On 12/4/2014 3:41 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
The URL I just posted goes to the wrong survey (since there are two sections with the same header on that page). Here is a better URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Arbcom.27s_position_on...
They are discussing whether to make this GGTF ArbCom statement part of civility: "Although there are cultural differences in the use of certain expletives, there is rarely any need to use such language on Wikipedia and so they should be avoided. Editors who know, or are told, that a specific word usage is reasonably understood as offensive by other Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance."
I really didn't pay much attention to this at the time, I'm afraid, but see several issues:
*Expletives generally are more like Shit, damn, hell, bloody, F*cking this that or the other, etc. There can be some leeway with those on user talk pages and even talk page conversations, if not used in a direct attack. *Slurs (generally against whole group of people) - in this case C*nt and Tw*t - were the words most objected to in this arbitration, even when not used in a direct personal attack. (Though my use of "Brit" was highly objected to, before the "Gang" phrases were uttered.) *Insults direct at individuals like stupid, fool, idiots, etc. were relevant to the discussion and a number of diffs presented for a couple of editors. Are they included?
Frankly, the whole thing brings up the issues of competence by the committee, bias aside. Sigh...
CM