Forum:Proposed Language Policy Revision

Forums: Index > Policy > Proposed Language Policy Revision

This page is for discussing a policy related to the Mass Effect Wiki that may or may not be passed by the community. The Form below serves to describe the Policy and what it is about, or what it will modify.

Policy:

Description of Policy: "Offensive language is not tolerated in community discussions on talk pages, forums, or blogs. When deciding how to respond to an editor's comments, consider how you would speak to a stranger face-to-face in public, as that is effectively what you are doing."

This is the Language Policy as it currently stands. My personal belief is that it is very vague - different words are considered offensive by different people, and some swear words have entered the common vernacular in their use that hearing them in conversation is very natural, especially among friends as many people are on this website.

As a result my proposal is a clearer definition of the Language policy to allow certain words to be used according to examples where you may hear them in normal conversation. I also propose this amendment only applies to forums, blogs and User Talk pages, and not article Talk pages. Obviously words could not be used to attack other users as that would breeak other policies. I also still propose that certain words - for example Fuck and Shit - remain banned, and that trying to subvert policy with use of asterisks/punctuation be treated the same as a violation. Some words that I believe should be relaxed, with an example of their use in conversation, are below:

• "I am laughing my ass/arse off!"
• "I am sick of people bitching about the ending."
• "That was bloody brilliant."
• "Stop dicking around."

I will invite more suggestions to add to the proposal provided that a non-offensive, standard conversation example can be provided. Notes:
Supporting links or images: The Language Policy has been hotly debated before and is a matter of huge contention. This proposal intends to succeed where others have failed by provided a clearer policy and relaxed use of certain conversational words.

Add to the proposal

The use of the word "damn" seems to be requested in the discussions below.

• Example - "Well, that is damned inconvenient."

Voting

Support

1. As proposer Garhdo (talk) 13:08, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. I find the current policy to be a little hit or miss myself and completely subject to certain peoples definitions and/or whims. Hefe (talk) 13:22, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Not exactly what I would propose but certainly an improvement over the existing. Phalanx-a-pedian 13:37, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
4. We're mostly adults, on a site dealing with +18 game series, a little salty language isn't something we should fret from. --Kainzorus Prime ^{Walkie-talkie} 13:44, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
5. Such uses of strong language, while they may not be in the best of taste, shouldn't be a policy violation. -Jbusnengo (talk) 19:46, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
6. as long as I won't get banned for using the language being suggested...--TW6464 (talk) 19:49, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
7. I'm in. A little bit of swearing every once in a while would help steam out some stress. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 20:32, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
8. I support THIS!! J.C IS A GOD!! (talk) 21:32, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
9. Frack yes I support this, let's stop being like Turians and loosen up! CrimsonShogun (talk) 23:03, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
10. And of course, I write a paragraph defending my vote and then forget to vote! TheUnknown285 (talk) 23:05, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
11. Having a looser, less Draconian policy will alievate a lot of problems, and make this wiki a much more pleasant place for users. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 23:21, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
12. This has loooooooong been needed. Someone using a curse word but not insulting someone shouldn't be banned for just that. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 01:26, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
13. I'm perfectly fine with this, as far as f-bombs don't go exploding. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 16:15, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
14. Support a more open and relaxed policy. Cattlesquat (talk) 16:54, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
15. FREEDOM!!!! --Officer Eddie Lang (talk) 17:02, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
16. People try to follow policies, but occasionally some "inapropriate language" slips through. Also, look at some other wikias, they do fine without such an overbearing policy. Avg Man (talk) 20:05, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
17. I don't use such language myself, but I am tired of seeing comments shot down solely on the basis of language. I don't condone the usage of crude language, but I am opposed to penalizing it. Lksdjf (talk) 00:07, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
18. As long as such language isn't being used towards other users, it should be fine. --{{SUBST:User:GodzillaMaster/signature}} 18:10, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) is voting neutral on this; I can see why we might need to make the policy more specific, but also think we can manage ok as is.
2. This proposal sees the vagueness of the existing policy and response with... more vagueness. SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:03, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
3. Midnightpiranha (talk) 17:08, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
4. needs a change but not like this --Charles Saracino 17:09, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I've never had any issues with the Language policy Bluegear93 (talk) 13:27, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
2. I see no reason why looser language policy is needed. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 13:45, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
3. -- Commdor (Talk) 14:06, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
4. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:31, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
5. --Legionwrex (talk) 23:56, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
6. No. I see no problem in not using offensive language. --MasterDassJennir (talk) 00:00, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
7. I don't see this having a positive effect.--Zxjkl (talk) 01:11, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Further Discussion

