사용자:Pectus Solentis/작업실/위키백과:규정을 농락하기

이 문서는 수필입니다. 이 문서에는 하나 이상의 위키백과 기여자의 조언이나 의견을 담고 있습니다. 이 문서는 백과사전 항목이 아니며, 공동체의 철저한 검증을 받지 않았기 때문에 위키백과의 정책이나 지침 또한 아닙니다. 수필은 널리 공유되는 생각을 담을 수도, 소수의 관점을 담을 수도 있습니다.

단축 백:농락

요약: 총의의 정신을 회피하거나 총의의 목적과 정신을 좌절시킴으로써 위키백과의 정책과 지침을 농락하는 것은 아주 강력하게 금지됩니다.

Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia. Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus. Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view.

If an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards, it should not be treated the same as a good faith mistake. However, Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good faith mistakes and bad faith games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is more likely that they are gaming the system in bad faith.

An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policies in bad faith, by finding within their wording apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. In doing this, the gamester separates policies and guidelines from their rightful place as a means of documenting community consensus, and attempts to use them selectively for a personal agenda. An editor is disruptive if they are using a few words of policy to claim support for a viewpoint which clearly contradicts those policies, to attack a genuinely policy-based stance by willfully misapplying Wikipedia policies, or to detail Wikipedia processes.

Gaming the system may include:

• Wikilawyering, pettifogging, and otherwise using the letter of policy to violate the broader principles of the policy.
• Filibustering the consensus-building process by reverting another editor for minor errors, or sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected.
• Attempting to twist Wikipedia sanctions or processes to harass other editors.

In each case, willfulness or knowing is important. Misuse of policy, guidelines or practice is not gaming if it is based upon a genuine mistake. But it may well be, if it is deliberate, where the editor continues to game policy even when it is clear there is no way they can reasonably claim to be unaware.

Actions that game the system may also overlap 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.

Disruption of any kind merits being warned (or blocked) by an administrator. Violating the principles of Wikipedia's behavior guidelines may prejudice the decision of administrators or the Arbitration Committee.

There are several types of gaming the system. The essence of gaming is the willful of knowing misuse of policies or processes. The following is an (incomplete) list of examples. Actions that are similar to the below, where there is no evidence of intent to act improperly, are usually not considered gaming.

1. 위키백과 규정의 핵심 내용을 부정하기 위해 규정의 단어를 가지고 딴지를 걸기.

   예: Posting a neutral notice that does not violate the policy on canvassing, while using a different set of notifications to lure a partisan audience to view that neutral notice.

2. 한 규정을 들어 다른 규정을 회피하기.

   예: 동성애자들의 사고 방식이 이 사회의 주류가 아님을 주장하면서 백:중립 규정을 무시하고 동성애자들의 사고 방식이 들어 있는 문단을 삭제하기.

3. 위키백과의 규정에 맞지 않는 주장을 하기 위해 여러 규정을 취사선택하기 (혹은 한 규정을 취사선택하고 나머지 규정은 일부러 무시하기).

   예: Adding content that is restricted under the policy on what Wikipedia is not, while cherrypicking the words that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" to evade those restrictions.

4. Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy.

   Example: Saying that content meets the policy on verifiability because it is cited to a source, when in fact the source is not reliable, or the content twists the source's point of view. (See: WP:NPOV#Neutrality and Verifiability)

5. 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: Presenting a Wikipedia essay that was written by a single editor as though it were a consensus policy.

1. Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution.

   Also see the policy on disruptive editing, especially "refusal to get the point".

2. Bad faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised.

   Example: An editor negotiates a consensus to remove well-verified material from one article, because it is already covered in a second article. Afterward, the editor deletes the material from the second article.

3. Removing a large addition for a minor error. If the error is minor, then fix it (or at least tag it for clean-up). Perfection is not required, and Wikipedia is built through incremental improvement.

   Example: An editor adds a paragraph of verifiable information, but it is removed entirely because of a misplaced comma or one misspelled word that could easily be touched-up and fixed.

1. Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction.

   Example: Refusing to provide a proper citation to an editor looking to verify your claim, and accusing the editor of being disruptive for making repeated requests. Citations should be accurate so that other editors may verify them.

2. 'Walking back' a personal attack to make it seem less hostile than it was, rather than apologizing.

   Example: An editor responds to a disagreement by saying, "You're obviously wrong, wrong, wrong. Did you even pass grade 10 history?" Later, they defend this statement as a good faith question about the other editor's education.

3. '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.

   Example: An editor never violates the three revert rule, but takes several months to repeatedly push the same edits over the objections of multiple editors.

4. 'Retribution': Deliberately reverting an editor's edits in one article in retribution for an edit dispute in another.

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.

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 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.