Википедия: Игра в систему

На этой странице приведены правила поведения на английском языке из Википедии . Это общепринятый стандарт, которому редакторы должны стараться следовать, хотя с ним лучше всего обращаться со здравым смыслом , и в некоторых случаях могут применяться исключения . Любые существенные изменения на этой странице должны отражать консенсус . В случае сомнений сначала обсудите на странице обсуждения .

Ярлыки WP: ИГРА WP: ИГРЫ

Эта страница вкратце: Играть в игры с политиками и руководящими принципами, чтобы избежать духа консенсуса или помешать намерениям и духу политики, строго запрещено.

Gaming системные средства намереннопомощью политики и руководящих принципов Википедии в недобросовестности , чтобы сорвать цели Википедии . Игра в систему может представлять собой злоупотребление процессом , нарушение правил редактирования или иное уклонение от духа консенсуса сообщества. Редакторы обычно играют с системой, чтобы доказать свою точку зрения , поддержать войну редакторов или обеспечить соблюдение определенной не нейтральной точки зрения .

Если редактор обнаруживает лазейку или уловку, позволяющую ему уклоняться от стандартов сообщества или злоупотреблять инструментами администратора , это не следует рассматривать как добросовестную ошибку. Однако санкции Википедии должны носить профилактический, а не карательный характер . Предупреждение от администратора обычно является лучшим способом предотвратить игры, потому что четкое предупреждение должно помочь исправить как добросовестные ошибки, так и недобросовестные игры. Если редактор игнорирует предупреждение и повторяет свое поведение, или если он находит новые творческие способы достижения того же нарушения, более вероятно, что он недобросовестно обманывает систему.

Значение "игры в систему" [ править ]

Редактор игровой системы стремится использовать политику в недобросовестности , находя в его формулировках некоторые очевидные основания для подрывных действий и позиций , что политика явно не совсем предназначен для поддержки. При этом игрок отделяет политики и руководящие принципы от их законного места в качестве средства документирования консенсуса сообщества и пытается использовать их выборочно для личных целей. Редактор нарушает правила, если он использует несколько слов политики, чтобы заявить о поддержке точки зрения, которая явно противоречит этим политикам, атаковать действительно основанную на политике позицию путем преднамеренного неправильного применения политик Википедии или сорвать процессы Википедии.

Игровая система может включать:

• Wikilawyering , ничтожный , а в противном случае , используя письмо политики нарушать широкие принципы этой политики.
• Флибустьера процесса достижения консенсуса путем обращения к другому редактору за незначительные ошибки или придерживание точки зрения, которую сообщество явно отвергает.
• Попытка изменить санкции или процессы Википедии с целью запугать других редакторов.

В каждом случае важно своеволие или знание. Неправильное использование политики, руководящих принципов или практики не считается игрой, если оно основано на подлинной ошибке. Но вполне может быть, если это умышленно, когда редактор продолжает придерживаться правил игры, даже когда ясно, что он не может обоснованно заявить, что не осведомлен.

Действия, играющие в систему, также могут пересекаться с другими политиками:

• Неправильное использование процессов Википедии с целью намеренно оскорбить другого редактора, доказать свою точку зрения или замутить воду в споре, также может быть формой игры. Однако чаще это классифицируется как использование Википедии для доказательства точки зрения или злоупотребление процессом .
• Использование политик и руководств для создания (или продвижения) заведомо ложного дела, которое какой-то редактор недобросовестно редактирует, причем «свидетельством» этого является явно необоснованная недобросовестная интерпретация действий этого человека. Это чаще квалифицируется как нарушение принципа добросовестности , и, в частности, неоднократные необоснованные «предупреждения» также могут рассматриваться как нарушение вежливости .
• If gaming is also knowingly used as a basis to impugn another editor or to mischaracterize them as bad-faith editors, then this may also violate the policy of no personal attacks.

Disruption of any kind merits being warned (or blocked) by an administrator. Violating the principles of Wikipedia's behavior guidelines may prejudice the decision of administrators or the Arbitration Committee.

Examples[edit]

There are several types of gaming the system. The essence of gaming is the willful and knowing misuse of policies or processes. The following is an (incomplete) list of examples. Actions that are similar to the below, where there is no evidence of intent to act improperly, are usually not considered gaming.

Gaming the use of policies and guidelines[edit]

1. Bad-faith wikilawyering – arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy.

   Example: Posting a neutral notice that does not violate the policy on canvassing, while using a different set of notifications to lure a partisan audience to view that neutral notice.

2. Playing policies against each other.

   Example: Saying you refuse to remove content that violates the policy on verifiability, because that content is protected by the policy that "Wikipedia is not censored".

3. Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy (or cherry-picking one policy to apply but wilfully ignoring others) to support a view which does not in fact match policy.

   Example: Adding content that is restricted under the policy on what Wikipedia is not, while cherry-picking the words that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" to evade those restrictions.

4. Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification, or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy.

   Example: Saying that content meets the policy on verifiability because it is cited to a source, when in fact the source is not reliable, or the content twists the source's point of view. (See WP:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight.)

5. Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community.

   Example: Presenting a Wikipedia essay that was written by a single editor as though it were a consensus policy.

Gaming the consensus-building process[edit]

1. Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution.

   Example: An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

   Example: Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tagteam) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate.

   See also the policy WP:Disruptive editing, especially on "refusal to get the point"; and the essays WP:What is consensus? § Not unanimity, Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process § No one is obligated to satisfy you, WP:Status quo stonewalling, and WP:BRD misuse § Filibusterers

2. Bad-faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised.

   Example: An editor negotiates a consensus to remove well-verified material from one article, because it is already covered in a second article. Afterward, the editor deletes the material from the second article.

   Example: Editors reach a consensus. The author of the final agreed text is supposed to post it, but never does. Weeks later, a second editor tires of waiting and posts a modified version, which the first editor immediately reverts.

   Example: An editor withholds agreement to a change unless additional, more satisfactory sources are provided, but declares all the new sourcing to be unsatisfactory despite the citation work clearly fulfilling the core content policies.

   Shortcut

   • WP:FIXFIRST

3. Removing a large addition for a minor error. If the error is minor, then fix it (or at least tag it for clean-up). Perfection is not required, and Wikipedia is built through incremental improvement.

   Example: An editor adds a paragraph of verifiable information, but it is removed entirely because of a typographical error that could easily be fixed.

   Example: An editor performs page-wide, uncontroversial copy editing and code cleanup, but another editor thinks some ostensibly minor changes subtly altered the meaning of two sentences, and so reverts several hours of work instead of just the two disputed changes.

   Shortcuts

   • WP:GASLIGHT
   • WP:GASLIGHTING

4. Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord.

   Examples: denying that you posted what you did, suggesting someone agreed to something they did not, pretending your question has not already been answered, misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means, prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim, or refusing to concede when your position has been disproved or rejected by consensus.

Gaming of article titles, review processes, and deletion processes[edit]

1. Using different or variant forms or spellings of an article title.

   Example: Submitting multiple drafts with almost the same title to Articles for Creation, such as Draft:Ralph Zwogli, Draft:Ralph A. Zwogli, and Draft:Ralph Zwogli (businessman)

   Example: Submitting a draft or article with almost the same title as a recently deleted article

2. Use of sockpuppet accounts to conceal a conflict of interest.

   Example: Submitting a biography from a sockpuppet account after a previous submission has been declined because it is seen to be an autobiography.

3. Gaming the Articles for Creation process.

   Example: Removing the record of previous reviews (which says not to remove it) and resubmitting a draft.

   Example: Resubmitting a draft that has been Rejected by removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer.

Gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior[edit]

1. Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction.

   Example: Refusing to provide a proper citation to an editor looking to verify your claim, and accusing the editor of being disruptive for making repeated requests. Citations should be accurate so that other editors may verify them.

2. "Walking back" a personal attack to make it seem less hostile than it was, rather than apologizing.

   Example: An editor responds to a disagreement by saying, "You're obviously wrong, wrong, wrong. Did you even pass grade 10 history?" Later, they defend this statement as a good-faith question about the other editor's education.

3. "Borderlining" – habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.

   Example: An editor never violates the three-revert rule, but takes several months to repeatedly push the same edits over the objections of multiple editors.

4. Retribution: Deliberately reverting an editor's edits in one article in retaliation for a dispute in another.

   Example: Editor A reverts an edit made by Editor B because it did not adhere to a neutral point of view and they did not provide a reliable source. Editor B starts a discussion on the talk page in which Editor A participates, but the discussion fails to generate consensus. Later on, Editor B reverts a well-sourced, neutral addition that Editor A made, saying it did not comply with the Manual of Style.

5. Playing victim: Violating a rule and at the same time claiming that others are in violation of the same or a closely related rule. Also known as hypocrisy.

   Example: Editor A posts uncivil comments while at the same time accusing Editor B of uncivil behavior, demanding sanctions and citing policies that Editor A clearly violates.

Gaming of permissions[edit]

1. Making unconstructive edits to raise one's user access level.

   Example: A new editor makes 10 dummy edits to become autoconfirmed, and then makes controversial changes to semi-protected articles or moves a promotional draft to article space.

   Example: An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles.

Spurious legalisms[edit]

Since Wikipedia is not a court of law, many legal procedures or terms have no bearing on Wikipedia. Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning. Occasionally wikilawyering may raise legitimate questions, including fairness, but often it serves to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution. For example, it is often impossible to definitely establish the actual user behind a set of sockpuppets, and it is not a defense that none of the sockpuppets which emerge were named in the request for arbitration.

Various levels of intent[edit]

Use of the term "gaming the system" should be done with caution, as it can be interpreted as an accusation of bad-faith editing. Although users might engage in the practices described above, that activity should not be considered proof of malicious intent. The actual level of intent should also be considered separately, as to whether the action was premeditated, or spur-of-the-moment, or merely copying an older tactic that seemed effective for other editors in the past. The term gaming the system is not meant to vilify those involved, with the word "gaming" also referring to playful activity in the manner of a game of sport. The goal is to focus on Wikipedia activities as a serious effort to improve articles, not an arena for playing games and sparring with opponents as a form of amusement. Judging intent might include discussions with others, rather than escalate the situation as an issue for direct confrontation. The situation might warrant special mediation (see WP:Mediation) or perhaps even, in extreme cases, formal arbitration (see WP:Arbitration). The risks of continued involvement should be carefully considered, especially if the intent seems overly severe or obsessive–compulsive behavior. However clear such an intent might subjectively seem, one should not cast aspersions about the mentalities or motivations of other editors. Wikipedia has a variety of noticeboards for dealing with problematic editing behavior, patterns of which tend to speak for themselves when properly diffed with evidence.

Abuse of process[edit]

Abuse of process is related to gaming. It involves knowingly trying to use the communally agreed and sanctioned processes described by some policies, to advance a purpose for which they are clearly not intended. Abuse of process is disruptive, and depending on circumstances may be also described as gaming the system, personal attack, or disruption to make a point. Communally agreed processes are intended to be used in good faith.

What is "intent", consciously or otherwise, and what actually is "good"-enough-"faith" must also be clearly defined. Only then, the definers's power and status position must also be openly noted when making such any determinations. The common assumptions that what is claimed as "communally agreed" must include more than a select group, and thus is also a questionable number, perhaps unverifiable, and even if is said to be any legitimate majority of contributors – like those who were recently allowed to write on Wikipedia. Vague words of idealistic concepts are dangerous and may be misleading from what is then experienced in actuality when reading or writing on Wikipedia.

See also[edit]