Wikipedia:WikiLawyering
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. |
WikiLawyering (and the related term pettifogging) is a pejorative term that refers to certain practices frowned upon by the Wikipedia community, including:
- Using formal legal terms when discussing Wikipedia policy;
- Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit;
- Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and
- Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted in a commonsensical way to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to formal legal proceedings, often using legal reasoning — under the false assumption that Wikipedia administrators or the Arbitration Committee are obligated to follow the same rules of procedure as a court of law. Occasionally wikilawyering may raise legitimate questions, including fairness, but often it serves to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution.
For example, while it is often impossible to definitely establish the actual user behind a set of sockpuppets, it is not a defense that all the sockpuppets which emerge were not named in the request for arbitration.
As another example, the Three-Revert Rule is a measure of protection against edit warring. An editor who intentionally reverts the same article three times every day is not breaching the letter of this rule, but violates the spirit of the rule - and can thus be sanctioned for revert warring.
See [1] for an actual example of conflation of judicial proceedings and Wikipedia arbitration procedures (It is possible the poster intended this to be satire in an attempt to make a point about a particular editing dispute).
Contents |
[edit] Appropriate use of advocacy
Use of authentic legal skills by legal professionals or other persons trained and skilled in the arts of negotiation and advocacy is welcome in proceedings of the Arbitration Committee and on Wikipedia in a variety of contexts. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case for some suggestions regarding effective advocacy.
[edit] Negative connotations
Some Wikipedians allege that the charge of wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims. It is also said that newer users tend to believe nuanced complex policy (particularly WP:NPOV) conforms to their point of view, and will repeatedly refer to policy rather than providing rationale for their edits.
The word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations, much like the term "meatpuppet"; those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous.
In cases where it is possible the user is mistaken about something and not deliberately doing, efforts should be made to educate them rather than simply labeling their actions as "wikilawyering".
[edit] Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Forms of "WikiLawyering" that disrupt process, or articles, are covered by the guideline Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
