualities and uniqueness. WAS 4.250 16:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm of two minds about the usefulness of this proposal, but one benefit I see is that it fleshes out some of the values behind Jimbo's request. If someone asks, "What's wrong with a userbox saying I'm a liberal, or a Christian?", it might be good to have a reasoned policy to point to instead of "Jimbo says so" — although "Jimbo says so" is good enough for me personally, somebody else might bristle at it and misinterpret the suggestion as a censorious diktat. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose this proposed policy. The comments here indicate that it is an attempt to formulate yet another excuse for speedy deletions of userboxes. And the past month demonstrates that these attempts are far more disruptive and divisive than just leaving people go about their own business on their user pages. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to this; it's too easily construed as a workaround for the userbox debate, which should be kept in a central location. "Divisiveness" cannot be objectively defined anyway.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

New comments section
...because its getting to be too much scrolling, apologies. Good job, WAS and other editors involved in writing this. Too many people are confusing WP with a MySpace account. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Well written, basically unexceptionable. Herostratus 08:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Given...
...WP:CIV this is essentially redundant. We could have a Wiki page for every term that relates to the interpersonal, but we shouldn't. That's my thought anyhow, Marskell 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While I think that personal attacks and incivility are related, someone making a personal attack is violating both policies, civility is broader than just personal attacks. You could say to a person, "You are biased," and that would be a personal attack; you would be discussing the editor, not the edits. But if you would say, "These edits are POV pushing," you might not be making a personal attack, but you are certainly being uncivil. -- 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement
If we keep coming up with policies for everything that bunch our collective knickers, we will have a rule to counterman everything we do, and a rule justifying everything we do. Stop the inanity. Avriette 17:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reformatted the above from a vote to a comment. We don't generally vote on proposals; VIE, remember? :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem
Who gets to decide what is and isn't fanatical? How can newbies tell? Subjective guidelines invite divisiveness even further. I oppose the guideline in its present form. --James S. 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

+ WP:CIVIL
I added WP:CIVIL because I believe it goes hand in hand with WP:NPA. -- 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This should be a guideline, not a policy
I agree with the sentiment here, but it is too vague to be enforced as policy. --causa sui talk 06:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely that it should be a guideline but not a policy. WAS 4.250 15:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * One more for the position of Guideline, or Essay, but certainly not policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, not policy material. Ian13/talk 15:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is definitely policy - it has not achieved any consensus, and was brought in as a (IMHO insufficient) justification for the 'divisive template' CSD which Jimbo imposed simply to justify the actions of Kelly Martin (et al) in deleting templates out-of-process. Cynical 17:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I also would like to express sentiment that this should be either a guideline or an essay, but certainly not policy. This is entirely too subjective to be read as policy - as a guideline, it offers a good deal of leeway.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Define what is bad for WP
In regards to userboxes and other userspace material that is detrimental to Wikipedia, please consider my proposal, Unacceptable userspace material, which is intended as a means to minimally quantify "bad" materials in userspace which the practice of including on userpages has a detrimental effect on Wikipedia, as opposed to making overbroad blanket restrictions. The goal is to maintain the liberal use of userspace while addressing concerns of divisiveness and objectionableness, avoiding template deletionism, and providing a defined standard on which compulsory userpage amendments can be based. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 21:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pointless, redundant, instruction creep, etc
Can we please stop writing new policies for every nook and cranny that we can think of? Off-wiki talk, process in important, divisiveness, etc etc etc.

I fail to understand the point of this. We already have guidelines, policies, and community practices against personal attacks, incivilty, and action against consensus. The vast majority of the community follows them. While those who consistantly do not are often those who wail assiduously about these self-same policies, simply writing it down in yet another way will do nothing. "Stop, or I'll say stop again!"

