I think we should have arguments about whether we are allowed to have arguments. ;) On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com > Hoi, > Such approaches ass-ume that we know best and promptly forget that the > world changes and that this attitude prevents "us" from arguing, poking at > the holy cows. > > What if BIG contributors and Jane or me tell you that you are wrong? Would > you listen do you listen?? Yes we have our arguments ready! > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 19 October 2015 at 07:13, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> >> Most interesting slide from that deck is this one: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WikiConference_USA_-_Commun… >> >> I would say as a Wikipedian, I am firmly a member of the top bar there: >> COI (love to edit Haarlem articles b/c I live there), Disruptive editing >> (accused of this b/c I love other projects that most Wikipedians don't >> edit, like Commons and Wikidata), Gaming the system (I love games, such as >> publicizing things on Wikipedia to see if it makes a difference, and over >> time it generally does), Difficult users (I think all Wikipedians are >> entrepreneurs in the sense that they work alone and don't take no for an >> answer, like me) >> >> If you want to work on removing Wikipedians in that bar, please be aware >> you're talking about me. And if you send a coach to fix me, then I will >> soon be moving into the orange and red zones! >> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>> >>> Forwarding this interesting presentation's slide deck from Haitham. >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WikiConference_USA_-_Community_Health.pdf >>> >>> Pine >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >

Getting serious again, perhaps something that could be discussed as a part of the community health initiative is how to help people to argue constructively and civilly. I'm reminded a bit of a story I heard about a married couple who had an agreement that they would argue only when holding hands. Apparently they worked out situations between them better that way. Are there ways that we could encourage better methods of handling disputes on wiki that we have yet to try, or that we are trying but could scale up? On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, Just as if I was not serious. My point is very much that those that define "us" are so right that they forget to listen. That they forget about what motivates others. Yes we can and should argue. The problem is that all too often any argument given is seen as criticism and not for what it was intended, thought provoking. Given that we have become overly attached to our planning and attach criticism when the planning is not executed, we no longer contemplate what it is why we have our plans and what we selected not to do, see and consequently do not take into account when assessing results. Plans are just that, results should influence what we aim for and arguments are what help us assess motivation for our action. Thanks, GerardM On 19 October 2015 at 08:43, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote: