 | This page in a nutshell: In a forum where opinions are often debated and evaluated to form consensus, it is important to make sure that you say what you mean to say, and not say anything that you don't intend to say. This is especially important for people in a position of authority, such as administrators, whose actions such as deletion debate closes and blocks may form future precedent. |
There tends to be a formal, deliberate, and exhaustive style in which Wikipedia functionaries communicate in public in order to cover their backs and forestall any possible criticism, or any use of their opinion other than that was intended. This is a good practice to adopt, because on Wikipedia we debate opinions, not editors: It's best to make sure your written opinion clearly reflects your intention.
In addition sometimes people are in a position where they must summarize consensus or the application of a policy to an issue. In these cases it is vitally important to make sure that you accurately reflect what the consensus was, and make sure you do not extrapolate.
Scope-limiting
editIt is important to limit the applicable scope of a particular comment or decision thereby reducing its ability to be used outside of the most immediate subject of discussion. It is therefore important to be context-specific whenever possible. As a result, generalizations tend to be avoided whenever possible so that any particular generalization—and therefore any particular philosophy—can neither be vindicated or discounted based on a single decision intended to only be applied to a single instance.
Diff-friendly
editIn order to reduce out-of-context diff use in on-wiki arguments, it is important to proofread so as to avoid subsequent revisions needed to clarify otherwise-ambiguous portions of the first edit. it is best to assume that some editors might happily use would-be intermediate revisions in an attempt to twist your words. As a result, perform one large revision that is well-thought-out. This avoids both cluttering the history page and leaving your partially-formed thoughts saved forever.
Assume that someone, somewhere, at some time, could act in bad faith
editWhile Wikipedia policy and good group behavior insists that we assume other individuals are acting in good faith, in a project the size of Wikipedia there will always be at least one hostile person out there. By making sure that your words cannot be possibly used to support things you do not agree with, and that your statements of consensus cannot lead to an outcome that the people that argued for said consensus would disagree with, you ensure even people acting in bad faith cannot misconstrue your statements. Likewise, by avoiding saving intermediate steps in the revision process, you make sure no one can link to an incomplete statement out of context in an on-wiki discussion.