brenneman {T}  {L}  03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo says the user box situation is "currently unacceptable" (see talk page for speedy delete criteria). Either we get it together and do something (like delete all userboxes in the divisive categories of drugs, sex, politics, and religion?) or Jimbo will act unilaterally (delete all userboxes?). This is an attempt to help us "get it together". WAS 4.250 15:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the "currently unacceptable" situation may not apply strictly to userboxes, but to the conflicts surrounding them. The userbox war is unnacceptable, and there are really only two solutions - either delete all userboxes except for Wikipedia-related and Babel, or come to an appropriate consensus to not delete any but the egregariously divisive ones, and list any others for TFD so that they can follow the appropriate processes. One or the other - there is no middle ground. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not understand how people in an objective project can throw around subjective terms like divisive, unacceptable, egregious, polemic, without any interest in defining those terms in a consensual and consistent way. This to me is extremely scary. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What this proposed policy says is that if there are a lot of people that believe there is a devisive bumpersticker like thing on a user page the user should ADD TO IT and make a meaningful personal statement rather than simply LABEL themselves with some bumpersticker like facile categorization. We don't have to agree on what is devisive. We only have to agree for people to ADD to their self-expresiveness and not simply to use a bunch of simplistic labels. WAS 4.250 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This guideline considered harmful
In U.S. politics at least, people start talking about "divisiveness" when they don't want to argue a point, but instead want the "other side" to shut up. It's simply abusive argumentation, reducing the other side's position to mere wilfulness and denying any substance to their position. Saying "you are being divisive" is saying, "you don't really have a position; you're disagreeing simply for the sake of disagreeing. Shut up."

Similarly, in Wikipedia discussions, accusations of "disruption" and claims that particular beliefs are "tantamount to vandalism" frequently amount to the same: rather than responding to the substance of another's position, they are demands that the person shut up and comply. Such accusations are frequently themselves polarizing and harmful to the development of consensus, since they make the accused feel outcast.

The claim that another person's position is not being held in good faith -- that they are disagreeing merely for the sake of disagreeing -- is not one that should be encouraged or supported on Wikipedia. We need to assume good faith, particularly when we disagree. We need to take it as read that when real contributors (not mere vandals) do things that we regard as stupid and malformed, that they are actually trying to improve the project, even if we don't think their changes are improvement. We need to work these differences out by finding common ground and seeking consensus -- NOT by name-calling and dismissing the other person as merely divisive. --FOo 03:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with THIS guideline? (Hint: read it) WAS 4.250 10:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling people "divisive" is a nasty way of saying "shut up". Therefore, we shouldn't do it, and we don't need a guideline telling us how to. --FOo 11:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  12:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Again. Read it. It says to talk more, not shut up. It says if people seem to feel something on your user page is divisive then EXPAND IT. That's the opposite of "shut up". WAS 4.250 12:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There's one little "expand it" near the end of a whole lot of "don't be divisive!" which is code for "shut up and quit expressing your opinion, you freak." Your implication that I haven't read it, by the way, is unacceptably rude. --FOo 18:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am deeply sorry for being rude. Please accept my apology. I'm sorry. How can we improve this so it says as clearly as possible "We are not saying 'shut up'; we are saying 'expand the content in question'? Thank you very much. WAS 4.250 21:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I really don't think this guideline is necessary. Rather than telling people to restate their opinions and elaborate upon them, perhaps instead we should be emphasizing that people who want to edit Wikipedia need to be willing to work with others whose opinions differ radically.

If I'm understanding you correctly, this proposal says that people who have notes on their user pages that say "I think George Bush is a war criminal" and "I think George Bush is a world hero" should spend time replacing those statements of opinion with essays explaining their opinions. I don't think that's what Wikipedia is for. Hosting people's opinion essays is explicitly outside Wikipedia's purposes ... and one person's "opinion essay" is another's "insulting POV rant".

However, it is essential to Wikipedia's purposes that people who think George Bush is a war criminal, and people who think he is a world hero, be willing to work productively together without trying to silence each other. We should be telling editors that just because someone disagrees with you on the sanctity or diabolism of Mr. Bush doesn't mean you get to assume they're a drooling idiot or a vicious conspirator. --FOo 06:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just added an example to the proposal. Check it out and tell me what you think. If it doesn't both clarify and make you laugh, I didn't do a good enough job. WAS 4.250 07:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this a guideline or a proposed guideline? In either case, I tend to agree that it doesn't say much unless misused to state ban simple statements of political affiliation. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Respect
Even in the user space some respect would be nice. I think it is quite obvious that even in the user space something like "This user thinks that niggers stink" should be speedy deletable. The question is where are the boundaries. In my opinion anything that attacks others rather than endorses something or represents legitimate criticism should be speedy deleted. That in my eyes includes "This user does not tolerate Marxism" or even "fascism" as long as we allow to have political party user boxes given that there are marxist and fascist parties around and we cannot set up double standards for them.

UBs
Don't care about user boxes. Do care that divisiveness is in the eye of the beholder, i.e., it's subjective. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)