I should perhaps clarify that I have been thinking about this for sometime. The idea is less about taking issue with the policy - if the policy is not relaxed to include the new words then it would still require greater definition, as at present its poor wording is very broad and open to interpretation. For example due to cultural differences a very offensive English word - Wanker - has almost no meaning in the US, so is it covered by the policy or not? I would suggest that if this policy is not relaxed that a full template of banned words is implemented, as well as my stipulation of using asterisks to subvert the policy be just as punished as a violation, which I have not seen happen. This proposal covers, in effect, two main points:

• That the policy be rewritten to provide clearer guidelines and definitions.
• The proposed relaxing of words that are part of the common vernacular in a non-offensive, conversational use.

Garhdo (talk) 13:49, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Personally I believe that it should be that anything used in the games is fair game (outside of articles and arguably talk pages), and it should not be the word the is a violation, but the usage. For example, using "awww [insert curse word], I thought I'd fixed that" that would be ok, but saying "You are a [insert curse word (ing)] [insert insult]" would be treated as even worse then a normal insult. Quick question, why would "shit/shite" be considered a violation when "bitch(ing)" would be allowed? I would certainly consider the latter to be far worse (though lessened with the ing, as the meaning is somewhat different). Phalanx-a-pedian 13:40, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Some swearing is unneccessary and that is why I have proposed that certain words remain banned as they can be offensive in any context. The proposal for bitching is that it has taken on a meaning similar to moaning and whining, but emphasising a greater annoyance with it than the other terms. The use of the word bitch (as in "stop being a little bitch") would still be unacceptable. Garhdo (talk) 13:49, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Also I have just realised that your last point there highlights my point about the offensives of a word being subjective to its viewer/user - namely by finding what I would consider a mild word more offensive than a more harsh curse word. Garhdo (talk) 19:30, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

All of the examples given in the policy description can be stated without use of profanities:

• "I am laughing my butt off!"
• "I am sick of people whining about the ending."
• "That was really brilliant."
• "Stop messing around."

Though is "bloody" really against the language policy? LilyheartsLiara (talk) 13:44, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

As stated above the use of the mild curses emphasises the meaning. The idea is if someone's natural behaviour would be to use the mild curse, and type it without thinking, they would not be penalised for it. Garhdo (talk) 13:49, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

But that's already the case. We warn users multiple times about violating the language policy, and only block them for subsequent, repeated violations that demonstrate an intentional disregard for the policy. A warning is not a penalty, it's a way to remind users about a policy that's in place or point it out to them if they were previously unaware. Most of time, people who violate the language policy and are subsequently warned about their behavior do not go on to violate the policy again. -- Commdor (Talk) 14:06, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

that is a fair point, but it also requires a more concerned awareness of what is being posted. On blogs and talk pages this can easily be achieved. However a main concern would be chat. In a chatroom people tend to type as they speak and they do this quickly. As a result slips of language would become more natural. This is also why a list of words considered violations of the policy, especially including cultural variations (another example is the word ass - a common word in American language, yet in other cultures ass or arse is considered a lot more offensive), should be added to the Language Policy, to specify which language is deemed unacceptable. Garhdo (talk) 14:56, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

I wish to point out that "Bloody" isn't against the policy. Saying something like "that was bloody brilliant" is considered rude, but not a violation of the policy.

