Just Step Sideways (talk | contribs) |
Just Step Sideways (talk | contribs) →discussion: disagree |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
====discussion==== |
====discussion==== |
||
I can't agree with several points of this approach. In fact this just happened to me, in an incident marginally involved with the issues that torched off the recent hysteria over civility. A user made a poorly thought out proposal that was obviously done on the spur of the moment as a knee-jerk reaction to what was going on right that moment. I said it was a stupid, poorly thought out proposal and saw my remarks removed from the discussion by the person who had made the stupid poorly thought out proposal, who insisted that I had no right to say such a thing even if it was my honest opinion of the proposal. They insisted that if I could not make a suggestion for improving their stupid poorly thought out proposal I should say nothing at all. Since I thought the underlying premise of the entire discussion was stupid and poorly thought out this was not possible. Having my remarks removed entirely is, to my mind, far more rude than saying a crap proposal is a crap proposal. (in this case literally nobody agreed to participate in the discussion under the terms of the poorly thought out stupid proposal so I am pretty sure my comments just reflected what everybody was thinking. ) If you are going to make proposals to radically alter the way Wikipedia works, you actually shouldn't go screaming and shouting when somebody says your idea is stupid. You should consider the possibility that you had a stupid idea and didn't think it through before posting it. If, after carefully considering whether this is the case, you agree, then admit it was a stupid idea and withdraw it. If you don't find you agree just say so. Pitching an epic bitch fit because somebody bluntly said your proposal was stupid is certainly not helpful and itself hinders forward progress. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
===Proportion of content-work vs argument=== |
===Proportion of content-work vs argument=== |
Revision as of 16:32, 4 October 2012
03:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
How should we define civility and incivility? Should civility be "enforced" and if so, how?
Premise of this discussion
One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner." This is a simple premise which most everyone believes should be followed. Yet there are constant issues regarding it. This RFC will attempt to determine what the core issues are with civility on Wikipedia, and what the appropriate response is to behavior that does not conform to community standards of civil behavior.
The format will be position statements which may be endorsed and discussed, and an general open discussion as well. Any user is free to endorse as many positions as they wish and to add any new position they wish, but users are asked to please review all existing positions first to avoid duplication. One need not endorse any positions to participate in any of the discussions. Please preface all endorsements with a hash sign (#) and remember to sign all endorsements and other comments.
Positions
definition of civility
One of the major problems is that civility is not at all easy to define. Context is important. Using a "bad word" is not always incivil. (uncivil?) Conversely, one can be very rude without using strong language. Self appointed civility police tend to cause more problems than they solve, but at the same time some users seem to be able to get away with repeated serious incivility to the point that they are basically unblockable for it. Large portions of the community seem to want more enforcement, but where we draw the line and what we do to those that cross it is not going to be at all easy to determine a consensus on. Right now these incidents are handled on a case-by-case basis. Most of them probably should continue to be handled in that manner, despite its obvious shortcomings, because of the simple fact that no better way of handling it has yet been presented.
- Beeblebrox (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good basis. Endorsed. [geek tangent: incivility(noun) is correct; uncivil and incivil (adjective) are both correct but un- is more common] —Quiddity (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Accurately summarizes the situation and identifies the unblockability issue which I think it is the primary point of frustration for those seeking to enforce civility. The one thing I'm not sure on is the portion of the community that wants more enforcement, may be a vocal minority. Monty845 05:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Rschen7754 05:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good summary. We muddle along. It works. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Concur. See my comments below. --Pete (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
I know Southern ladies who can demolish an opponent in the politest of terms, and I know soldiers whose every fucken second fucken word is fucken "fucken" but they don't mean anything by it. I agree that we should look at incivility in context rather than impose rules which might be gamed. The criteria in my eyes is not so much being offended as being offensive, and I suggest the "reasonable person" test: "Would a reasonable person be offended by this behaviour?". --Pete (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that is all that great of a metric either. I have been screamed at by the civility police because, on one or two occasions, I have told someone persistently posting to my talk page to fuck off. In each case I had already tried telling them nicely to stop posting on my talk page. When that didn't work, it was time to tell them to fuck off. Of course they got offended. In fact they were supposed to get offended, even needed to be offended to realize how far over the line their own behavior had gone. I wrote an essay about this actually. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Mindspillage/disputes should replace the civility policy
- User:Mindspillage/disputes is stronger and more concrete than the existing civility policy. It establishes a bright line which is less subjective than the "no personal attack" standard which people often skirt and dodge in rule-evading ways. Replacing the existing civility policy with it and enforcing it only with one-day blocks (i.e., no escalation to longer blocks or compounding punishments) would improve the tenor of discussions here. If editors are unhappy with the results, a future RFC could return to the current status quo.
- —Cupco 05:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
- The sentiment in that essay is fine, but it really doesn't help us define what is and is not civil. There are remarkably obtuse ways of insulting others that mask the insult in civility. By way of example someone could say my position is retarded, is stupid, or is tragically misguided. Really all of them are saying my idea is bad and infer that I was wrong to even suggest it, but they do so with varying levels of sophistication, starting at very offensive, blunt and insulting in the middle, and politely insulting on the other end. Would all get someone a block? Where do you draw the line? Also, 1 day blocks without escalation or compounding strike me as retributive justice, as they are not tailored to deter future misconduct. And the community has in most cases been opposed to using blocks for retributive justice. Monty845 05:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is a parent giving a child a firm, regular duration "time out" retributive? I think most people can tell the difference between the use of terms like "retarded" and "stupid" on one hand, as obvious incivility, while "tragically misguided" avoids incivility. Are you disagreeing that the Mindspillage/disputes essay is less subjective than the existing civility policy? The one we have now basically punts on a firm stance. If you tell people that some exceptions are okay in some unspecified contexts, then it's impossible to draw a line in the sand. —Cupco 06:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that line is clear at all. "Tragically misguided" is pretty insulting to anyone who puts any decent thought into the intended meaning. I get pretty cross about quite insulting and dishonest posts made here which are deemed OK by many because they use nice language. Couching an insult, or bigotry, or self-chosen ignorance, in otherwise "civil" words should be almost a more serious offence because of its deliberately manipulative nature. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. The clear cases of incivility are easier to deal with (though these are often not dealt with, either). However, it's the subtle sarcasm and erudite putdowns that are more complicated, (and more common because we're a community of writers/editors...). I'd be equally insulted by all 3 examples. (Possibly even more so by the 3rd! Because the first 2 I can ignore/dismiss as coming from unthoughtful/rude people, whereas the 3rd is implying "a sad pat on the head as I explain that you're never going to be smart enough to understand"...).
- How to define, with unanimous-consensus, where the fine-line of "incivility that requires repurcussions" lies, is amazingly difficult. —Quiddity (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that line is clear at all. "Tragically misguided" is pretty insulting to anyone who puts any decent thought into the intended meaning. I get pretty cross about quite insulting and dishonest posts made here which are deemed OK by many because they use nice language. Couching an insult, or bigotry, or self-chosen ignorance, in otherwise "civil" words should be almost a more serious offence because of its deliberately manipulative nature. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is a parent giving a child a firm, regular duration "time out" retributive? I think most people can tell the difference between the use of terms like "retarded" and "stupid" on one hand, as obvious incivility, while "tragically misguided" avoids incivility. Are you disagreeing that the Mindspillage/disputes essay is less subjective than the existing civility policy? The one we have now basically punts on a firm stance. If you tell people that some exceptions are okay in some unspecified contexts, then it's impossible to draw a line in the sand. —Cupco 06:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's an interesting essay. But its central theme—disputes are not resolved by escalating them—fails to point out that disputes are not resolved by ignoring them, either. pablo 08:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty much what Pablo said. It is a good behavioural guide but doesn't give advice on what to do once folks have lost their temper. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is an excellent example of how to behave. However, the general editor is not usually sainted enough to love their enemy. And when they meet someone who is, they probably expect that their offensive behaviour is "mirrored"; that is, they are sure there is a counterattack somewhere in the response, but they cannot identify it. They become perplexed and frustrated. --Pete (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Civility should be enforced
- Yes, civility should be enforced in some fashion. Incivility has the potential to discourage editors from editing this site, and hinders a collaborative effort such as building an encyclopedia.
- Intentionally vague, but using this as a starting point to find some common ground. --Rschen7754 05:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- —Quiddity (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kinda. But only if we can agree on an adult, well-though-out way of defining it first. There's a huge gap between deliberate, wilful hurtfulness, with nary as swearword involved, for example, and the odd cussword tossed out in an offhand manner (and maybe because it's actually part of the user's national / regional / cultural background to use cusswords in an offhand manner as normal usage in some situations), with no intent to cause hurt or harm or disruption. In my own view (maybe because of the national / regional / cultural background), wilful hurtfulness without swearing is by far the greater offence. Non-swearing POV-pushingf; making false accusations, bringing the petty into a light where it appears to have the same weight as the really significant – those are worse. Terry Pratchett (The Truth) puts it well. There are big crimes, and little crimes, and sometimes the big crimes are so big you can't even see them. Also, "it's not a crime to own a street full of slums, but it's (almost) a crime to live in one". We need to have a good, hard look at the motives and meanings of what might at first appear to be incivility (to some people) before even beginning to think about enforcement. I used to know a princess who, in that offhand, not ill-meant manner, used to say "Stop being such a cunt!" to members of her set, with exactly the same intended impact as saying "Stop being such an idiot!" in other cultures. A princess, mark you well. And I've also (unfortunately) known (or known of) well-spoken and well-educated people who think nothing of getting an innocent person convicted. Crimes? Compare. Pesky (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- This should be entirely uncontroversial; we're not a collection of savages, and the vast majority of us aren't 14 year old boys. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes but this will get a diverse array of interpretations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
- Civility is clearly a good thing, but enforcing civility is a double edged sword. Because sanctioning editors is inherently adversarial, if not handled with skill and discretion, civility enforcement has the potential to make the editing environment more toxic then it already is. As such we should be careful about supporting a general idea of enforcement without first creating a clear picture of what that enforcement would look like. Monty845 05:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Civility should not be enforced, but off-topic incivility can be hatted
- The existing practice in many places (like Jimbo's talk page) is that when someone launches into some malodorous tirade against another editor, they get away with it, but another editor can go ahead and put a hat on the thread and give it a title summary like "this isn't productive". I contend this is the best practice, whereas resorting to AN/I increases conflict rather than decreasing it. Hatting the thread is preferable to deletion because if you delete it it ends up triggering a sort of mini Streisand effect. (The human body doesn't delete heterochromatin because it could foul up and cause a crisis; the same applies to us). Editors should only get called out to AN/I if they resort to honest-to-god disruptive editing, not mere inCivility, and so this policy should become irrelevant, though it remains a useful recommendation.
- Wnt (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes (sort of), I was (and may still) post something along these lines below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I definitely find this approach more effective than the torches-and-pitchforks route. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
discussion
Approach by FT2
The core point is that Users are expected to act in ways that help to create a positive volunteer editing environment, or at least don't undermine it.
History shows 5 things:
- Community desire: The community wants a civility policy. In 10 years nobody has ever succeeded (or even seriously tried) to get consensus to remove or negate the policy. That is telling.
- Self-justification: There is a strong view by some that "I'm just being forthcoming and direct" or "it's just robust debate" justifies any conduct, justifies intolerance of others' thin skins, or justifies dismissal of the idea that others may not be visiting wikipedia for the fun of "robustly" debating or being insulted in that style.
- Project impact: The effect of incivility is often not on the target (thought it often is). It is on bystanders and possible editors who may encounter a welcoming Wikipedia, or a Wikipedia where aggression is sometimes turned a blind eye. Incivility damages the global editing context for volunteers and silently deters existing and new editors.
- Arbitrariness: It is vague, hence arbitrary. While some scope for vagueness is acceptable, vagueness that allows cliques and "powerful individuals" to not be called to account for repeated breach of a policy encourages others to disregard or despair, and encourages drama. So there needs to be a definition and policy that will work.
- Viability (given the desire): Even the most egregious behavior can be discussed in civil terms.
Approach at a definition: Incivility covers styles of self-expression, accusation, innuendo, rhetorical speech, pointedness, snarkiness, and criticism that are:
- directed at specific user/s;
- do not add positive benefit to the actual Wikipedia content or project issue under discussion;
- could be removed or refactored without impeding the Wikipedia issue under discussion; and
- are EITHER
- distressing or very likely to distress (or known to distress) the user/s targeted, OR
- likely to result in the Wikipedia editing environment being perceived by a newcomer as less welcoming, hostile, aggressive or degraded, and hence may have a deterrent effect if established or not itself deterred.
Common justifications should be explicitly excluded.
- It is not valid to claim that a user "is okay with it" or "no harm resulted" - they may not be, onlookers may not be, observers may be deterred silently, and others may gain the impression it is acceptable.
- It is not valid to claim that a user "ought" to be ok with it or "shouldn't" be thin skinned - expectations of other users having above average emotional handling are out of place (notionally 50% will be below average)
- It is not valid to claim that one was merely engaging in "robust discussion". (A good test of legitimate robust discussion is, could the comment have been kept to project related matters and worded in a way that didn't have that effect on the user and tone of Wikipedia, without affecting the legitimate project purpose of the discussion?)
- It is not valid to claim that "people do that" or "it's funny/witty" as justification; in any social setting people will need to adopt some level of self-regulation and boundaries to participate.
- If a user asks someone to cease, then that is a red flag and should be actionable if ignored. Wilful blindness ("I chose not to understand they were upset") is also completely unacceptable.
