[WikiEN-l] Civility poll results

[Emily Monroe]

> I'd settle for a "social contract" - I think "civility" is too  
> loaded a term in Wikipedia after all the past.

I agree.

> If we were going to design such a page, I'd start with the communal  
> need to work together and (given the diversity of users) the need to  
> actively avoid where possible distraction into disputes, and  
> personal squabbles. I'd then add the following as principles  
> (rewording needed to avoid obvious issues):

I'd also point out that everybody has at least two commonalities:
1. We're all human. Yes, we have bot accounts, but if the bot isn't up  
to Wikipedia's standards, it's the *owner* who's responsible.
2. We all have the right to have everyone assume that we are here to  
build an encyclopedia, NOT to do anything else. This can be phrased as  
"We are here to build an enclycopedia until proven otherwise.", and  
probably belongs as a principle.

Emily
On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:25 PM, FT2 wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:11 AM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com 
> >wrote:
>
>> AGF is a good place to start.
>>
>> No Personal Attacks is another one, but AGF is more core.
>>
>
>
>
> I'd settle for a "social contract" - I think "civility" is too  
> loaded a term
> in Wikipedia after all the past.
>
> If we were going to design such a page, I'd start with the communal  
> need to
> work together and (given the diversity of users) the need to  
> actively avoid
> where possible distraction into disputes, and personal squabbles.  
> I'd then
> add the following as principles (rewording needed to avoid obvious  
> issues):
>
>   - Wikipedia is a community of diverse individuals. It covers many
>   cultures and norms, and sees in that diversity, a source of  
> immense value to
>   the project.
>   - Dispute resolution is the communally mandated way of resolving all
>   disputes. Because disputes can be volatile, dispute resolution is  
> expected
>   to be actively promoted by all users who wish to engage in a  
> dispute, either
>   by trying to resolve it, or by referring the dispute to a formal  
> resolution
>   venue.
>   - Users have a proactive duty to mitigate disputes or else avoid  
> them.
>   Disputes should be framed around evidenced behaviors and content,  
> and
>   participation in a dispute thread is for the sole purpose of  
> calming the
>   dispute, and addressing the underlying issue.
>   - All participation in a dispute or series of disputes must start  
> from an
>   initial presumption that the other party is trying to comply with  
> a good
>   standard of conduct, unless there is clear evidence that offsets  
> this. Such
>   evidence must be cited, not merely claimed.
>   - Administrators and experienced users have twin roles - to  
> procure good
>   editorial conduct and enforce upon errant users that substandard  
> conduct
>   will not be accepted, and, to do so in a manner that minimizes the  
> dispute
>   so far as possible. Users who cannot or will not do this, should  
> avoid
>   participation in, and comment upon, the dispute.
>
> I wouldn't propose it in that form, but if those ideas ended up in a  
> dispute
> and conduct norm, I would not object.
>
> FT2
> _______________________________________________
> 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