The point is that there are plenty of ways to say what you want without breaking the policy. If you have to use swearing to make your point, then perhaps you need to pick up a dictionary or a thesaurus. Or just actually think about what you type before you hit publish. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:34, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Steven Fry makes the point very well here. WARNING: He makes potentially insulting remarks about most people who make the sort of argument you just posted. My posting this is in no way me insulting you (clearly you are an exception to what he says). However, he does make the point very well. Contains curing. On another point, how are we supposed to know which words are allowed and which are not? I was unable to find any thing saying that using bloody as a curse was not against policy, however if I am correct "damn" is? I would generally consider the former worse then the latter. Phalanx (talk|contibutions) 21:53, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

This was my point about the current policy being vague, far too broad, ignorant of cultural differences and very open to subjectivity. IN Britain damn is also not generally considered a harsh curse, and yet I would be punished for using it here. Hence why I would propose redrafting the Language Policy to include a list of banned words. Obviously this would be included in changes made with this policy proposal and if this proposal fails I will make a new proposal to accomplish this task. Garhdo (talk) 21:59, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'd go ever farther and allow the use of all "dirty words" provided they aren't directed at someone (and aren't racial/ethnic/religious/homophobic slurs), but I will support this as it's several steps in the right direction. This is a wiki dedicated to a video game series that's rated M for Mature, where we we see someone melted down in front of our eyes, where we see people's skulls exploded from sniper rifles, where we have sex with aliens, and that uses very strong language in places. In light of that, it is ridiculous that words like "hell" and "damn" get users in trouble here. And no, a similar policy at BSN is not a reason to have it here; it's ridiculous to have one there, too. TheUnknown285 (talk) 22:59, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

The language policy here was intended to emulate some of the tenets of Wikipedia's wiki etiquette behavioral guidelines.
I don't see why it's so hard for people to show a modicum of restraint in everyday conversations here; if we were a forum or a pure fan site, virtual watercoolers, it would be more understandable, but as a wiki, an encyclopedic endeavor, shouldn't we strive to abide by higher standards?
Also, I'm pretty sure we don't reprimand users for saying "hell" or "damn", either. Or at least I don't. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:36, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

I have seen users warned for using those words, but the fact that you would not highlights how loosely defined and open to interpretation the current policy is. And yet someone will also not be penalised for typing "bullsh**", subverting the current policy via asterisks.

And yes as a wiki I can understand the need for a filter, but there is a watercooler quality here via the blogs, the forum, and the chat. We even have a 'watercooler forum'.Garhdo (talk) 00:41, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

It's just unexpected and awkward. This isn't BSN, or Wikipedia, or any other site. This is a Wikia wiki, one about a game containing mature content. Asking people to curb their speech makes things precarious and confusing. No one really understands the point, so it feels like it exists for its own sake. I understand the desire to avoid swears in actual pages, but this isn't just an encyclopaedia. This is also a community, and the blogs, forums, and chat room discussions are not very encyclopaedic in nature. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 23:40, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

If you guys wanna curse, got to youtube. I for one don't want to see who I assume to be grown-ups acting like a bunch of 6th graders trying to be cool by adding a curse word to every other sentence. It has no place on this wiki.--Legionwrex (talk) 00:08, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

that's not what I'm suggesting with this policy Legion. There will still be banned words. I am in no way advocating that everyone starts effing and blinding. More that the policy be relaxed to allow words which have become synonyms with other commonly used words, thereby changing their meaning as they have entered the common language.Garhdo (talk) 00:41, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Grown ups swear sometimes. That's just life. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 00:02, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

So what. I still don't want to here. To be honest, I just don't like bad language on this wiki. That's my reason. And is any policy really outlined here? This seems awfully similar to User:Gethhavefeelings2's policy in which no policy was really outlined. We will need a list of what words to and not to use.--Legionwrex (talk) 00:08, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

The policy isn't well defined now. A list of no-no words would obviously be contradictory, but not having it leaves it open to abuse. Saying "damn" won't offend anyone, but for some baffling reason, it can get you reprimanded. There's no limit to what could be considered "offensive language, so it's a bit confusing, especially to new users. As long as it's not excessive, and it isn't directed at someone, I don't see a huge problem with letting people talk like normal. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 00:15, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

That's another problem, what qualifies as excessive. This proposal simply lacks too much information.--Legionwrex (talk) 00:22, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

