Wikipedia:Motte-and-bailey RFC
Essay on editing Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Motte-and-bailey fallacy is a type of fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. |
On Wikipedia, this can occur in WP:RFCs or other formal discussion processes; someone might ask one question, which has an easy and obvious answer; then turn around and use the results of that RFC to push for a much less clear-cut outcome. For example, someone might ask if a source is generally reliable, when the actual dispute is whether a particular statement from that source is WP:DUE.
This is not necessarily intentional; when an editor is deeply involved in a dispute, their assumptions and interpretations about the underlying disagreement (which, to them, bridge the gap between the "motte" and "bailey" and make them the same question) might leak into their framing, even when those same assumptions are the actual point of dispute at hand. In this manner a motte-and-bailey RFC can also be a subtle violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL; while the basic question appear neutral and straightforward, the implication that it is the decisive question for the dispute at hand can contain non-neutral assumptions. In this regard it can also be a type of begging the question.
Avoiding motte-and-bailey RFCs
The easiest way to avoid creating a motte-and-bailey RFC inadvertently is through proper WP:RFCBEFORE; talk with the people you're in a dispute with to ensure the wording of the RFC reflects everyone's understanding of the disagreement. If objections are raised after you start the RFC, be receptive to them and update the RFC before people start weighing in.
When phrasing an RFC's question, consider what each of the possible "straightforward" answers to your RFC would mean, and think about their implications for the article if interpreted as narrowly as possible - imagine yourself obtaining a terse but favorable RFC outcome, a simple yes or no with no further clarification. Would the people you are in a dispute with argue that this doesn't settle the underlying issue? If so, you may need to tweak the wording to more precisely capture the actual points at hand.
Recognizing motte-and-bailey RFCs
The most obvious sign of a motte-and-bailey RFC is when an experienced editor is asking a question that seems trivial or whose answer is obvious; normally, for instance, it isn't necessary to reaffirm the reliability of a paper of record. Therefore, when an RFC's question seems trivial and yet there's clearly an underlying dispute between experienced editors, take a moment to dig into it and make sure the RFC question reflects the actual dispute at hand.
Dealing with motte-and-bailey RFCs
If you believe you're facing an RFC of this nature, the easiest solution is to raise your objections as quickly as possible and suggest alternative wordings for the RFC; however, this may not be possible once people have started weighing in, since modifying an RFC in progress is complex.
Another option is to simply weigh in that it is a bad RFC and to give your reasons why, or to address what you see as the actual dispute in your comment. The closer will be able to see this, weigh it against the comments people made, and write a closure that makes it clear whether that underlying point remains resolved.
Finally, once the RFC is closed, consider the closing statement carefully; if the initial question was trivial, the consensus may also be trivial. Part of the reason why motte-and-bailey RFCs are bad is because they're non-neutral; but part of the reason they're bad is that they frequently fail to actually address the underlying dispute. In those cases a followup RFC that focuses on the actual question at hand may be necessary.
If you are a closer closing what you suspect to be a motte-and-bailey RFC, take the time to go over the responses and summarize what they're actually saying; if there seems to be an underlying dispute or point that some people in the RFC have raised and that the consensus doesn't actually address, make that clear in your summary, and suggest further RFCs to resolve unresolved questions if necessary.