Wikipedia talk:Wikilawyering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents
Archive
Archives

[edit] Upgrading Wikilawyering to a guideline

I have seen far too much abuse of the system by the unscrupulous. I vote to upgrade this essay to the level of a guideline. Any seconds?--Pravknight 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The phenomenon is frequently seen and we should encourage people not to do that. There are some concerns above to the name of this page; I have no objection to renaming it. >Radiant< 21:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh the irony. Considering you're racing around from policy to policy [1] trying to create loopholes allowing you dodge the issues outlined at your ongoing user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight, your suggestion here smacks of wikilawyering itself. FeloniousMonk 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, then he's only painting himself into the corner, and he can be troutwhacked for violating his "own" guideline. >Radiant< 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if we should mention somewhere on this page how likely accusing someone of Wikilawyering is to be an effective dispute resolution technique... -GTBacchus(talk) 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Pasting from thread above:

  • Given all the above (and, it seems to me, the continued possibility of confusion, misinterpretation, etc) I suggest any name using the term "lawyer" within it is avoided. In lieu of any other promising suggestions, "Pettifogging" (or, if a "wiki-particular" name is needed, "Wikifogging") seems sufficient...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
"Rule-warring"? "Policy-gaming"? -Will Beback 07:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that kind of label... Anyone else (still) watching this thread...?  David (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that other than wikilawyering, the related term that is actually in use is "gaming the system" (which IIRC redirects to WP:POINT but it could be a page on its own). >Radiant< 09:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"Gaming" (to game) might be (North) American English...?  Only trying to pre-empt, David (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Strong opposition. Too open to abuse as an essay as is, no need to open the floodgates by giving it any actual cache. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
And might I ask if you have any evidence of this alleged abuse? (Radiant) 14:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No specific diffs at the moment, of course, since I don't keep tabs on every time someone's uncivil, but any time anyone cites our policies in a tenuous situation, someone's likely to come out with the accusation of wikilawyering. It's unhelpful, and will only serve to be a problem if it ever becomes legitimately actionable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
In other words, you're handwaving again. Thanks for clearing that up, have a nice day. (Radiant) 14:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm merely stating what occurs. Check the AN/I archives for plenty of evidence if you can be bothered, otherwise, sorry if you're struggling with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Jeff's comment, I'm surprised if any experienced editor hasn't seen examples of this being misused. In my experience, if someone is going against policy, they very often respond by accusing their critics of wikilawyering. That said, I would support this being a guideline. Editors who attempt to silence criticism by accusations of wikilawyering could reasonably be challenged to be more specific. Addhoc 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen it misused, but it's neither more nor less abusable than anything else on Wikipedia. If misuse stems from a misinterpretation of the term, then it would serve the 'pedia to make a guideline to more accurately define that term. (Radiant) 10:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Boldly upgraded without even seeing this thread. It's cited in RFAr, it's less controversial than other guidelines, and it's important, so there, guideline. -- Chris is me 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there sufficient enthusiasm to hold a straw poll? Addhoc 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Boldly reverted, it's quite controversial in use, and I'm hardly convinced of its importance on a personal level. Get some consensus, do some discussing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I support making this essay and anything opposing the concept of "gaming the system" to be a guideline. --Serge 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline strawpoll

This discussion is closed. Please do not modify it

Do you support upgrading this pages status to guideline, and why do you think so?

Support:

  1. This essay is an important concept, so that people don't assume that tiny exceptions in policy pages can be used as a rationale for their action. Some people naturally lawyer, and this guideline would help those users realize what is wrong with the concept. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 01:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Brad has got a good point about "wikilawyering" being overused (and many times unfairly). It seems like anyone that takes the time to point out the logical fallacies in an argument or point to a conflict with a policy page is accused of wiki-lawyering. Overall, I think this page has serious POV issues that should be address before we even think of elevating it. There needs to be more attention to the "abuses" of wiki-lawyer accusations. 205.157.110.11 03:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. No need to give people any more ammunition in the fight against those who look for even the simplest process to be followed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I wrote the original essay. Essentially it consists of a guide to effective advocacy using negative examples. In no way is it policy. Fred Bauder 15:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Other:

  1. The essay does raise an important concept, but in my experience, the term "Wikilawyering" is overused, and I am concerned that raising the matter to Guideline status at this time would encourage more of that. Newyorkbrad 02:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are not created by voting upon them; see WP:HCP. People shouldn't wikilawyer, but by the very nature of wikilawyering it is impossible to make actual rules against that - they'll just say "well, I wasn't wikilawyering because the rules say such-and-such". >Radiant< 10:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just using this strawpoll to determine if I should post on VP and see if the community has a consensus (other than readers of this talk page. This poll, as all polls should be, is non-binding.
Er, no one likes the idea, so no more poll. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point

I shan't copy the full text of the guideline here, but briefly, if you do something that A: is according to the letter of (some/the) guidelines but B: Against the spirit of those guidelines, or is disruptive to wikipedia in general with C: The specific intent to show that the rules are broken .... is WP:POINT.

So I've removed the section about WP:POINT here.

Hmm, on the other hand, being POINTy does involve wikilawyering, though that's the other way around. <scratches head>

--Kim Bruning 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Added nutshell

Not sure if it was entirely allowed, but added the nutshell to the page as a step towards guidelinehood:

This page in a nutshell: Utilising the rules in a manner contrary to their spirit in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community.

CaveatLectorTalk 12:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a complete and concise summary of this essay. It certainly has validity, however I think the current wording is kinda ambiguous and doesn't encompass the entire point of the essay. Anyone else have opinions? /Blaxthos 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I remember a site I was on once whose rules stated, amongst other things, that "anything we don't like is illegal". I would word the nutshell in a matter somewhat like this:
This page in a nutshell: Using semantics and techincalities, or otherwsie adhereing to the letter of policy rather than its spirit, is frowned upon by the wikipeida community

.211.30.134.111 03:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhat Confusing Example

"For example, while it is often impossible to definitely establish the actual user behind a set of sockpuppets, it is not a defense that all the sockpuppets which emerge were not named in the request for arbitration."

I'm not sure this is all that clear. The second example (that repeatedly reverting the same article 3 times a day is still illegal) is much better. I think we should perhaps delete the first one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.134.111 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)