I think this page makes a valid point and a valid distinction. The distinction is one often lost to those in the software business, possibly because people who are problem-oriented often don't have or don't remember to use the necessary people skills.
----
"'''C''''''riticizeRudely'''" is a communication style often confused with CriticizeBluntly; some people practice the subject of this page and claim they are merely being honest.  Conversely, some people on the receiving end of CriticizeBluntly will not appreciate it, and accuse the other party of CriticizeRudely.

The failure to distinguish the two is an AntiPattern and might be worthy of an internationally neutral name.

In CriticizeBluntly; an honest opinion is rendered on the ''work'' of another (their code, their arguments, whatever) without regard to stroking their ego.  Flaws are pointed out if necessary; if the critic considers the work to be worthless, he says so.  Deficiencies in the work (or alleged deficiencies) are exposed.  It is argued that despite its harsh nature, CriticizeBluntly is an effective pedagogical tool.  In some circles, it is known to work.

CriticizeRudely, however, is at best a degenerative form of CriticizeBluntly.  At its worst it is little more than raw flaming and abuse, dressed up in the robes of academia.  The key feature of CriticizeRudely is an attack on the ''person'' as opposed to the ''work''.

Things that cross the line into CriticizeRudely.

* Outright insults - calling the person an idiot, retard, moron, ''etc''.
* Questioning the competence, qualifications, credentials, or intelligence of the person, based solely on a negative reaction to the work in question.

CriticizeRudely is frequently an AntiPattern because it often destroys the trust necessary for effective communication.  Some use it as a way to "win" arguments by intimidation (as if there are debate judges reading wiki, awarding prizes to those who can "beat" their competition).  Some use it as a way to recover from a weak intellectual position.  And sometimes, it's appropriate, perhaps for example when dealing with trolls, vandals, or others who do not debate in good faith. In these cases good manners is not owed in return.
----
Note that the FaganDefectFreeProcess spends a great deal of time distinguishing between bluntness and anything else when inspecting a work product. A goodly part of the formal training is in leaving your ego at the door when entering an inspection. Even the author of an entity under inspection is encouraged to ravage any possible errors found during preparation or in the inspection itself.

There are other disciplines which promote such isolation of analysis from the person performing the analysis or the person doing the original work. Without such firewalls in place any technical critique can quickly break down into a PissingMatch, with no useful results.
------
See also: RudenessFails
----
CategoryCommunication