Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:00, 30 April 2008

Revision as of 06:59, 2 May 2008

Line 1,273:

:<span class="nounderlinelink">[[User:The Unknown Hitchhiker/Secret Link|<span style="color:#ffffff">O</span>]]—— [[User:The Unknown Hitchhiker|<span style="color:#258498">'''The Unknown Hi'''</span>]][[Animusic|<span style="color:#aec804">'''tc'''</span>]][[User talk:The Unknown Hitchhiker|<span style="color:#b0200c">'''hh'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/The_Unknown_Hitchhiker|<span style="color:#596411">'''ik'''</span>]][[User:The Unknown Hitchhiker/Guestbook|<span style="color:#48d71d">'''er'''</span>]] 06:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Yeah, that would work. [[User:Nufy8|Nufy8]] ([[User talk:Nufy8|talk]]) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

== agf template ==

I'm a little concerned with the series of templates starting with {{t1|Uw-agf1}}. There's actually already an excellent essay on the problem with this series of templates: [[Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith]]. This template fails to do this. As such, the template is ironic, in that it will very often be used without the same assumption for which it calls. I'm sure we've all seen disputes on Wikipedia that devolve into editors telling each other to assume good faith. "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?" While certainly well meaning, I believe this template has almost no potential to be effective. An editor exhorted to assume good faith with a template is not going to wonder if and start assuming good faith, but he will feel that he's been condescended to. If others agree, perhaps we should deprecate this warning series? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] ([[User talk:JayHenry|talk]]) 00:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

:If an editor used a template like that in a generic form then it would be themselves that is at fault, not the template itself. It's an intro point to the etiquette of dealing with other editors for those that might generally not understand how to conduct themselves. The template is boilerplate and gives a starting point. In specific cases you would modify the template to suit the circumstance using the inbuilt parsered comments.

:''<nowiki>{{subst:uw-agf1|Talk:Article|It's not generally accepted to tell someone to "go take a running jump" whilst discussing your recent edits, and you will find editors far more ameniable to discussion if you try to understand their actions first.}}</nowiki>''

:I personally think these templates do serve a purpose and give editors a starting point, but if you think this can be improved by re-wording them go ahead. If people are going to get upset by a template, do you not think the same editors will still get upset by slapping a link on their talk page to the essay and saying ''"I suggest you read that"''. These templates are not to be used to hide behind (as it says on the project page) as some form of pseudo officialdom but we should also not avoid pointing out to editors where their edits or behaviour is deemed to be unacceptable. As it says on the front page ''You are responsible for ensuring that the template's text is appropriate to the violation: if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template.'' but that doesn't mean we shouldn't re-word it. ^{[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]} 09:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

:: Thank you for your thoughtful response, but unfortunately I don't think the wording of {{t1|uw-agf1}}, {{t1|uw-agf2}} and {{t1|uw-agf3}} can be improved. The point is not the template itself, but rather that in my time here I've never seen an exhortation to Assume Good Faith to be an effective method of either calming a dispute or getting someone to assume good faith. I would even go so far as to say that the majority of instances in which [[WP:AGF]] is linked it is done so hypocritically. The people that most frequently link this essay are ''invariably'' guilty of violating it. I of course agree that we should point out to editors where their edits or behavior are unacceptable. But a ''generic'' AGF warning, of any sort, is simply either ineffective or more likely damagingly counterproductive. Good faith must be demonstrated, rather than generically linked. "I understand you disagree with So-and-so but when I look at this from his perspective, etc." This template blunts that message, as it does not afford the very assumption it exhorts. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] ([[User talk:JayHenry|talk]]) 23:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

::: I understand your position, but to me the problem seems then that we will avoid telling editors about AGF in case we are being hypocritical and not assuming it ourselves? There is behaviour on Wikipedia that warrants the use of these templates for unacceptable behaviour, now are majority of users who use this template are hypocritical I personally don't believe so and think it's subjective opinion. What systems would you have in place to inform and ensure editors understand one of the key tenets of Wikipedia or do we turn a blind eye to it for fear of being considered hypocritical ourselves? ^{[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]} 07:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)