Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is required (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was snowball keep (WP:NAC) —Keφr 11:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Competence is required

Even if not the intention, this essay does more bad than good. Saying editors are "incompetent" is rather uncivil regardless of one's competence level. It's often used (poorly) as an excuse to patronize editors. To be honest, it serves no real benefit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previously discussed: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is required Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is very nice sentiment and all, but when you get down to it a certain degree of competence should be required when writing an encyclopedia, even if it is ostensibly the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Bosstopher (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Civility has nothing to do with competence to write encyclopedic entries. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes people try to edit here who lack the English language skills or the education to write coherently. There may be a nicer way to say this, but in those cases it needs to be said. bd2412 T 23:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate but we also don't normally delete essays. And I can't imagine there is a userspace to move this to. I'd like it noted as an essay representing an opinion that violates Wikipedia policy, most notably assume good faith, don't bite the newcomers and civility. And any link to this in a discussion of an editor should be a troutable offense. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid essay. Valid information reflecting real experience. Sometimes, it is kinder to be blunt. Wikipedia:AGF is not a suicide pact. If an editor is damaging to the product and community, this is a good reason to wp:block. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I certainly wouldn't use it for new editors but there are editors who have edited for a while who conistently edit in a manner or persistently misinterpret established practices that doesn't improve the encyclopedia, so in these cases asking them to consider competency is appropriate. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above even though editors should ideally know what they're doing, this essay still violates the WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks policies, especially when outright calling another editor "incompetent". There's really no excuse for such belittling. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Snuggums. Two often I've seen WP:CIR used simply as an ad hominem against editors with a contradictory POV. Those new editors who need guidance will not benefit from this derogatory essay. Instead, editors who need competency improvement can achieve this via generalized education and focused guidance. Those editors with true competency problems will quickly depart when their edits are constantly reverted. Please delete. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Competence is required. It's all well and good to be civil, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to sit around and sing kumbaya with Randy and his merry band of fools, while patiently explaining the meaning of sources that are clear to anyone with the competence to read them. Anyone with any experience content-building presumably has encountered this very situation on many occasions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no issue with civility or personal attacks. The purpose of this essay is not to tell someone they are incompetent. Misuse of the essay should not be grounds for deleting it. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the only way I've ever seen this page used. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite to avoid the contentious word "incompetence". The important distinction is not between competence and incompetence - is is between different areas and levels of competence. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long answer: The word "competent" or "incompetent" is quite an easy word to swing around in disputes, but such an issue is important to Wikipedia, especially when it comes to automated tools and article quality. Such an article is required to discuss it short of making it a guideline or a policy. Short answer: Why are we even discussing this? Optakeover ^(Talk) 17:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade. If someone truly lacks the intellectual capacity of contributing to a collaboratively authored encyclopedia, then this needs to be admitted without mincing words. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competence is required to edit here. "Lacks the competence required..." is not uncivil nor is it a personal attack. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Sławomir Biały and Psychonaut. Retention of productive editors is a priority or it's not a real encyclopedia. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a policy that should be on a "free" encyclopedia. Churchgoer100 (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because competence is required to usefully contribute to Wikipedia, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.