Talk:Don't be a dick/Archives/2006

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2006, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Intentionally Offensive

Everyone's missing the point. The word "dick" in this case is specifically meant to be offensive, and for good reason. Offending someone is a VERY effective means of getting their attention. If you called them a jerk, they would most likely dismiss it and continue in their devious ways. So you see, the level of offensiveness is directly related to the probability that the person will quit being a dick. (This is assuming they aren't in denial, in which case calling them a jerk would produce the same result.) Signed, the1physicist from the english wikipedia.

If one actually wants to just get rude and dick around (as opposed to unintentional misunderstandings, etc. in which case offending them would still be wrong as they had no true malice intended), offending them will simply enrage them and incite further dicking. It's a vicious cycle. Then it turns into a "dick fest" where both parties involved start dicking off in a big fight. Example:
(X comes into message board)
X: "Ho ho ho, you've got to change that rule. You know, it's not fair."
Y: "But the rule is fair. It is <insert argument here>"
X: "NO IT'S NOT!!! NOW CHANGE IT OR ELSE!!!" (note: no argument provided, nothing but yelling)
Y: "It is."
X: "YOU SUCK, ****ERS!!!!"
Y: "Get off, dick!"
(end example)
As you can see, X came in and dicked around (saying that a rule is not fair is OK, but instead of calmly discussing he quickly became AGGRESSIVE). Y then called him a dick. This infuriates him, and so his dicking becomes worse. A vicious cycle is initiated. 03:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The very point of the essay is to draw readers' attention to, among other things, the risk of starting a "vicious cycle". Is it effective?   IP 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A bit embarassing

I am fine with the concept, but the title is just embarassing to the WMF and for myself. Some things are better left unsaid. GChriss 18:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not talk in the name of the foundation. Only board members are entitled to do that to some extent (thats why we have a number of board members). This is an accepted policy see the archive page (linked on top of this page) for the vote. It is a necesary gudileine (this is a guideline right?). It wouldn't be necesary for this it exist if no one was being a dick. -- Cat chi? 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It's an essay now, it seems. Also, what is the penalty for not choosing one's words well enough, anyway? 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
you think this is embarassing? i think this should be a law! -- 00:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Which policy?

This page is very entertaining. But what puzzles me is this: Do you want us to follow this anatomical metaphor policy, or do you want us to follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Art LaPella from English Wikipedia

Both. Try to avoid calling somebody a dick, but maybe you could tell them to read WP: DICK. 14:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First-Grade Battle Cry

In pre-school through second-grade school halls, the battle cry of the offended was as follows:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! You made a swear!!! I'm TELLING!!!

Is this a joke?

If so, I love it! It's the first policy by Wikimedia that I actually 1) read through, and 2) enjoyed reading. It made me think, if someone would just read this and abide by it, those long, boring policies could be tossed. This would free up ample space on the servers.

I don't think its enforced the way w:WP:3RR is, but it's referenced not too rarely concerning the sort of people who end up on w:WP:ARQ ;D! 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with clues is that only the clue-friendly take them in. The way I try to sort through policies on en: Wikipedia (and on Uncyclopedia and on BJD FAQ) is: "guidelines" are for clueful editors of good will, because the clueless won't understand and those of bad will won't care (see instruction creep); "policies" have to be utterly unambiguous and enforced, because they are used on the clueless and bad faith. "Don't be a dick" is a guideline, because you need a clue to see why it's the case - David Gerard 02:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
To David Gerard: This is hardly explanatory for a guideline. If a joke, it's kind of witty. But that's all there's to it. As it rarely gives concise examples of what is "being a dick", it's also hardly educational. Calling it an "essay" is rather offensive, conveying that it's been written by a "dick", and thus is the real joke here. 06:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Nadia

Stroun's corollary

Anyone who writes stuff like this should be exterminated. unsigned by (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2006

Sorry, but I'm afraid I'll have to refer you to WP:DICK for advocating wikicide. (Besides, don't be a dick is itself a corollary to ignore all rules.) Feezo 12:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To please see [1] 05:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sister policy

Since we are calling this "Don't be a dick" why don't we also make a policy called "Don't be a pussy" and have it redirect to Be Bold. -- 09:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how? 06:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Awesome! 14:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The incorrectness of "political correctness"

By daring to openly express the truth as we see it, this article's title is politically incorrect. That is, in fact, justification enough for writing it. Democratic principles demand it. Falsehood will ultimately triumph, and unpopular truths will be forgotten, if they are swept under the carpet of political correctness. The remaining ideals will then only represent a conformity to the available, politically correct norms. Might does not make right, and dangerous misconceptions must not be allowed to go unchallenged. While the victor usually writes the history books, that history does not represent the whole truth. That which then prevails for a time, may only do so through the use of political power and oppression of opposing views.

