The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Even if not the intention, this essay does more bad than good. Saying editors are "incompetent" is rather uncivil regardless of one's competence level. It's often used (poorly) as an excuse to patronize editors. To be honest, it serves no real benefit.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
23:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
keep This is very nice sentiment and all, but when you get down to it a certain degree of competence should be required when writing an encyclopedia, even if it is ostensibly the encyclopedia anyone can edit.
Bosstopher (
talk)
23:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sometimes people try to edit here who lack the English language skills or the education to write coherently. There may be a nicer way to say this, but in those cases it needs to be said.
bd2412T23:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Deprecate but we also don't normally delete essays. And I can't imagine there is a userspace to move this to. I'd like it noted as an essay representing an opinion that violates Wikipedia policy, most notably
assume good faith,
don't bite the newcomers and
civility. And any link to this in a discussion of an editor should be a troutable offense.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
23:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
keep I certainly wouldn't use it for new editors but there are editors who have edited for a while who conistently edit in a manner or persistently misinterpret established practices that doesn't improve the encyclopedia, so in these cases asking them to consider competency is appropriate.
LibStar (
talk)
23:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Response to above even though editors should ideally know what they're doing, this essay still violates the
WP:Civility and
WP:No personal attacks policies, especially when outright calling another editor "incompetent". There's really no excuse for such belittling.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
00:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Agree with Snuggums. Two often I've seen
WP:CIR used simply as an ad hominem against editors with a contradictory POV. Those new editors who need guidance will not benefit from this derogatory essay. Instead, editors who need competency improvement can achieve this via generalized education and focused guidance. Those editors with true competency problems will quickly depart when their edits are constantly reverted. Please delete. –
S. Rich (
talk)
05:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Competence is required. It's all well and good to be civil, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to sit around and sing kumbaya with Randy and his merry band of fools, while patiently explaining the meaning of sources that are clear to anyone with the competence to read them. Anyone with any experience content-building presumably has encountered this very situation on many occasions.
Sławomir Biały (
talk)
00:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep but rewrite to avoid the contentious word "incompetence". The important distinction is not between competence and incompetence - is is between different areas and levels of competence.
Gandalf61 (
talk)
09:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Long answer: The word "competent" or "incompetent" is quite an easy word to swing around in disputes, but such an issue is important to Wikipedia, especially when it comes to automated tools and article quality. Such an article is required to discuss it short of making it a guideline or a policy. Short answer: Why are we even discussing this?
Optakeover(Talk)17:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade. If someone truly lacks the intellectual capacity of contributing to a collaboratively authored encyclopedia, then this needs to be admitted without mincing words. —
Psychonaut (
talk)
19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Snow Keep per Sławomir Biały and Psychonaut. Retention of productive editors is a priority or it's not a real encyclopedia. -
CorbieV☊☼17:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.