| Revision as of 14:40, 8 December 2007 editNightshadow28 (talk | contribs)2,193 edits +ja← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:21, 16 February 2008 edit undoСанта Клаус (talk | contribs)Rollbackers213 editsm ar interwikiNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| *] A warning template for users who misuse vandalism warning templates. | *] A warning template for users who misuse vandalism warning templates. | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 23:21, 16 February 2008
Essay on editing Misplaced Pages | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. | Shortcut
|
 | This page in a nutshell: Vandals are people who deliberately attempt to damage Misplaced Pages, not those who make adverse edits. |
Lately it has become trendy to adopt catchwords and apply them in a wider variety of circumstances than is appropriate. One such word is 'vandal'.
According to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." This definition is excessively wide, even for the purposes of broad policy coverage. It goes on to restrict what constitutes 'vandalism', however, saying emphatically that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."
Note that the definition does not mention:
- Edits that push a particular point of view
- Edits you don't like
- Edits contrary to your objectives
- Edits that are, according to you, 'clearly wrong'
- Edits that stop you from doing The Most Important Thing Possible.
As a result, the word 'vandal' should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be construed as good-faithed. If the edits in question are made in good faith, they are not vandalism and the contributor should not be called a 'vandal'.
Non-vandalism disruption may also occur. Instead of calling a person committing such disruption a 'vandal', you are better off discussing his or her specific edits with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of his or her edits or arguments, not his or her person.
See also
- Misplaced Pages:Civility
- Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith
- Misplaced Pages:Assume the assumption of good faith
- Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks - people may consider the term "vandal" an attack
- Misplaced Pages:Don't call the kettle black (WP:KETTLE)
- Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars
- Template:Vww A warning template for users who misuse vandalism warning templates.