Okay, seriously, while the above swells into the grandiose application to more serious matters, the principles remain the same. Political correctness is far from always desirable. -- Fyslee 22:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


I propose "asshole" instead of "dick", might be more effective outside of american english. -- 06:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm... surely you do realise that "asshole" is uniquely AmE? Is this irony?
James F. (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Dick's got nice alliteration to it though KZF 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of being multicultural, I created the article Don't be an asshole and redirected it to this article. :D 01:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A Personal Attack

I can see that some users have already posted messages along these lines, but I think this page is a pretty big contradiction of the basic Wikipedia tenet not to make Personal Attacks. It's not difficult for a user to say to another 'I refer you to 'WP:Don't be a Dick' and mean it, a user does it jokingly in this talk page; but even beyond that, this page basically makes a Personal Attack on anyone who might read it. I'm not particularly thinking about Political Correctness here, more the general 'feel' that Wikipedia is a place you don't use names against other users. 21:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe Don't be a dick makes the point that informing people that they're dicks is in itself dickery. Messedrocker 11:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Which is why this essay is should better be a joke, it's inconsistent with itself. 06:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Nadia

I disagree. Saying "You're being a dick" is quite different from "I refer you to WP:DICK". Both virtually mean the same thing; however, the latter is a lot less direct. It conveys the point with subtlety. 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This contradicts itself

Why does this page tell you not to be a dick, but then say that if you tell someone to be a dick, you're being a dick yourself? So does that mean that this page is a dick? 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this page is more for something that people find, read, and give up their bad ways, rather than imposed on someone. Messedrocker 11:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a policy, it's an essay.
(Although readers may mistake it for a policy, especially with this introduction: "Don't be a dick. If people abided by this, we wouldn't need any other policies.").
IP 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dick and an Asshole

Has anyone seen the movie "Team America - World police"? I think being a Dick and an Asshole is grounds to remove a user's editing privileges.-- 04:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that private dick means investigator,

as in someone who checks facts, figures, and credibility, validates someone's facts and figures, etc. — all important jobs here if not the only jobs here, so I'm replacing the term with jerk. 13:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I came here wondering "Where went the audio?".

Constructive Alternatives

Couldn't we say this in a more constructive way (at least along side the current phrasing), such as "be nice" which is probably easier to follow. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 15:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make a version of this page at Be nice, I won't do anything to stop you. However, it's highly unlikely that this page will go away. What I like about this page is that it's blunt, it's humorous, and it illustrates the point instead of trying to please the person. I believe others see that in this page as well, but there is also room on Meta for Be nice. Messedrocker 06:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not humorous. It is juvenile. It is offensive. It is not understandable to most non-English-speakers[citation needed]. It is just dumb. Sincerely, 09:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Why are so many wiki moderators intent on deleting fun/funny articles then? Sounds like the best example of a dick I can think of!

Well, there's a line between being a dick and doing one's job. While it may upset some people, certain articles are doomed to be deleted. Now, if you complained to an admin and they yelled at you back, that would be dickery. Messedrocker 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No, being a dick is when someone is annoyed by your writing "if you complained to an admin and they yelled at you back" when that person believes it should be written "if you complained to an admin and they yelled back at you", & is compelled to change what you wrote not only once, but every time you change it back. A sensible person simply points out the issue, & moves on because there are (fill in the number) other articles that need attention, & in the larger scheme of any given Wikimedia project it really doesn't matter. (And sometimes is glad if the correction is not not made in order to make a point. ;) -- Llywrch 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

External link is down at present because the server was completely trashed by some dick. It'll be up again as soon as I can manage it - David Gerard 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That is what you get for being a dick yourself.

Dumb, but true.

It's dumb, yes, but it's also true. Basically it means "If we say you're a dick, you're a dick." If you go into a group where everyone wants to do bad things and you want to do good things, and they call you a dick, then you're a dick, no matter how ridickulous it seems and no matter how screwed up they are.

Heh. 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please comment, anyone? 02:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right,, that it is possible to be considered a dick, without actually being a dick (in the article's understanding of the word).

The article does not presuppose that the person in the above scenario is a dick. Rather it is inviting the reader to reflect and make their own judgment. Nothing more!

See in particular the following quotes (my emboldening) :

  • "If you've been labeled as a dick ... consider the possibility that it is true"
  • "If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right."

IP 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This Article

1. This article is not a d*ck, because it is not telling some particular user not to be a d*ck. Actually it's not really addressing that directly to the reader either. It is more like, announcing it to the air: "Hey -- whoever is listening -- this is the guideline here: Don't be a d*ck." It isn't actually confronting every reader with the stern command not to be a d*ck.

2. "Be nice" is not the same thing. "Be nice" puts a requirement on people to be something over and above simple factuality. If someone is monotone and matter-of-fact, they aren't being "nice," but they aren't being a d*ck either. We don't need people to be "nice;" we just need them not to be d*cks.

Tragic Romance 23:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent observation, Tragic R. Tvoz 07:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Listening to a dick?


I saw this:

"Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick. Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks; and, if there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks, no matter how right they are."

So could I also be a dick if I listen to the dick that happens to be right (ie. listen to their points, not their dicking around)? 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Only if you also defend the behavior of the dick in question. But yeah, in terms of supporting truth, it is the opposite of dickery to point out ad hominem arguments against a belief and why they don't work. It's also a good idea to specify what precisely the dick is doing wrong and emphasize the ways in which they could better support their cause. The phrase "no one likes listening to dicks" does not mean "no one but dicks like(s) listening to dicks" so much as "no one but masochists like(s) listening to dicks." And remember that "like" is of a whole different domain than "tolerate" (we shouldn't be required to "like" mean people, just to tolerate them insofar as they have human rights). -- 01:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What if?


I noticed something else too:

"Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? "

But what if I try to find faults in the project to correct them in order to make it better, or push my views because I believe they are true, but am 100% willing to reconsider them if someone proves them to be in error? And I don't kick and scream about them, either. Would it still be dicking around? 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway: No. Think in terms of the spirit of the law and not the letter; "finding fault" in this context means "personal faults" and not factual ones. — 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This essay is just a passive-agressive proxy for personal attacks

and i think that's wonderful- Blueaster from *pedia, too lazy for new account

Stupid. Remove