User:Jayron32/How to argue effectively

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

Many people have valid points they would like to make on XfD discussions and many other places at Wikipedia. Most of these people make faulty arguements that do not actually help them make their point, and only hurt their ability to get what they want. Here are some common mistakes people make:

Contents

[edit] Common mistakes

[edit] Ad hominem arguments

A variety of arguements that assumes that the arguement is to be judged on the merits of the persons involved in the arguement, not on the content of the arguement. Examples of Ad hominem problems commonly found in discussion pages:

  • Article was nominated for deletion by someone who was blocked for vandalism/disruption/incivility/etc.
    • Doesn't actually answer any questions about the article itself. A really good article gets snowball kept rather quickly, often within hours. If the XfD has been hanging around a couple of days, then other editors still question its validity in good faith even if the initial nomination was made in bad faith.
  • Article was autobiographical
    • Again, while this may be an initial clue that further research is needed, it does not mean that the article is Prima facie deletable. It may indicate a red flag to check for problems, but the arguements should only be made for the standard reasons for deletion, not on the autobiographical problem. WP:AUTO is an extension of the neutral point of view policy, and thus calls for editing for neutrality, and not deletion.
  • The people that support this change are all "deletionists" or "inclusionists" or members of X group etc.
    • The associations of the personages involved in the arguement are not what is up for debate. The merits of the arguement itself are. Argue the points the person makes, not their personality or associations.

[edit] Nonsubstantive votes

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Admins are trying to make decisions based on consensus, and consensus should be reached by rational discussion. Vote counting is not what it is about. Admins look at the arguements made by the people involved in the debate, not on the total number of votes. The only time it is OK to add a non-substantive vote (like: "delete per nom") is in an apparently non-controversial discussion, where the arguement in question DOES seem Prima facie to favor one point of view. However, once some people start making substantive arguements one way or another, such votes become meaningless. Make an arguement, either on logical grounds (this article should be X because Y is true) or better yet evidenciary grounds (this article should be X because I found evidence at references A, B, and C that show X is called for.).

[edit] Emotional pleas

  • I really like this article because...
    • Your emotional attachment to the article doesn't make it inherently keepable
  • Articles about nasty topics should go because...

[edit] Usefulness

  • I have found this article useful, so...
    • Telephone directories are useful, but they contain no encyclopedic content. Argue on notability grounds, not on utility.

[edit] Tangents

Make your point. Defend it. But don't get involved in long tangents with a few other editors. You can make a point. You can reply to another's point. You can defend your point against questions of others. But if you are running like 10 :'s to reply to a point, you are going well beyond what is needed.

[edit] Google hits

Google is a powerful tool to find references. The raw number of hits means nothing. Open a few links, read them. The content of the articles you find in google will help you win your point. The number means nothing. Use "quote marks" to narrow your google search, and look for reliable sources.

[edit] Quality of writing

Always argue on the merits of the subject of an article, not on its writing

  • Stubby articles
    • Even one sentance articles can be written about notable subjects. If it is a stub that COULD be expanded, it isn't deletable. It may be a non notable subject, but that is independant of the length of the article
  • non-NPOV writing or Bad grammar or Spelling errors
    • Again, clean-up is needed, not deletion. A badly written article does not need to be deleted, only fixed.

[edit] Reductio ad absurdum and other deflections

Reductions to absurdity can be valid arguements if based on sound premises, but more often than not are not based on sound premises, and thus fall apart

  • If we allow/delete this article about X, we must allow/delete all articles about Y
    • A bad reduction arguement; the articles may be superficially related, but this arguement is a pure deflection, it avoids any discussion of the merits of X by steering the discussion to Y.
  • Wikipedia has other bad articles, thus it must allow this equally bad article
    • Again, deflects the arguement away from the specific content. If you think other articles are bad, nominate them for deletion. It has no bearing on the initial objections.

[edit] Making good arguements

[edit] Do research

It takes about 5 minutes to skim 5 or 6 articles at a google search. Do so before you make up your mind about an article's merits. Cite the articles (or lack thereof) you find. It goes a long way to convincing others. A badly written article may turn out to be very notable, and merely stubby.

[edit] Be willing to change

Let others know that you are reasonable. If you are argueing for delete, let others know why, and give them the opportunity to fix the article, even if your evidence points in the other direction. People that care about the subject will probably have more energy to turn up notability confirmations; when such evidence arrives, be prepared to change your vote. It is pointless to continue an arguement in the face of overwhelming evidence; it makes you look like a dick, and it shows that you are argueing from emotional (see above) rather than evidenciary or logical grounds. If your comments show that you are unwilling to be reasonable, they will carry less weight than if you show yourself to be a reasonable person.

[edit] Avoid WikiLawyering

Citing a policy or guideline is always good; blind adherance to a single policy or guideline in spite of other evidence is silly. Arguements are never strictly binary afairs hanging on a single sentance in a single policy. If a well-known and otherwise notable author runs for political office and fails in that bid, they don't become deletable as a failed political candidate. While the individual notability guidelines are OK to decide if further investigation is needed; there are still subjects that will defy every single individual notability guideline, and yet still meet the primary notability criteria; and thus be notable.

[edit] Show variety and flexibility

If you always vote delete on every AfD (or always vote keep), it shows you might not be a reasonable person, and thus easily allow others to ignore you. If you want to be respected and heard by others, argue each article on its own merits, and argue on a wide variety of subjects. If you only seem to vote on articles of a specific subject, it may look like you are taking ownership of articles, or that you are trying to make a point. Neither wins you any points.

[edit] Speak in plain language

Take a few minutes to craft a sentance. Go through the trouble to type "please look at wikipedia's guidelines on [[WP:NN|notability]]" rather than just "[[WP:NN]]." If you actually care about your contributions to a discussion, show that you do. Consensus isn't built on throw-away comments and half-hearted, non-substantive arguements. Besides not being understood by everyone, speaking in wiki-speak or using abbreviative jargon does NOT show you really care about the arguement at hand. If you care enough to comment, you should care enough to write full sentences, or at least whole words.