As does the current policy. Being able to say what is and isn't offensive however, is more difficult to determine than what is and isn't excessive or directed as an insult. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 00:29, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

This policy is defined above and proposes that the current policy be rewritten to be less broad, and yet be relaxed to allow the usage of words that are more commonly used in daily language without being offensive. Garhdo (talk) 00:41, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

This is nothing more or less than stupidity. Anyone who feels the need that they have to curse to make themselves feel welcome, or in this case feel better about themselves, needs to go and find a dictionary. There are several reputable ones I can recommend. There is no reason that anyone should have to use profanity to get across their point. Did it occur to ANYONE that even using offensive language here, even if it is just like what this is proposing, can turn someone off and turn them away. It can and has happened.

This proposal gives no credence to overuse. If someone is constantly swearing that is a problem and no one here makes anything to provide for that. I cannot stand anyone that swears constantly and this is exactly what will open the door. I cannot and will not support any change to this. It is actually nice to come someplace where I do not see anyone swearing every ten seconds. Oh wait it will be every comment. If this is so critical to people, then perhaps there are better places. Lancer1289 (talk) 08:52, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

And for good measure, if you can't go for a second/comment/one sentence/an entire comment without swearing, then perhaps you need to seriously examine how you talk. It is much easier to say things without swearing and actually get a point across. But it seems that some people won't learn that. Lancer1289 (talk) 08:54, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

For starters, referring to every change in the Language Policy ever proposed as stupidity when Admins advise the community to propose a change themselves if they dislike the policy is simply not on. In fact it is borderline insulting and extremely offensive. In fact as I proposed this policy you disregarding it as "stupidity" is very close to a personal attack on myself.

Secondly the proposal, and points I have made in the comments directly above, indicate that this policy is not to allow excessive profanity. Many harsh curse words will remain unacceptable. Only more minor swear words, which are used more commonly for other meanings rather than as profanity will be permitted. Excessive swearing would still easily be identified and could still be reprimanded, as should subverting the current policy by editing the offensive word with asterisks. The idea is not that someone would be able to, or that they should, swear every other sentence. In fact with this relaxation of certain words but not others I highly doubt that much conversation on this wiki will actively change. But, especially within chat, people and especially new users will not be penalised for use of more minor curse words that they would use in everyday conversation. Garhdo (talk) 09:39, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Lancer, I think you're over-analysing this. Plenty of wikis have lax rules about swearing. Trust me, it won't be the end of the world if a few people talk like normal human beings. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 11:34, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that some people appear to be missing that this policy is not at all just about "allowing people to swear", but about making the policy more clear about what words can and can't be used, and indeed cultural differences and individual opinions can affect perspective of what is offensive. This to me, then, seems like one of the more reasonable and admirable proposals to alter the language policy. That said, I also agree with the view that bad language should not need to be used in normal discussion, especially so in posts like these where one should usually have a greater deal of time to think about what they are saying, but less so in Chat Live! I also agree with the view that a change should not be needed when users are usually only banned for repeated violation, i.e. demonstration that they are deliberately violating the policy and not just acting carelessly. This is why I'm voting neutral on this matter; whilst I can see the merits of making the policy more specific, I can also see why we're ok as we are. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) 15:12, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

After this I am done responding to comments because I am sick and tired of this. I am going to oppose any change to the language policy and will continually propose changing it back. I am sick and tired of people demanding that they have a right to swear. Swearing shows a complete lack of maturity and actually turns me off completely to a conversation. If you feel the need to swear when trying to have a mature conversation, or any conversation for that matter, you show your immaturity because you cannot express what you are trying to say without having to act like a five year old. I am now done commenting. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:50, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Oi! You really are being insulting now. Cursing can actually be a very useful literary tool. Curse words convey emphasis/power in a way that cannot be compactly replicated largely because of the shock value involved. Did you view the Steven Fry video I linked? Swearing is not a sign of immaturity, the WAY that it is used is the important thing. A person who refuses to use an established and important part of the English language is not demonstrating a better grasp of it in any way. In fact, I believe that taking offence to a word (when the meaning of it is not explicitly prejudice ect.) is a sign of immaturity. The ability to shrug something of and not be bothered by it is a more mature trait then the lack there off. Just because people disagree with you is not a valid reason to insult their intelligence or maturity. Phalanx (talk|contibutions) 23:45, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe in a video game or a movie, but this is a freaking internet encyclopedia about Mass Effect. We already have a way to use make emphasis, simply make your comments in bold.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:49, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

