Forum:Rethinking "Snarky point of view"
(→An honest(but factual) point of view) |
(→Keep snarky, you doofus) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
==Keep snarky, you doofus== | ==Keep snarky, you doofus== | ||
I guess this subjection is for chastising me as suggesting changes for no reason, or promoting the original POV on grounds not addressed until now. [[User:Ikanreed|Ikanreed]] ([[User talk:Ikanreed|talk]]) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC) | I guess this subjection is for chastising me as suggesting changes for no reason, or promoting the original POV on grounds not addressed until now. [[User:Ikanreed|Ikanreed]] ([[User talk:Ikanreed|talk]]) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| + | :[[Image:So-it-has-come-to-this.jpg|300px]] | ||
| + | :{{User:Weaseloid/sig|}} 19:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:17, 6 February 2015
So... it's a source of contention. It's a source of concern for articles about living people. It's sometimes a source of excuses for bad information. Is "Snarky point of view" a tradition for tradition's sake?
It's certainly true that we don't want a neutral point of view when our focused topics are so often not deserving of fairness, and love the balance fallacy to give themselves false legitimacy. But is snarky the right tone anymore?
I'd like to raise some other possibilities to consider. Please post your subsections if you have ideas. Ikanreed (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
A RATIONAL point of view
So... this one is a natural consideration, and I'm inclined not to look it because of how little people tend to misunderstand rationalism, and how much debate it would foment. Ikanreed (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
An honest(but factual) point of view
Here's my main proposal. We should address subjects for what they are, calling a spade a shovel, and calling a hopelessly made up idea exactly that. Not shying away from having a perspective, but trying to incorporate as much valid scientific fact as possible along the way. Ikanreed (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think the problem is more how some folks interpret "snarky." My understanding has always been that SPOV was there as a way to suggest that while we should still be properly debunking and countering arguments rationally, there's still place for a bit of sarcasm or a light quip here and there to emphasize our points. I suppose I always saw it as a way to indicate that perhaps we shouldn't be as sterile as Wikipedia, not as an excuse to let "snark" get in the way of actual constructive dialogue. - Grant (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep snarky, you doofus
I guess this subjection is for chastising me as suggesting changes for no reason, or promoting the original POV on grounds not addressed until now. Ikanreed (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)