 | This is an essay on the conduct policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Don't pepper your comments throughout a discussion. Hold the pepper and make a few summary comments instead. |
Consider these two example discussions in which UserYou responds in two different styles:
EXAMPLE A (peppering) Comment: I think X. Editor 1 0:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: What about Y? UserYou 0:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with X but not Y, but I also think Z. Editor 2 0:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why not Y? Y has these benefits over Z... UserYou 0:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Not sure about Y; agree with X and Z. Editor 3 1:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- X and Z are poor choices. Y is better, here's why... UserYou 1:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Agree with Y and Z. Editor 4 1:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- We shouldn't do Z and Y, we should only do Y, because... UserYou 1:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I disagree with X, Y and Z less so. Editor 5 1:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- What do you disagree with about Y? UserYou 1:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe Y but definitely not X or Z. Editor 6 1:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with this editor, let's try Y. UserYou 1:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sick of this conversation. Editor 7 2:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Me too! Can we try Y and close this discussion? UserYou 2:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Let's try X and Z but not Y. Editor 8 2:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. Y is better than X and Z because... UserYou 2:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I think Y and Z. Editor 9 2:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Z can't work with Y, see my reply to Editor 4 above. Let's try Y and close this discussion? UserYou 2:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
EXAMPLE B (hold the pepper) Comment: I think X. Editor 1 0:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: What about Y? UserYou 0:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with X but not Y, but I also think Z. Editor 2 0:45, 26 January 2019
- Clarifying question about Z? UserYou 0:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Clarifying answer. Editor 2 0:55, 26 January 2019
Comment: Not sure about Y; agree with X and Z. Editor 3 1:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Agree with Y and Z. Editor 4 1:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I disagree with X, Y and Z less so. Editor 5 1:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe Y but definitely not X or Z. Editor 6 1:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sick of this conversation. Editor 7 2:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Let's try X and Z but not Y. Editor 8 2:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I think Y and Z. Editor 9 2:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: It's been suggested we try both Y and Z but that won't work because [reasons]. I think Y is better than Z because [reasons]. Let's try Y and close this discussion? UserYou 2:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
In Example A, comments are sprinkled like pepper across the page (the worst case, peppering the page with personal attacks and such, is "salting the page"). In Example B, there's one question inline, but the bulk of the response is made in a single follow-up comment, rather than inline ("hold the pepper"). The point is pepper makes everyone sneeze! Hold the pepper!
Why no pepper?
editWhy is Example B better than Example A?
1. People's time and attention are valuable, limited resources. Humans being mortal, we only have so much time on this planet. Only so much free time to edit. Every word on a talk page takes up time to read, time that the reader will never get back and that could have been spent doing something else (like editing an article, or spending more time with their family).
Someone might defend peppering as normal development of consensus through discussion, and point out that since no one is forced to read any other editors comments, there is no harm. However, everyone is forced to read those comments–if they want to participate in that discussion. That's the point. If you are responding to every other editor's comments, and they're responding back to you, then you are the center of discussion. A new editor coming to the talk page won't be able to understand the prior discussion without reading all the back and forth that you've engaged in. That takes up valuable, limited time.
In Example A, the reader must read from UserYou:
Comment: What about Y? UserYou 0:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not Y? Y has these benefits over Z... UserYou 0:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
X and Z are poor choices. Y is better, here's why... UserYou 1:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
We shouldn't do Z and Y, we should only do Y, because... UserYou 1:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
What do you disagree with about Y? UserYou 1:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this editor, let's try Y. UserYou 1:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Me too! Can we try Y and close this discussion? UserYou 2:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. Y is better than X and Z because... UserYou 2:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Z can't work with Y, see my reply to Editor 4 above. Let's try Y and close this discussion? UserYou 2:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
In Example B, the reader must read from UserYou:
Comment: What about Y? UserYou 0:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Clarifying question about Z? UserYou 0:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: It's been suggested we try both Y and Z but that won't work because [reasons]. I think Y is better than Z because [reasons]. Let's try Y and close this discussion? UserYou 2:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
In both examples, the same content is conveyed, but in Example B, it's less reading, less time required of readers.
2. People deserve thoughtful comments, not your every thought. Example A allows for response to each comment. Example B allows for you to read all of the comments in context, think about them, and then respond. Instead of trying to win each editor over, one by one, you can provide a comment that tries to move the entire discussion by synthesizing what came before and offering a suggestion for a way forward. People are more likely to read, more likely to appreciate the thoughtfulness of, and more likely to be persuaded by, the comment at the end of Example B, then all that pepper in Example A. Also, taking the time to post a more holistic, thoughtful comment will reduce the likelihood that you'll say something in the heat of the moment that you'll come to regret later.
3. People need room to talk to each other. If you're replying to every comment, or even most comments, it reduces the opportunity for others to reply. A new editor coming to the page will be more likely to reply to Example B than to Example A, because Example A looks like a fight (even more so when there are multiple threaded discussions). When you see a long back-and-forth with the same names, it really sticks out. Pepper sticks out, and it's discouraging.
Summary: Next time, before you write anything, ask yourself: Is now the best time to respond, or should I wait? Is writing this the best use of my time? Is reading this the best use of others' time?