User:Tryptofish/Lazy policy arguments
Humorous Wikipedia essay / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some common arguments used in discussions about policies are logically incorrect and intellectually lazy. This essay dissects some popular but invalid arguments that frequently arise when editors are discussing proposed changes to Wikipedia policies. You can think of it as Arguments to avoid in policy discussions, but with a generous helping of satire. And rhetorical flourishes. And sarcasm. With whipped cream on top.
![]() | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
![]() | This is a humorous essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors and is made to be humorous. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. This essay isn't meant to be taken seriously. |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/William_Bouguereau_-_Dante_and_Virgile_-_Google_Art_Project_2.jpg/640px-William_Bouguereau_-_Dante_and_Virgile_-_Google_Art_Project_2.jpg)
If, after reading it, you feel better able to conduct a useful discussion about a potential policy change, that's great! It's what I intend it for.
If, on the other hand, you find yourself sputtering with rage, please wipe the spittle from your lips, that's very gross! Perhaps it's because you see yourself in one of these descriptions. Which is fine with me: I never liked you anyway. Don't even think of changing anything here to make yourself look better. I'll revert you, hunt you down, and steal your lunch money. Instead, try writing your own essay, in rebuttal. And please keep in mind that, although I'm basing these caricatures on comments that I have actually seen, this isn't about you personally. It's about the logic of the arguments, not about the editor.
Although they can apply to any policy discussion, these examples focus on discussions about administrator policy and blocks, because those are particularly prone to eliciting knee-jerk reactions whenever anyone suggests making a change. But I want to make a caveat about change. Even though these examples show flawed rationales for opposing change, that doesn't mean that change is always a good thing. Sometimes, even many times, proposals for change should not be adopted. Wikipedia has a vast trove of failed proposals that should have failed. I should know: I've been responsible for quite a few of them myself! It's still helpful to propose an idea that fails, because someone else may figure out a way to improve upon it to make something good. Just make sure that you present a thoughtful argument for supporting or opposing.