Wikipedia talk:Illustrating a point

I think insulting people to demonstrate how unproductive it is to insult people is unproductive. Even if it doesn't backfire, you're assuming a person who has no problem being uncivil will have the inclination to do analogies. But analogies ("do not do unto others...") are usually the last thing on the minds of people who think they are "entitled to their opinion". Worst-case scenario: they see what you're doing and reply with a snarky "you're entitled to your opinion". Good luck going from there.

I prefer vigorous distraction: whenever the personal attacks start, bring up the thing that's actually under discussion and force people to talk about what's really bothering them. NameTheConflict. And remind them at every step of the way that no matter how much of a retard they think the other side is, calling them that isn't going to make it all go away. JRM · Talk 13:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Specifically, I'd say that engaging in personal attacks to demonstrate how unproductive it is to engage in personal attacks is a perfect example of WP:POINT. You'd be doing exactly what that guideline tells you not to do: breaking the rules in order to make a point. Telling people to do it here appears to be the exact opposite of what we're telling them on POINT. Anyway, whether or not you'd be breaking POINT, you'd still be breaking WP:NPA, so I can't see how we can recommend it as a course of action. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  16:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Examples
I'm not quite sure I get the latter two examples on the page. The first, the original example, is that of using the preview function. But how does using it illustrate a point? If users are supposed to look at your edit history, see that all your edits are perfect first time, conclude that you always use the preview function, and then vow to use the edit function from then on, I guess something has been achieved, but it sounds like a rather unlikely and round-about route. I really don't think my using the preview function encourages anyone else to do the same. The Mother Goose is also not clear. How is it supposed to be used to illustrate a point? I guess we could have a link to the diffs of some pages in one of the Wikipedia introductory pages, explaining how articles get created, but I'm not sure what users would learn.

I'm sure that there are plenty of examples that would illustrate a "lead by example" philosophy (if that's what you're aiming for), such as removing one's own personal attacks instead of just asking other to remove theirs, but the current examples seem a little incoherent. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  16:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)