Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:32, 30 September 2010

Misplaced Pages:Don't-give-a-fuckism

Usage of profane words in the essay that clearly are unacceptable and unsuccessful in the attempts to promote (perhaps) neutral points of view. Request delete. Wifione _....... 13:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Content of the essay is about as valid as any other essay; does not violate any policies. —Scott5114↗ 13:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, the fact that the page contains profanities is not a good reason to delete; we have m:Don't be a dick, after all... And, by the way, in my opinion, the essay contains useful bits of advice. Salvio 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Why do people want this deleted so badly? It's not harming anything, now is it? How many newbies come here looking just for this essay? I bet that very few, if any do. Pilif12p :  Yo  14:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing admin, please set this !vote aside per WP:NOHARM. ɳorɑfʈ 03:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments like yours above are mostly just annoying to the closing admin. In any case, did you click the link you listed? Maybe read the bottom where it talks about MfD? Killiondude (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment We just MfD'd this a few weeks ago and it was unanimous keep, so I doubt this MfD will go any differently. Can I ask if you would prefer to have a "clean language" version or just object to the substance of the essay irrespective of how it's worded? —Soap— 14:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Soap. Perhaps the acceptance (or non-) level of the word 'fuck' prompted me to go for the MfD. I'm all right with a speedy keep here (in other words, I'm comfortable with a withdraw out here), as I understand the viewpoint and should attempt to change the language within. Thanks. Wifione _....... 14:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It was a "unanimous keep" because it was closed so quickly. While I don't know that this essay should be deleted (prefer altering it to make it more effective), I do know that 1) it is invoked for uncivil purposes; 2) the fact that it has been nommed 3 times and that the content is argued about on the talk page means that there is clearly NOT a consensus to keep it in its current form; and 3) while wikipedia is not censored (and I support that) the purpose of this essay is to persuade people to be less attached in order to resolve conflict. It is difficult to persuade someone who is offended by the choice of words. Therefore, I think this essay mostly preaches to the converted, where more moderate language may mean it actually converts more editors to be less attached. ɳorɑfʈ 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is actually the 4th nomination, the real nom second wasn't named correctly. Its been speedy-kept every time, for 3 years now. That sounds like a consensus to keep with a small minority unwilling to accept it. Chances are, the kind of person who is so offended by the word "fuck" that they refuse to even consider the content of the essay isn't the kind of person who can easily detach themselves from a dispute. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's a small minority unwilling to accept it, it is not a consensus, per the definition of the term. I think it is unfortunate that the majority won't attempt to compromise. Maybe there's something short of deletion that will ameliorate many of the concerns, but none of the keepers have ever even asked about possible alternatives. On Misplaced Pages, the status quo never has to compromise, even if there is not consensus to maintain said status quo. ɳorɑfʈ 03:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, other than censorship, what are the alternatives? Mr.Z-man 04:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think selecting more effective language to get one's point across to more users is necessarily censorship, but to answer your question, I wonder if a less offensive word would mollify some of the users who are so highly offended, and make it more palatable to people who need to really take it in? If I'm in a dispute with someone and I say "You really need to read WP:FUCK," I think chances of the person reading the essay and getting the message are lower than if a less incendiary word was used. While this may sound funny, even "shit" would be less offensive. Like the commenter below says, it is certainly more common, and is considered a less intense word. I don't think it would change the point of the essay, nor do I think changing the noun will take any power or intensity from that point. This is the first alternative that has come to mind. There maybe more. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this. And thanks for asking! ɳorɑfʈ 04:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you're not really changing it because its "more effective" – it can, and has been, argued that it is more effective as-is; you might get more people to read it, but you risk diluting the message – you're changing it because some people find it offensive. That is censorship. It may not change the actual point of the essay, but it can change the effectiveness. You're coming very close to contradicting yourself. You say "shit" is a less intense word, but it won't reduce the intensity? Mr.Z-man 17:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Effective at what? If you want to be effective at swaying people to its viewpoint, I think having it be more palatable to more people is better. I don't think that switching from "fuck" to "shit" changes the meaning nor dilutes the message, which is one should not be so attached. But again, this was just the first idea off the top of my head. Clearly there is a group of people who find fault with this essay. The Deputy Director of the WikiMedia Foundation himself has issues with it. I just think it would be good of the majority to attempt compromise. ɳorɑfʈ 23:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with Erik on more than one issue. He's certainly not infallible. Personally I haven't really seen anything I would call a compromise. A compromise is where both sides give something up. If we change the wording, the people wanting to keep it as-is give something up, but the people who want it changed don't give anything, they get exactly what they wanted. Though it assumes that they would actually be happier with "shit," so far you're the only person who has indicated that they would be. Mr.Z-man 02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If we change the wording, the people who want to keep it as-is give something up, and the people who want it deleted altogether give something up (as it is not deleted). The people who want no profanity altogether also give something up (as there is still profanity). Yes, I'm the only person who has indicated that those who want the essay deleted or all profanity censored might settle for "shit" over "fuck" if those were the only two options, because I see no benefit to inflexibility or unwillingness to compromise. ɳorɑfʈ 04:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there really any people who really want it deleted for reasons other than the profanity? From this and the last MFD, there seem to be a total of 2 users advocating deletion, and one (Wifione) seems to be objecting almost entirely to the use of "fuck." The MFD before that was started with no reason; no one other than the nom supported deletion. In the one before that, most of the deletion advocates seem to be sockpuppets and the remainder's arguments don't really apply anymore as they were based on a now 3-year old version of the page; its been totally rewritten in the meantime. FWIW, excluding the 2007 MFD, there are 38 users who support keeping it as-is and 3 who support deletion. Mr.Z-man 05:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize there were socks... ɳorɑfʈ 06:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, but y'know, DGAS is much more common that DGAF. --jpgordon 14:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it? Lara 21:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Completely worthless piece of Misplaced Pages that detracts from its efforts to make it out to be a serious encyclopedic endeavor. Alex (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, It's a word. Get over it. Page offers a sage bit of advice and if you don't like, don't go here. If it OK in the body of an article, which I argued against, the it should be OK here. It is likely if you hate this page, you need it. DocOfSoc (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  The use of the term in this manner is highly unprofessional and unnecessary. It makes me wonder why I contribute to this website if it is not even going to attempt to take itself seriously.Alex (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Closing admin, please set aside all the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT based !votes and make your decision on the more objective assertions made. ɳorɑfʈ 20:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Not trying to sound like a WP:DICK, but wouldn't adding a template stop search engines from seeing this? If that template is added its not like anyone can find it without looking for it... Pilif12p :  Yo  20:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - This was just nominated and kept less than a month ago. There is no policy prohibiting profanity, especially in essays. If you disagree with it, write a counter-essay. An essay like this is pretty far down on the list of things that might cost the project some credibility. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: My default preference about an essay of this nature would usually be to userfy it. But in this instance, I'm not sure whose space we'd userfy it to: based on his contributions, the creator, The prophet wizard of the crayon cake, seems himself to have stopped giving a ... a darn some time ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• I really don't give a fuck, but Keep! ANowlin 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Fucking Keep obviously. A well-considered viewpoint, and IMHO one of the best pieces of advice, with respect to staying sane in the madness of Misplaced Pages. This is a perfectly valid use of the word, to encompass a genuine philosophical stance. As Stephen Fry wrote, "The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a lack of education or of a lack of verbal interest is just fucking lunatic".  