Help:Etiquette

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Wikibooks contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. When users interact with respect, we can cooperate effectively to build a collection of free instructional textbooks.

This page gives suggestions and guidelines on how to work with other users. In addition, there are two important conventions which might be enforced as policy:

• No personal attacks. Criticism of the work of other contributors is acceptable, but personal attacks and insults regarding their race, sex, creed, et cetera, are totally unacceptable. For further guidance, see No personal attacks.

• No offensive usernames; users should not choose usernames likely to cause offence to other users. For further guidance, see No offensive usernames.

Contents 1 Contexts where users interact 2 Some principles of Wikibooks etiquette 3 Votes for deletion 4 How to avoid abuse of Talk pages 5 Debate vs. research 6 History

[edit] Contexts where users interact

Wikibooks is divided into multiple books. Some books have no active editors. Some books have only two active editors, and one only fixes spelling and punctuation. However, there are instances where multiple users edit the same page. Some books and modules become popular and attract many users, just as our sister projects Wikipedia and Wiktionary do. Also, because Wikibooks is an open wiki, any user can begin editing any book at any time. Some users wander around Wikibooks, editing many books and complaining about ones that they believe to violate policy. In fact, the forking policy limits trivial forking and sometimes forces users to work together.

Thus it is necessary for users to be polite and work well with other users. It is more effective to use the wiki collaboratively to build good content, then to waste effort in continuing disputes.

[edit] Some principles of Wikibooks etiquette

• Listen to other people. Try to see where they are coming from, answer their questions politely. Don't ignore them (unless it's for a very good reason, ie they themselves are being unreasonable.) Respect them.
• Acknowledge and apologise when you are wrong or being unfair. We are only human. We make mistakes; we are not always right. It is best to admit it.
• Try to say something positive for each complaint you make. Complaints have the potential to annoy and offend users, whether or not that was the intent. A few compliments can proactively smooth things over and make the author less likely to simply take offence at the criticism. A safe approach is to "sandwich" the complaint between compliments, with something positive at the beginning and end with your commentary.
• Remove or summarise old complaints. Once you are fairly certain that the person you're critiquing has seen your complaint (e.g., they've responded to it), be honorable about removing or summarising it. The author will sometimes feel reluctant to remove criticism out of fear that it will make them appear fearful of evaluations from others. You can go even a step further and thank them for addressing (or at least considering) your issue.
• Say something nice on a talk page. For example, post nice comments on talk pages. Typically, people only bother to use talk pages when they have a problem with a module. This gives a negative connotation to both modules and talk pages; the negative connotation inevitable causes arguments on the talk pages. So if you like what you read, tell the authors! Do not assume that by not complaining, the author ought to know that their work is OK. If you like what you read, tell them so!
• Limit and qualify your statement and try posing comments as questions, especially if you're not totally sure. Blanket statements or statements asserting the truth of opinions that can inflame the reader and sometimes, if you identify it as your own personal point of view, it can help make it seem less insulting to those who disagree. In this way, you can still emphasize your strong feelings on the topic, and communicate exactly the same opinion, but do so in a less inflammatory way.
• Acknowledge that you understand other point of views. Present yourself as able to restate them fairly.
• Help moderate other people's disagreements when you come across them. This is the same concept as pulling apart the two people engaged in a fist fight. Sometimes it is best to just state that the discussion is too heated (in a metaphorical sense).
• Take care writing on topics you are passionate about. The rule here is to write modules in a neutral way that does not argue for one point of view. Remember that it is difficult to be unbiased when you are biased. Expect other users to edit your work to implement a neutral point of view.
• As a last resort, leave. If you are not making progress, even after your efforts to resolve the situation, when you tried to cooperate but the other user continues to violate policy, then there is one other way to improve the situation. Leave. Bookmark the page and return in a week or two. Allow some other Wikibookians to handle policy instead.

Most of the above suggestions can be summarized very succinctly: Be Polite. It's more important (and useful) than you may think. See also Wikibooks:Staying cool when the editing gets hot.

[edit] Votes for deletion

The votes for deletion page often contains many entire books in VFD. Many authors do not like their work being deleted. These authors may have contributed to Wikibooks because it is easy to edit and create pages, and they may be unable to quickly find alternate hosting. Sometimes, VFD can become stressful as users disagree about whether to keep or delete an entire book. The authors of pages in VFD can become offended.

Some tactics to consider:

• The deletion policy mentions situations in which VFD is inappropriate.
• If a module is a speedy deletion candidate, distinguish whether the module is only garbage, or was a good faith effort to start something useful. The latter case might benefit from discussion. Instead of marking it with {{delete|reason}}

• • Send the module to VFD to allow community discussion, including about where to move the content.
  • If the author is a registered user, leave a message on the user talk page. The user might willingly decide to move the content elsewhere, without needing a VFD.
• Avoid citing policies like "Wikibooks is not for starting new Wikimedia projects", which themselves do not prohibit any specific type of book.
• Remember, VFD is about the content of the pages, not the users. Treat users politely. Though anonymous users and possible sockpuppets might not have their votes count, they can still comment.

[edit] How to avoid abuse of Talk pages

We are editing each others' work, and when working on political and other incendiary topics, inevitably, a lot of the edits reflect our personal biases. Very often, political disagreements are interpreted as personal insults or attacks on our intelligence, dignity, cherished values, or honesty. Egos can get wounded, and counter-attacks and defensiveness are all too natural.

But we can avoid many of these situations. We have to bear a few things in mind:

• The basic purpose of the talk pages is to help improve the module to which the talk page is attached.
• Wikibooks is not a debate forum -- that's not what it's designed for. If you want to debate, there exist more appropriate venues such as Usenet, public weblogs, and other WikiWikis.
• The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean that (1) the person hates you, (2) the person thinks you're stupid, (3) the person is stupid, (4) the person is evil, etc. There are many things you can falsely infer from the fact that someone disagrees with you. It is best not to infer anything along those lines at all, and let that person live with his or her own opinion in peace.
• Before adding a comment to a talk page, ask yourself:
  • Is this really necessary? Why can't I simply edit the module with a summary and leave it at that? Won't it be obvious what I've done and why?
  • Will I actually succeed in changing any minds? If not, what point does the discussion have, given that the purpose of Wikibooks is to create instructional resource modules?
  • Am I adding this comment simply because I want to defend my ego and advance my own cause?
  • If I really want to continue this debate, is it of general interest, or would it be better to take it to e-mail?
• Efficiency often requires silence.

So let's please, please conscientiously avoid trying to use Wikibooks as a place where partisan controversies can be settled.

[edit] Debate vs. research

Arguing as a means of improving a module is poor use of time compared with researching a subject. It may attract people to the project, but it seems logical that these would be people more interested in arguing than in creating an accurate instructional resource.

One habit that would be good for users to have is to actively seek to summarize discussions, especially those which have elaborated all views on the subject. This doesn't (necessarily) mean replacing the entire discussion with what you think. It simply means trying to recast the entire discussion as, e.g., a set of bullet points, removing any points that have been taken back or proven incorrect. If you can restrain yourself to do this in an unbiased fashion (which admittedly is hard), it can result in text that is almost good enough for the main module.

[edit] History

This page is an adaptation of Wikipeida:Etiquette at 2 August 2003, used under GNU Free Documentation License.