Wikipedia:Gaming the system
Examples of gaming include (but are not limited to):
- Bad faith wikilawyering - arguing the word of policy to defeat the spirit of policy
- Spuriously claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which knowingly actually contradicts policy
-
- For example, spuriously claiming support from WP:CONSENSUS or WP:NPOV to prevent legitimate discussion from progressing. (The gaming of consensus by means of sock or meat puppetry creates a 'false consensus'.)
-
- Playing policies against each other.
-
- Example: "this disputed citation [WP:CITE] cannot be removed even if problematic, since it was agreed by article editors' consensus [WP:CONSENSUS]." (in this case the appeal to consensus is also incorrect, as WP:CONSENSUS doesn't actually say what is claimed)
-
- Relying upon the letter of policy as a defense when breaking the spirit of policy.
-
- The canonical example here is the three reverts rule, which limits editors to 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. The purpose of 3RR is to quench 'revert wars'. An editor who reverts three times in a 24 hour period and once immediately it is the next day, or repeatedly reverts twice only in a day, may well still be sanctioned, since the spirit of 3RR, and the issue it is protecting Wikipedia against, has been breached. Blocks for more than 3 obvious vandalism reverts (such as those against a vandal repeatedly blanking a page with profanities at least 4 times in 24 hours) and other non-controversial reverts are also considered gaming the system.
-
- Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction.
-
- Example: Not actually providing a specific URL or details for a citation (or giving only vague details), then claiming an editor is being disruptive (breach of WP:DISRUPT) by repeatedly asking again. In this case, it is misrepresentative to describe a reasonable repeated request for information as "disruptive". Failing to provide details sufficient for any editor to locate the exact source with ease, is insufficient to meet community expectation of WP:CITE that citations should be well specified precisely so that other editors may verify them.
-
- Selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply but willfully ignoring others) to support a view which does not in fact match policy.
-
- Example of cherry picking policies: demanding support for an edit because it is verifiable [WP:VERIFIABILITY] and cited [WP:CITE], whilst marginalizing or evading the concerns of others that it is not based upon reliable sources [WP:RS] or fairly representing its purported view [WP:NPOV]. (See: WP:NPOV#Neutrality and Verifiability)
-
- 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 related to WP:RS: "Source X is not sufficiently credible for this article on music - the author doesn't have any peer reviewed papers in a music journal!" More generally, this example shows removal or marginalizing of notable viewpoints (breach of WP:NPOV) on the grounds that the cited sources do not meet the editor's named standard [even though they do meet the communal standard]. Wikipedia:Reliable sources anticipates that reliable sources with differing levels of reliability and provenance may coexist, and that reliable verifiable sources of reference material will often be available from different types of source, not just one or two preferred by a particular editor. Not every notable view on music is documented in a music journal; not every notable view on scientific topics is documented in science journals. Reliability is determined neutrally, using WP:RS and evidence of the community's view. The primary purpose of WP:RS is to clarify and guide communal views on the reliability of different sources, not to support unilateral demands for an unreasonably narrow personal definition of "reliable" as a means to exclude appropriate sources that document notable opposing views.
-
- Stonewalling - actively filibustering discussion, or repeatedly returning to claims that a reasonable editor might have long since resolved or viewed as discredited (without providing any reasonable counter of the discredital), effectively tying up the debate or preventing a policy-based resolution being obtained.
-
- Also see: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
-
- 'Borderlining' - habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.
- Reverting for minor errors - A simple form of gaming, although very common, is the tactic of completely reverting an entire revision due to minor errors, such as spelling or grammar, with a claim that the revision has errors. The spirit of Wikipedia is to tolerate defects in articles and make incremental improvements, as an attempt to salvage the existing contributions and expand them to be "encyclo-" (encompassing) for broader coverage. Reverting an entire revision due to a few minor or spelling errors is excessive. The appropriate response would be to fix minor errors, or at least tag sections for cleanup (or citation-needed "{{cn}}"), rather than wholesale reverting of contributions.
Gaming sometimes overlaps with other policies:
-
- Mis-using Wikipedia processes to put another editor in an invidious position, prove a point, or muddy the water in a dispute, can also be a form of gaming. However it is more often categorized as using Wikipedia to prove a point or abuse of process.
- Using policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that some editor is editing in bad faith, with the 'evidence' for this itself being an obviously unreasonable bad-faith interpretation of that person's action. This is more often categorized as a breach of the policy assume good faith, and in particular, repeated unjustified "warnings" may also be viewed as a breach of civility.
- 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.
Note that actions similar to these where there is no evidence of intent to act improperly, are usually not considered gaming. The essence of gaming is the willful or knowing misuse of policy.
[
Spurious legalisms
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, while it is often impossible to definitely establish the actual user behind a set of sockpuppets, it is not a defense that all the sockpuppets which emerge were not named in the request for arbitration.
[
Various levels of intent
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 pre-meditated, 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: Wikipedia:Mediation) or perhaps even, in extreme cases, private arbitration (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration). The risks of continued involvement should be carefully considered, especially if the intent seems overly severe or obsessive/compulsive behavior.
[
Abuse of process
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 and only for good reasons.
[
See also
- One who comes into equity must come with clean hands
- Unclean hands
- Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
- Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
- Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For more information review our copyright contact and privacy policy.