Chzz  ►  05:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: This was just nominated a few weeks ago.... --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Don't fucking care → ROUX ₪ 05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep I used to want to get this page deleted as well, but all in all, it gives good advice, and I don't give a hoot whether it gets deleted or not. I think people who strongly oppose the page should re-read it neutrally. In the end, I'm pretty sure they won't give a hoot either. --Kjoonlee 07:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: I have never read a more accurate page on Misplaced Pages. If one is to be a content editor, it's essential "not to give a fuck." Those that shy away from what they feel are profane or rude words are the same people that spend their entire Wiki-lives censoring and pontificating on others instead of writing.  Giacomo  10:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as it's truth-full. The best way to sail the waters of Misplaced Pages? is with a Jeff Spicoli attitude. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'm clearly from another world :) I've never experienced the f-word being used so liberally on Misplaced Pages and still not being called WP:Uncivil. I personally have not had a background or education that allowed, promulgated or even encouraged such a usage of the f-word as is evident within the essay. Perhaps that is what led me to nominate this essay for deletion. I was commenting to one of the editors on my talk page how I'd never be comfortable with this essay being quoted as reference points for future/current Misplaced Pages's editors - simply because of the f-word. If I can't use it with Mr. Wales, my parents, my friends, I possibly cannot use it with any other editor. However, like I mentioned, I clearly am from another world; and as I mentioned in my earlier comment to Soap, I'm quite comfortable adhering to consensus here. Sincerely... Wifione _....... 16:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Salvio. Tommy! 16:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Fuck yeah we keep this wikipedia is not censored. Mo ainm~Talk 17:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Its not hurting anyone and Misplaced Pages isn't censored. But we should put the "This Page Is Humor" template in, just to make everyone happy. Flightx52 21:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightx52 (talk • contribs)
• Give it the fuck up already. A grand total of no one gives a shit about delicate sensibilities when it comes to these pages. Lara 21:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey! Just because this essay has FUCK in the title doesn't give you a license to violate WP:CIV. ɳorɑfʈ 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I guess I'm a rebel, then; operating without a license. Someone detain me! XD Lara 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:DGAF. In short, I don't give a fuck. harej 21:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Fucking keep. Not doing anyone any harm, a perfectly humorous and effective article. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED. What are we targeting next, pray, WP:DBAD? —La Pianista 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Meh per WP:DGAF :P but seriously, Keep. There's no rule against senseless profanity on project pages. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 02:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong delete: By transitive law anyone voting to keep this article must already not give a fuck, and therefore their votes are null.
  But in all seriousness, the argument for this article and the article itself do not stand in argument. The former, because though Misplaced Pages does not have rules against swearing if you do swear you already get a -1 in the minds of individuals during any discussion for swearing, and the latter because if this article aimed at neutrality and a viewpoint it wanted to teach other editors, it would not use swears to begin with. -PatPeter 05:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• It really doesn't belong here and I've never seen it invoked productively. However, the depressing fact is that we have far too many editors who reflexively oppose deleting anything with naughty words in it because they think they're defending freedom of speech or something. With any luck something will eventually happen to it, though what that might be I don't know. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Why do essays need to be "invoked" at all? Did you actually consider the fact that people are agreeing with it because they agree with the message? Or did you just assume that they were lying when they said they were? Mr.Z-man 13:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Whether or not essays need to be invoked, they are. That's part of the culture of Misplaced Pages. And when invoked, this one is sometimes invoked with statements like "Go FUCK yourself." ɳorɑfʈ 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Then those users should be blocked for being uncivil. The essay itself is not inherently uncivil. Just because a crowbar can be used as a weapon doesn't mean a license should be required for crowbar purchases. Mr.Z-man 22:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Every time I've seen a reference to this essay (your mileage may vary of course) it's been as part of a message along the lines of "I'm proud to be a sociopath", which is not conducive to positive collaboration in the way that OWB#60 is. I am not for a moment suggesting that Misplaced Pages is short of proud sociopaths, but it is arguably not helpful for them to have a codified belief system in projectspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Perhaps request a move to a less profane variation (WP:Detachment?), but Observation 60 and most of the essay's substance are accurate and within the permissible bounds of essay opinions. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Move to different title, move to user space, move to meta, or delete. Per my extended comment, the net detriment of an official-sounding WP:FUCK in project space outweighs any benefits of this essay in its current form. This is not a matter of censorship, but a matter of making a rational and inclusive choice how we communicate. Note: Misplaced Pages:Don't be a dick was moved to Meta for similar reasons (see Misplaced Pages talk:Don't be a dick).--Eloquence* 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. This is absolutely a disruptive nomination, considering that the last nomination closed as Speedy Keep less than a month ago, and all 3 previous MfD's (yes, this is the fourth MfD despite the "3rd nomination" title) also closed as Speedy Keep. It's clearly not going anywhere, and I'd expect an admin to be able to see that prior to nominating it. SnottyWong 00:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The last MfD for this article was non-admin closed after being open less than 2 hours. That was unfair, in my opinion, and nobody should be citing that MfD as why this one shouldn't be happening. ɳorɑfʈ 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The fact that the last MfD closed so quickly only gives more weight to the argument that this MfD is frivolous and a waste of everyone's time. SnottyWong 23:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Move to different title, move to user space, or move to meta After looking at both sides, I agree with . This is not a matter of censorship, but a matter of making a rational and inclusive choice how we communicate. We're not telling people what they can and can't say. We're arriving at consensus, through a collaborative decision making process, on how we want to present ourselves. And some of us think that FUCK is not the best word. ɳorɑfʈ 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Move to different title, move to user space, or move to meta As the nominating editor, I agree with Eloquence's brilliant solution, where she shows how Misplaced Pages:Don't be a dick was moved to Meta for similar reasons (see Misplaced Pages talk:Don't be a dick). This move will allow editors to refer to this essay irrespective of it not being in the Misplaced Pages space. It's so clear that if a simple nomination of this essay can motivate so many editors, many of them established, to become so comfortable using the 'Fuck' word in their belligerent keep comments - as is evidenced above - there is much logic to the fact that while this essay might contain details relevant to some editors, it does motivate and encourage the liberal usage of the 'Fuck' word. Move and speedy close this discussion. Wifione _....... 05:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If its speedy closed at this point, it would be as "Keep", which there is a supermajority in favor of. There is clearly no consensus for a move. Mr.Z-man 20:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • There is also not consensus for a "Keep," as a half dozen editors have expressed concern with keeping the essay in its current form and location. According to WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Misplaced Pages's principles." Referencing Consensus_decision-making#Non-unanimous_consensus, we don't even have U-3 here. A significant minority of editors have expressed concerns. These concerns are not being considered by the majority. Further, editors tend to watchlist articles they support, and those who oppose an article tend not to watchlist them. So that means there are 50 editors who like this article at the ready to defend it when an editor comes along and opposes it. The opposition doesn't get notified when it goes to MfD. So the statistics on "consensus" are skewed in my opinion. ɳorɑfʈ 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm going by the practical definition of consensus; how its applied on Misplaced Pages in almost all cases. Historically, we've always used "rough consensus." Letting 3 people block any decision on a project the size of Misplaced Pages is patently ridiculous. Regardless, when there's no consensus, the default action is to do nothing. When I see a compromise proposal that consists of something other than doing exactly what the minority wants, I'll consider it. Mr.Z-man 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I gave you a compromise proposal that consisted of something other than doing exactly what the minority wants, and you said "so far you're the only person" who has suggested this. So it seems there's no possible scenario that satisfies you. ɳorɑfʈ 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Where one defines words as sufficiently offensive for essay deletion is unclear. At this point, drawing the line here seems quite unwise indeed. Collect (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Your hang-ups on "bad" language are your own concern; don't try to make it ours. The essay is just as valid as most of the more traditional and accepted ones, therefore there is no legitimate reason to delete this one. A little less prig and a little more good humour wouldn't go amiss here. Delta Trine 20:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That wasn't very nice. Try leading by example. ɳorɑfʈ 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)