Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia clichés
 | Essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
What is to be done[edit]
I realize this essay is half in jest, but can we talk a little about the motivations behind most of them? "Pitchforks and torches" and "pound of flesh" were both used in the discussion that triggered it, and they carry the implication that the described users are acting in bad faith, or that their positions are somehow illegitimate. These are clearly personal attacks, and when coming from advanced rights holders or users otherwise long-standing, can obviously have a chilling effect. For my part, I'm trying to understand the real anger that attends these accountability discussions, and why we let that anger go unchecked. Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mack, you're killing me! This page is for my petulant outburst, not for productive discussion about actual problems! :-D
- "Mob," "witch hunt," "pitchforks and torches," and "pound of flesh," when directed at other users, are all technically personal attacks and uncivil. They're dismissive and insulting. But they're also extremely common hyperbolic metaphors in the English language. In my view, it doesn't make sense to approach that language from the point of view of WP:CIV or WP:NPA. Here, my approach was to say we should drop them because they're trite, unhelpful clichés, but not because they're against civility policies.
- Like "you're killing me!" That's technically an accusation that you have engaged in criminal conduct. Totally sanctionable! But not really.
- What is to be done, though, to be able to have productive discussions like the one that we just tried to have? You got me. It's the "herding cats" problem. It's just a bunch of random people on the internet, with significant differences in age, experience, cultural backgrounds. How do you discuss something sensitive and controversial without it turning into a bloodbath? I have no idea. AFAIK, no one else in my country (USA) knows, either. I'm not sure about the rest of the planet but it doesn't look good. Levivich (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I get you, I get you :). I'd been turning the problem over in my head at about the same time, but this is a snappier title then what I had in mind. I think you're right about treating them as cliches to be avoided; it's an interesting approach and hasn't been tried, not recently anyway. Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposed[edit]
- Beyond the pale
- Net positive/net negative
— Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- added, thanks, plus "not a good look" Levivich (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ain't broke / not broken, too. J947 ‡ edits 10:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, I didn't check the talk first, or realise we should propose additions here. It's a good page, though. There is a serious aspect to it, too; often, these phrases are used as a shorthand that enables the user to deflect from or minimise the original point, however sound or based on policy it might be. And at the least, whether the user, means it or not it has the broader effect of appearing not to look at the substance or an edit but rather dismiss it with as little examination or analysis as possible. The vanilla-flavored, easy listening of non-responses. And available to all. ——Serial 16:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Haha! Nah! I created this section, because I don't like to get involved in BRD in essays. I think Levi actually welcomes and encourages direct editing. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I think this page is a solution in search of a problem[edit]
and is causing more heat than light. --GRuban (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Don't be a dick just cos you don't like it; it's not a good look. This page is just an essay. It's not hurting anyone. But if you must, MFD is thataway. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
--GRuban (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)