While Lancer's tone may be a little on the rough side, I do agree with him. There are thousands of words in the English language, with plenty of words that can be used in place of profanities. There's no need to use swear words, as in the examples in the policy description, when there are perfectly valid non-profane words that can be used. Merely because profane language may be "natural" to some people does not mean that the onus is on the rules to change rather than the people themselves. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 23:59, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Nobody is saying that there should be cursing in the articles and I don't believe the article talk pages. However, there is no reason to fault people for minor use of language in the community sections of the wiki, i.e. the blogs, forums, live chat & arguably user talk pages (In the which case I think the user should be able to limit language on their own user space more then the site policy if they wish, but not less). There is no reason that people should have to restrict their vocabulary in less formal settings like those. The proposal limits bad language, and says that what is considered such be defined. It also says that minor bad language should not have a fuss made about it and cultural differences in perception should be taken into account. Personally I think so long as it's not used in an offensive way it's absolutely fine; the important part is respect & meaning, not the words. However, that is not what the proposal says. All it really says is to cool down and properly define the current policy. Phalanx (talk|contibutions) 00:09, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

This proposal seems to be just about as vague as the existing proposal. Just saying... Anywho, I should also point out that several words cited in the original proposal (arse, bloody, dicking) are A-OK under the current language policy. So yeah... I've been advocating a language policy change for a while now, so I like this idea in principle, but it's still exceedingly vague. I do agree with the notion that the F-bomb be excluded. All in all, I'm neutral on this. It's far from the worst proposal for a change I've seen, but it's also far from ideal. SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:02, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

"I should also point out that several words cited in the original proposal (arse, bloody, dicking) are A-OK under the current language policy."

Then I should point out that I received a language warning for using arse. If this proposal does go through I will make sure that I liase closely with admins when drafting the new policy, so that it can be made more specific if you so wish.Garhdo (talk) 03:33, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

A quick comment because I saw the giant "re-edit" proposal appear and then get deleted. I didn't think it was very good on the point of being specific, plus it was quite wordy. Given that the majority has spoken (fairly) clearly for a more relaxed policy, we might want to at least get one that's concise. Since the voting on this one is about to be over, we probably need yet another vote to actually end up with some specific text in the policy (am I correct)? I would suggest something like keeping the existing policy paragraph on offensive language and amending it with a short second paragraph such as "Offensive language shall include obscenity such as the 'F-Bomb', the 'S-Bomb', and all racial/national/religious epithets. The community having requested that language rules be somewhat relaxed in forums and chat, and moderately coarse language being permitted, specifically exempted in this light are the words ass, arse, dicking, and butt, provided that they are not being used in an abusive fashion toward another user. In any event if someone takes offense to your language it is best to stop." Something like that seems specific enough, brief enough, and something that could actually be included in the policy. I'm not going to propose it, but since there has been a lot of discussion here about what's really needed is an actual statement of policy, I thought I'd suggest it. Cattlesquat (talk) 17:04, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Actually that was a draft edit posted in the wrong place. however thank you for the feedback regarding it. Garhdo (talk) 17:49, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

According to site policy this should have been closed. The new policy is being drafted with input welcome from all admins/mods. Garhdo (talk) 09:18, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

proposal passed 18-4-7. Garhdo is currently in the process of drafting the new wording to the policy in User:Garhdo/Policy. please continue the discussion there, not here. thanks. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 10:37, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Note: Since Garhdo is currently rewriting his proposed changes to the language policy and the voting period on the proposal ended before the most recent version of it was in place, this vote has to be closed as withdrawn by the proposer and cannot take effect. Once the new proposal is finalized, it will have to be posted and approved as a separate policy proposal. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:44, March 15, 2013 (UTC)