[WikiEN-l] Civility poll results

[Emily Monroe]

> It is also human nature that everyone, at one time or another, feels  
> the need to speak frankly and forcefully. If that is met by hurt  
> cries of "you are being incivil", that is a detriment to open  
> discourse.

Well, then there's the issue of differing cultures and  
neuroatypicalities (such as people on the autistic spectrum), where  
some people actually don't know how to be polite in some environments.  
How do we deal with somebody from a different country? What about  
somebody who we suspect has, or claims to have, a neurological  
disability that affects how xy interact with others?* These are  
questions we must ask ourselves.

Emily

PS *These questions are rhetorical. You can answer them, but I don't  
expect anyone too.
On Aug 11, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Carcharoth wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:18 AM, FT2<ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm openly in support of a strong civility ethos - but it can't be  
>> a gamed
>> one where some can and others can't. A community like this can't  
>> have some
>> who can do stuff with impunity and others who'll get blocked for  
>> the same
>> stuff. A good ethos matters; a policy is just words in comparison.
>>
>> The aim of a civility ethos/policy (if it can be said to have an  
>> aim) is
>> roughly this:
>>
>>   - When people speak rudely, others tend to get defensive, feel  
>> attacked,
>>   and often over-react. Others get dragged in to the incipient  
>> drama to
>>   "defend" rather than to "resolve". It encourages "heat" and not  
>> "light" to
>>   do so.
>>   - Most users wish to contribute content. They see disputes as  
>> undesirable
>>   and an obstruction to that. When a dispute arises, it can poison  
>> the
>>   atmosphere or discourage or de-motivate others as a result.
>>   - People are realistic, they know there will be disagreement, often
>>   strongly. But seeing people behave like children and speaking in  
>> a rude
>>   offensive manner, may be demotivating. Especially, being spoken  
>> to that way
>>   can be.
>>   - Politeness - as an affirmative choice - tends to hold the  
>> emotional
>>   temperature down. It helps disputes to be resolved calmer if  
>> people are not
>>   uptight and heated. It may not stop users misbehaving (eg civil  
>> edit
>>   warring) but a general policy of disallowing disrespectful speech  
>> will
>>   almost always have some positive effect.
>>
>>
>> The thing about a policy is, it needs wide and level enforcement.  
>> How many
>> of the current concerns, I wonder, would be addressed, if admins were
>> actively expected to enact a high level of good conduct? If there  
>> were norms
>> like "do not intervene in a dispute between others except to help  
>> settle it
>> according to communal norms and support good quality resolution"?
>>
>> While some poor conduct is unavoidable, a lot would be improved if  
>> more
>> users considered themselves responsible for avoiding "heating"  
>> speech in
>> favor of "lighting" speech. Especially, a double standard for  
>> admins (or
>> arbs, or established content writers) is not okay - users have the  
>> right to
>> expect more, not less, from such trusted users.
>
> Maybe a tad too much jargon there?
>
> It is also human nature that everyone, at one time or another, feels
> the need to speak frankly and forcefully. If that is met by hurt cries
> of "you are being incivil", that is a detriment to open discourse.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l