<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 10/29/2011 12:45 AM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gendergap-request@lists.wikimedia.org">gendergap-request@lists.wikimedia.org</a> wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.100083.1319841903.12057.gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In other words, as a community we create a climate where poor behaviour is
the most effective means to motivate needed changes, where our policies and
practices can be used as weapons both to support negative behaviour and also
to "punish" positive behaviour, where the boundaries of unacceptable
behaviour vary widely dependent on a large number of factors and enforcement
is extraordinarily inconsistent, and where we openly claim to follow a
behavioural model that <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>sounds<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> progressive but is in reality possibly even
more nasty than our own.
On reading far, far back into archives, it appears that "incivility" has
been a problem almost since the inception of the project. In the early days
of the project, blocks and bans were almost non-existent, and huge amounts
of time were invested in trying to "correct" behaviour (considerably more
per capita than today, the community cuts its losses much earlier now than
in 2002-04). In fact, blocks and bans were very rare until the arrival of
extensive trolling and vandalism in 2005-06, which led to the appointment of
a massive number of administrators in 2006-07 in order to address these
problems.
None of this speaks to solutions, I know. But it is important to put the
discussion into a more historical context, and to recognize the flashpoints
where incivility is often identified.
Risker/Anne</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/05/a-group-is-its-own-worst-enemy.html">http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/05/a-group-is-its-own-worst-enemy.html</a><br>
<br>
"As a community grows, these types of rules-- neither social nor
technical,<br>
but a hybrid of both-- become critical to the survival of the
community.<br>
If moderators fail to step in, the damage can be fatal."<br>
<br>
"The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into<br>
a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one<br>
as time increases."<br>
<br>
----------<br>
<br>
From my experience (on hr wiki), biggest problem a group
(wikiproject)<br>
can have are moderators(admins) which are not up to the task.<br>
<br>
And I am admin (and bureaucrat and CU) who sometimes was but<br>
sometimes also wasn't up to the task, and trolls used that to the
maximum.<br>
<br>
En wiki is big, so it will not break if one relatively civil troll
hurts and drive<br>
away 1, 10 or even 50 normal users, but on small projects one or two<br>
such trolls can break WHOLE project either for a year of two, or
even<br>
longer.<br>
<br>
Although consequences are not the same, solution should be the same:<br>
<br>
Wikipedia is a project<br>
its users are a group<br>
this project harbors free language and freedom of thought<br>
but trolls should be banned on spot. Sooner the better.<br>
<br>
Longer the discussion, more damage to the project.<br>
<br>
(longer the discussion with troll, or discussion should troll be
blocked<br>
or not and for how long - trolls should be blocked for good).<br>
<br>
----------<br>
<br>
Notice: I didn't check ANY edit of (problematic) user subject of
this thread,<br>
so I don't know is he or isn't he a troll, and I don't care.<br>
<br>
If he is, he should be blocked for good, sooner the better.<br>
<br>
If he isn't, all who are writing bad here about him are paranoids.<br>
<br>
Beware: smart trolling is very similar to normal argument. So it is
very easy<br>
to let it go, but damage become bigger with every message troll
posts.<br>
<br>
<br>
Kind regards<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>