Wikipedia talk:Don't take the bait

Recipe

I'm thinking of expanding on the piece of this essay that explains how baiting occurs. I'd probably do so in numbered or bulleted format as a mock explanation of how to successfully goad people on Wikipedia. Would this be a useful addition to exemplify how baiting works, or would it just be an annoyance? Antelan ^talk 04:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a separate section following what's there now? What you propose would be useful, but I think the main bit should be short and to the point. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good essay

Thanks for writing this. No doubt I'll be citing it often from now on. Moreschi (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?

There's a hook and a spinner, but no bait, yet it's labeled 'bait'. Dlabtot (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... pointy.--Father Goose (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Impact rating LOW?

I don't know anything about the essay rating project but would like to observe that this essay is rated "low"... which seems odd because this essay is linked in our civility policy, and it has been linked in that policy for nearly seven years. First linked here I think.

Is "low impact" really appro here? Beats me. But maybe you know how that works?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Image of dead rat

I removed the image of the rat in the trap because I feel it is unnecessarily disturbing for an article in which it is not necessary and only, at most, very tangentially even relevant, but my removal was quickly reverted by @EEng (along with another of my edits on an unrelated page) with the edit summary "don't be silly". "Don't be silly" certainly isn't a very convincing argument in my opinion.

WP:REDACTION states "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link." The image is not necessary to illustrate the article. It could be an appropriate image for the article "mouse trap", but on this page it seems to exist solely for shock value. The point is already illustrated more appropriately by the image of the fish hook. Two images to try to illustrate the point is redundant. The image of the dead rat doesn't add anything additional of value to the article. We shouldn't include images (or text, for that matter) solely as a way to try to shock people into remembering a concept. We should make people remember a concept by elucidating well-reasoned arguments.

What do others think? Should the image stay or be removed? Vontheri (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• along with another of my edits on an unrelated page – Since you make this sound so ominous, I'll just mention that both pages are on my watchlist.
• Two images to try to illustrate the point is redundant – Two images (with considered captions) for two ideas: first, recognizing that you're being baited; second, resisting the bait.
• We should make people remember a concept by elucidating well-reasoned arguments – That's one way. Vivid images are another.

EEng 14:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Two images (with considered captions) for two ideas: first, recognizing that you're being baited; second, resisting the bait. – I don't see that one of the images illustrates one of those concepts more than the other image does. But regardless, why that specific image? Wouldn't just a mousetrap without a dead animal in it do just as well? Or even better than "just as well", if the image of the trap actually shows bait in the trap.

Furthermore, people should be expecting to see an image like that before going to a page and seeing something that they may not want to see. If you go to the page "mousetrap" then you should expect that you might see an image of a dead rat. If you go to the page "genocide" then you should expect you might see images of mounds of bodies. If you go to the page "abortion", then you should expect that you might see images of aborted fetuses. I could go on... Don't want to see images like that? then don't go to those pages; it's simple. But no one would expect to see something like that on this page, so it's unnecessarily putting readers in a position that they may not be prepared for when there is no reason for it. It seems as though the choice of image was made solely to be shocking, and choosing the shocking image over countless other images that could equally, if not better, illustrate the point is simply unnecessary and adds nothing of value. We shouldn't be trying to shock concepts into people. There are much better, more mature, more respectful, and more encyclopedic ways of getting concepts to sink in. Vontheri (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see that one of the images illustrates one of those concepts more than the other image does – I specifically said, Two images (with considered captions) for two ideas. One caption is "Know a trap when you see one", and the other is "Fish take the bait by instinct; you don't have to."
• seems as though the choice of image was made solely to be shocking – No, it was chosen to be vivid and memorable.
• Don't want to see images like that? then don't go to those pages; it's simple – I have an even simpler idea: Don't want to see images like that? Then stay in kindergarten. God all-fucking-mighty, spare us.

However, I've substituted another image -- not because you don't like the prior one, but because this one I think does a better job. EEng 19:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There's no need for sarcasm, but thanks. I think the new image is great. Vontheri (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There may be no need for sarcasm but often (as with the dead-rat image) it does the job. In this case, however, there was no sarcasm. This page isn't an article, but rather part of the hive behind the scenes peopled by mature people of the world, not small children who may burst into tears and want their mommies. Glad you like the new image. EEng 21:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Added paragraph

I added a paragraph to slightly broaden the scope of the essay. Also I added a new shortcut. Any objection, feel free to revert.Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I expanded on the point in a stand-alone essay. Wikipedia:You Have a Right to Remain Silent. Coretheapple (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)