User:Alecmconroy/Don't just say no
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
Many times on Wikipedia, we have to say no to the desires of an editor. In doing so, however, we shouldn't JUST say no-- we should take care to explain our reasoning and we should describe the policy that justifies that reasoning. These aspects "Don't Just Say No" are simply a logical extension of Please do not bite the newcomers and civility.
The unique technique used in "Don't just say no!" is more radical than just civility. After we explain why the answer is "no", we should provide the editor with a venue for achieving his goals. Thus, an editor who uploads copyrighted image shouldn't just be told the image is unusuable-- he should be told how to go about requesting permission to use the image from the copyright holder. An editor who includes an uncited opinion shouldn't just be told the opinion is unusuable-- he should be instructed how to look for a good source for that opinon. An editor introducing original research shouldn't just be told no-- he should be told how to transform his opinion into non-original research. Most difficult of all, an editor using Wikipedia as a soapbox shouldn't JUST be told to stop-- he should be told how to promote his agenda without doing so on Wikipedia.
[edit] The "Don't Just Say No" method
1. State the policy.
- State the policy clearly. Cite it as a policy, link to it. As far as possible, speak in terms of the policy, rather than the subject matter. Try to focus just on procedure and policy. Emphasize that it isn't just a matter of your personal feelings about the subject matter, the opinions being expressed, or the participants.
2. Explain the reason for the policy.
- Explain the reasons for the policy in simple, straightforward terms. Show that it is a very reasonable principle, not just some arbitrary rule. Mention other instances where the policy has been used, and show that's it not just something we made up to keep their information out.
3. Draw them a map to their goal.
- Tell the user how they can achieve the ends they desire. Explain under what circumstances their disputed edits would be welcome. Explain to them the first step they should take if they still want to meet that goal. Don't worry if you think their goal is impossible to achieve-- that's not for us to decide. Just tell them the first step on the road to that goal. This will allow them some way to direct their energies aside from repeatedly adding the material back into the encyclopedia.
[edit] Examples
[edit] No Original Research
- I have made some great discoveries about perpetual motion, and I want to add them to Wikipedia
It sounds like you have done some really original research that has given you some insights that no other scholars have. However, Wikipedia cannot cover your discovery right now. One of Wikipedia's core policies is No Original Research-- it forbids us from using original research unless that research has first been published in reliable sources. One of the reasons for this policy is that Wikipedia editors are not trained experts and we don't just don't have the skill and resources to properly evaluate original research.
Instead, we leave it up to other reputable sources to do the evaluation for us. Sources like magazines, newspapers, and scientific journals. Once they have reviewed your research and found it worthy of publication, then we can cite those reliable sources, and it won't be considered "original research" anymore.
This is obviously something you've put a lot of hard work into. I suggest that you directly contact some of the scholars in this field so you can alert them to your discoveries. If they find your work has merit, they can learn from your insights, and if they think it's appropriate, they can help alert scholarly journals and/or mass media to your research.
Once major news stories or peer-reviewed scholarly articles about your research has been published, it would probably no longer qualify as "original research" and we could re-evaluate whether to include your work in the encyclopedia.
