Tachyony: Imported page

2021-12-19T17:45:40Z

Imported page

New page

{{Behavioral essay|WP:BEYOND}}
[[File:1909_Tyee_-_Debate_and_Oratory_illustration.png|thumb]]

When a discussion is unproductive, [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] is often blamed, but this puts the [[cart before the horse]]: incivility is often a ''result'' of unproductive discussion, not its cause. Productive discussion demands going '''beyond civility''': while civility is very important, four other patterns of behavior are just as important to reaching a productive outcome:

; 1. Acknowledge [[precedent]].: [[WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU|Ignoring precedent]], intentionally or not, leads to repeating old arguments, which can frustrate everyone. When participating in a discussion, you have an obligation to understand how similar situations have been handled in the past, and to act in light of that understanding. If there is a precedent for the present situation, but you think an exception should be made, ''acknowledge'' the consensus and ''explain'' why it shouldn't apply. If you want to challenge the consensus itself, do so at the [[Wikipedia:Use the right venue|right venue]]. ("Precedent" includes – in decreasing order of priority – all the ''policies'', ''guidelines'', and ''[[Wikipedia:Closing discussions|closed]] discussions'' that bear on the matter at hand.)

; 2. Avoid [[List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies|logical fallacies]].: Fallacious arguments don't convince, they only frustrate productive discussion. Make sure your conclusions are ''relevant'', ''objectively and succinctly stated'', and ''follow logically'' from the available information. Justify your assumptions and generalizations. Be precise. Understand where the [[Philosophical burden of proof|burden of proof]] lies, and what the [[status quo]] is. When you see logical fallacies being committed, point them out – civilly of course.

; 3. Don't go [[meta]].: Make sure you're talking about the original question, ''not'' about the argument about the question, or about an argument about the argument. If you have an issue with how another editor conducts themselves, you may note this, but if discussion continues along that line, it should be taken to another forum (see [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]). Once you get more than one level of abstraction away from the original question, it is very unlikely that anything you say is going to help resolve that original question.

; 4. Don't [[WP:REHASH|repeat yourself]].{{ref|warnings|1}}: Consensus is determined by the soundness of arguments and the support they receive from different editors, ''not'' how often they are expressed, or whether they have the last word. [[Wikipedia:Closing discussions|Closers]] will review the discussion with this in mind. Repeating yourself to someone who wasn't convinced the first time won't produce your desired outcome – it will only generate aggravation. If you need to clarify a point or address a misunderstanding, go ahead – but make sure you're not just saying the same thing over again.

The point of any discussion is to get to a resolution. If you ignore precedent, employ a logical fallacy, stray into meta-discussion, or argue by exhaustion, you make a productive outcome less likely. '''If you ''knowingly'' do any of these things, you are ''not'' acting in [[good faith]], ''even if you remain civil''.''' So repeat these rules to yourself like a [[mantra]]: '''Acknowledge precedent. Avoid logical fallacies. Don't go meta. Don't repeat yourself.'''

==Note==
:<span style="font-size:90%">{{note|warnings}}1. This does not apply to [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|user talk warnings]]; if an editor is engaging in behavior that the community has clearly defined as unacceptable, repetition and escalation of warning messages is standard procedure.

==See also==
*[[Wikipedia:Precedents]]
*[[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid]]

{{Wikipedia essays}}

[[Category:Wikipedia essays about consensus]]
[[Category:Wikipedia essays explaining processes]]

Wikipedia:Beyond civility - Revision history

Tachyony: Imported page