[WikiEN-l] drama and incivility

[Monahon, Peter B.]

	"Example is not just another way to teach.  It's the only way."
-- attributed to Albert Einstein.

Hello fellow Wikipedia-users,

> Earlier: ...  Am I the only one here annoyed with such messages?  Why
can't we be more cordial and polite towards one another?  It's gotten to
the point where I may unsubscribe ...

Peter Blaise responds: 

	No.  But, I suggest that we all use our down-arrow or delete
keys, instead of using all those other keys to show our objections.
There's noise, and then there's echo, and if the noise bothers us,
echoing that noise in the form of objecting to that noise is not helping
reduce the noise much.

	I put it to you: what's the alternative?  

	Banning?  

	And in who's hand?  

	A moderator?  Voted in, or self-appointed?  

	And who gets banned?  

	Vandals and spammers?  

	Seems simple enough.  

	How about off topic contributions?  

	Occasional or extended off topic contributors?  

	Who decides?

	In my experience, the more powers we give to an arbitrary
moderator, the more we then ask that moderator to do our thinking and
censoring for us.  And for what?  The convenience of avoiding the pain
of cleaning our own inbox, of scrolling our own down-arrow keys by
ourselves?  

	And then the moderator starts reading content on their own, and
deleting or banning based on their own sensibilities of what they think
is personally offensive.  

	Then the criteria migrates even further to reviewing content for
what the moderator thinks is constructive, or in line with their
philosophy, culture, or whatever personal whims.  

	It becomes the moderator's blog, and that's NOT the purpose of
someone tasked with supporting the community as a whole.  The moderator
themselves become the destructive force within the community.

	Power corrupts.  

	Absolute power (to ban) corrupts absolutely.

	So, I suggest that if we object to noise, then we ourselves set
an example of low-noise contribution, and merely scroll on past whatever
we personally think is noise.  

	Democracy is messy.  Patience, tolerance, acceptance, and
equivalent consideration are tough virtues to attain, but I think, worth
goals to ascend to.  Why not here?  Why not now?

> Earlier: ... contributing to Wikipedia.  Why bother anymore?  I still
like the ideals behind the project and wish to continue, but would
really like it if we can please tone down the drama and be more civil
and cordial towards one another?  If people can't control themselves,
then maybe this list could use moderation.  Though if the moderator is
engaging such language, that's not good ...

Peter Blaise responds: 

	I vote for all avenues of contribution to be:

	- free and open for all
	- multiple co-moderators
	- no banning

	I hope my contributions set an example, and I'll scroll past
other's contributions if they are not a good match for my interests at
the moment.  But I do not desire that anyone get banned because they
contribute something I don't like.  I can control my own inbox, just as
I control what I toss when my physical mail arrives at home.  I don't
cry and wail when I get junk mail and unsolicited crap in my physical
mail at home, so why do so on the Internet?

Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise