Wikipedia editors love linking to policies and guidelines. Doing so is a useful way to demonstrate to a reader that what you are saying is rooted in some kind of established practice, and can also appear to give greater authority to what you are saying.
- In this case we should assume good faith and not bite the new user. They probably didn't realise that unreferenced BLPs are not allowed.--KorruskiTalk 12:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
For example, the above remark, in the context of a discussion about user behaviour, is helpful. It reminds us of the policies and guidelines that we should consider when determining how to act. It shows that the point of view of the writer is not mere opinion, but is based on an understanding of Wikipedia norms. This is useful.
However, all too often editors are tempted to throw in references to policies left right and centre, without thinking about whether the policy actually applies. This tendency is made worse by the use of shortcuts (WP:BITE, WP:POINT). They are useful, but do not adequately sum up the true meaning of the policy.
Examples
WP:POINT
What does WP:POINT actually cover?
The full title is Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is actually only applicable in a fairly narrow set of circumstances. Firstly, obviously, someone should be disrupting Wikipedia. Simply arguing loudly is not the same thing. Secondly, they should be doing so to illustrate a point. Vandalism is disruptive, but is generally not intended to illustrate a point.
So, how is this misused?
- At its most egregious, you get comments like "Ok, I get your point". This is nonsense, and is simply linking to a policy because the shortcut is one of the words we are using.
- More commonly, editors may say things such as "This AfD is a bit POINTy". Ah, but is it? Creating an AfD is certainly making a point - it is making the point that the user thinks the page should be deleted. However, creating an AfD is generally not considered disruptive, unless there are significant other factors involved.
- In some cases, WP:POINT is not linked, but is implied by the use of 'pointy' which on Wikipedia is generally understood to refer to the WP:POINT policy. A recent example was '[Creating this essay] is a pointy salvo in a content dispute'. Well, creating an essay may be an excellent way of making a point, but it is unlikely to actually be disruptive.
WP:BITE
What does WP:BITE actually cover?
The full title is please do not bite the newcomers. This clearly refers only to interactions with newcomers. The jocular use of 'bite' seems to contribute to the misunderstanding that this is a general policy about civility. No, it is about treatment of newcomers, with a particular focus on not driving away good-faith new editors by tagging their articles for improvement or (worse) deletion within minutes of creation, or by unmoderated criticism of their failure to abide by Wikipedia policy or practice.
How is it misused?
Editors have a tendency to use 'bite' to refer to general civility issues. People might say "That was rather BITEy" in reference to one user snapping at another but, unless the 'victim' is a new user, WP:BITE does not apply. It is simply a problem of general civility.
WP:COOLDOWN
What does WP:COOLDOWN actually cover?
This one is incredibly simple. WP:COOLDOWN is one short paragraph of the blocking policy, and it specifically states that blocks intended solely to 'cool down' a user are not permitted. Surprisingly, though, some editors still get this wrong...
How is it misused?
A couple of times, I've seen cases of editors saying 'perhaps a cooldown block is in order? Most likely by someone who just used the shortcut without reading it. This is a typical example of linking words for the sake of it and, in this case, it is particularly embarrassing as the linked policy directly contradicts what they are saying.
Advice
- Don't just link words because that word happens to be a shortcut.
- Read policies you are linking to. Do they actually apply to this situation? Are you sure?