Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words
 | This is a mustelid family, which does include weasels (and otters, badgers, stoats etc.), though we would have to find that information by careful searching .
There are people who say weasel words are words intended to, or having the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue. Some people say the quintessential example of weasel words is the phrase "Some people say". Some encyclopedias have style guides entitled avoid weasel words which strongly discourage the use of weasel words. However, there are editors [who? ] who think that weasel words are helpful and absolutely appropriate in some cases. These editors believe that we should embrace weasel words, not avoid them.
Conserving brain spaceIt's been suggested without evidence that some neuroscientists claim that every time you learn a new fact, you must necessarily forget some other fact in order to make room for the new fact to fit inside your head, sometimes called the Homer Simpson effect.[1][citation needed] (Admittedly, neuroscientists who subscribe to this theory invariably cannot recall why they believe it, and if you try to explain to them why the theory is flawed, they will run from the room while shrieking loudly, lest your teachings cause them to forget their happiest childhood memory.) Though the science may be flawed, the point is valid: don't bother the readers with details they don't need to know. Don't tell them a name if they don't need to know it. Instead, embrace weasel words, and back those weasel words up with a citation:
Some Wikipedians, mistaken about the goals and principles of Wikipedia, have written on this page that if "a belief is sufficiently prevalent, we shouldn't let weaselphobia stop us from clearly saying so", suggesting that they are the ones to decide when a belief is "sufficiently prevalent", and that weasel words should be "embraced" even though they render the statements vague. Such attitude arises from the inability, or unwillingness, to conduct appropriate research on the topic:
In some cases, a viewpoint isn't particularly prevalent and its adherent isn't particularly famous. Many people may have a legitimate reason to mention the viewpoint, but we don't want to trouble the reader with names they don't really need to know. In this case, we can still use weasel words, but it's essential that they be backed up with a good citation:
Other times to embrace weasel wordsAvoid weasel words gives examples of some other cases where weasel words are good:
To some extent, weasel words are inevitable. Because any politically contentious assertion is likely to be quickly edited by someone with different political views, only the most inoffensive phrasing will endure, ensuring that at any given time, a political entry will be likely to have a high proportion of weasel words. When "Neutral Point of View" is interpreted to mean that an objectively probable or even certain statement should be edited in order to maintain "neutrality" toward political groups, then there is an evolutionary mechanism ensuring the survival of the weasliest. Specifically, the NPOV is defined as representing "all significant viewpoints". Even if this doesn't mean that articles are encouraged to be politically neutral, the effect of voluntary edits will still ensure that, at any given time, the weasliest words remain after the contentious comments have been deleted. Plus if you publish something on a website, you can reference it in your Wikipedia article and provided the other editors are too lazy to bust you for violating Wikipedia's rules against self-publishing – voila! – no more weasel word. ;-)
When not to embraceIt could be assumed that weasel words may improve readability and NPOV problems. You should avoid controversial weasel words that aren't backed up by citation. There are other situations where weasel words absolutely should be avoided:
When not to use a weasel tag
See also
References
|