- Gaming the borderline is actionable, just like gaming 3RR or any other gaming
I drafted User:FT2/Civility draft some time ago in line with these ideas. Perhaps it will help.
discussion
I can't agree with several points of this approach. In fact this just happened to me, in an incident marginally involved with the issues that torched off the recent hysteria over civility. A user made a poorly thought out proposal that was obviously done on the spur of the moment as a knee-jerk reaction to what was going on right that moment. I said it was a stupid, poorly thought out proposal and saw my remarks removed from the discussion by the person who had made the stupid poorly thought out proposal, who insisted that I had no right to say such a thing even if it was my honest opinion of the proposal. They insisted that if I could not make a suggestion for improving their stupid poorly thought out proposal I should say nothing at all. Since I thought the underlying premise of the entire discussion was stupid and poorly thought out this was not possible. Having my remarks removed entirely is, to my mind, far more rude than saying a crap proposal is a crap proposal. (in this case literally nobody agreed to participate in the discussion under the terms of the poorly thought out stupid proposal so I am pretty sure my comments just reflected what everybody was thinking. ) If you are going to make proposals to radically alter the way Wikipedia works, you actually shouldn't go screaming and shouting when somebody says your idea is stupid. You should consider the possibility that you had a stupid idea and didn't think it through before posting it. If, after carefully considering whether this is the case, you agree, then admit it was a stupid idea and withdraw it. If you don't find you agree just say so. Pitching an epic bitch fit because somebody bluntly said your proposal was stupid is certainly not helpful and itself hinders forward progress. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Proportion of content-work vs argument
- Most human beings (unless they are police, work in hospitals, are politicians or parents of teenagers) spend precious little time having to negotiate and at times argue with those with differing opinions. Hence they are unused to confrontation. As wikipedia is evolving and becoming more polished, vetting and reviewing to stricter standards creates more situations where folks might be at odds with one another and get frustrated to varying degrees. Hence it is understandable when frustrations spill over and folks lose their temper. Furthermore, the value of established editors increases as editing here becomes more specialised. If editors blow up and launch some heated exchange, no matter how profanity-laden - if it gets sorted so that the original antagonists promptly resolve their differences on some level then that should be that. Even if it happens frequently to a productive editor who 90% or more of total time is spent peacefully adding or reviewing content, then this is a lesser evil than blanket bans. We are building an encyclopedia here and we need all hands on deck. Really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would go even further, and say that as long as the editor's content contributions are good enough (Quality and/or Quantity) occasional incivility can be outweighed, even if original antagonists can't resolve it, just so long as it doesn't spill into article space edits. Monty845 15:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
discussion
General discussion
It is my feeling that for me to believe in contributing to Wikipedia incivility must be prevented, one way by being "enforced against" within Wikipedia. Enforcing civility on the other hand, brings to mind a dystopian world of smiling robot-people. It seems that in looking at Wikipedia:Civility work place policies regarding safety and harassment would be [a] first place of comparison. Similarly, real world terms and concepts such as "safety" should be as easily adapted to online work as they are used in the 'real' world (to the extent that one already know what safety, for example, means, one should be able to define it for use on Wikipedia). Hyacinth (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- In my current workplace and several I've been in previously swearing and insults are par for the course. To suggest that there is one simple and clear, global standard is just silly. Oh, it might help to know that I'm not in the USA. Anyone feeling that the standards they are familiar with are universal is mistaken. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with HiLo48; one can be monumentally uncivil whilst using perfectly civil language, and what constitutes incivility is highly subjective. Not only in general, but also depending on the relationship between the two people involved. "Enforcing civility" is one of those things like "fighting for peace" (or "fucking for virginity" as the hippies used to put it) - difficult, messy and ultimately counterproductive. pablo 08:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, I like that "perfectly civil language" link. That's a gem. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It may have been silly, had I actually suggested that there is one simple and clear, global standard. As with coworkers, just because one job or workplace is horrible doesn't mean that all workplaces are horrible (one might say that to suggest so would be silly). What I actually wrote was "it seems that...work place policies...would be [a] first place of comparison". This more than implies that I meant many standards. Hyacinth (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Given the demise of the Wikiquette page, I'm concerned about the message being sent to editors who feel that they must be intemperate and abusive to push a position, generally one where there is already disagreement. A few moments ago I found this message from HiLo48 on my talk page. Given his comments here immediately after delivering this unsavoury package, I'd like to oppose his position in the strongest terms. Civil discourse is especially valuable when disagreements arise. How on earth can we work together if editors are encourage to swear at and abuse each other? --Pete (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, FFS, if anyone really wants to see what I wrote and see why, please do so. Pete is a classic example of the kind of person who creates conflict here, and it's probably not entirely his fault. IMHO, he is simply not a logical thinker. He does and says the strangest, irrational things. Civil discourse is impossible, because he cannot communicate effectively. Even bringing this matter here is an example of what I mean. I keep promising myself that I should ignore him, but today he forced me back into a conversation by committing a serious BLP violation on a Talk page, and behaving quite stupidly after (rightly) correcting his error once I pointed it out. I must still try to ignore him (but there are times....) HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is an excellent example of behaviour mentioned above. HiLo expects an equally uncivil response, and when one is not forthcoming, it must be somehow hidden in the calm words. But human relationships are not necessarily symmetrical. Hatred, like love, may be unrequited. --Pete (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)