What I don't understand is if administrators like Risker and Mike Peel are so concerned about civility on Wikipedia that they object to Keliana's swearing, why aren't they the people that are making hard blocks against vested contributors who are unambiguously violating civility with personal attacks? Instead, Keliana is the one doing that. She's the one actually putting herself on the line to try to change the civility climate on Wikipedia. Banning swear words from the Signpost isn't going to do that. Consistently blocking users who attack other editors as "worthless" or "low-lifes" or "idiots" (or a million other non-swearing insults) will.

Risker: I will be happy to support a ban on swearing if you will support a ban on personal attacks and be willing to act on it. What do you say?


On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
Regarding "swearing is not in itself uncivil" --

I agree strongly with that sentiment. However, in group communication it can be valuable to have clear lines that must not be crossed, in order to keep everybody on the same page. As an analogy, it seems to me that a clear expectation of avoiding ALL CAPS in various Internet forums has been positive. It's not that anybody thinks all caps is in itself uncivil or disrespectful; but very often, they are used in ways that accompany disrespectful communication. Establishing, and adhering to, a clear expectation of avoiding that format tends to keep people cognizant of the idea that their mode of expression matters.

I am not suggesting that the Signpost should rigidly adhere to a "no swearing" rule. But I do think it would be good (as you have already acknowledged) for varying expectations around swearing to be incorporated more carefully into future decisions.

Also, Daniel raises a good point. I had forgotten that Emily had joined ArbCom. I agree, that probably colors many people's reactions, whether or not it's consciously acknowledged. Another analogy...a good friend of mine is a judge, and also a big fan of rock music. I have always been impressed with her courage in resisting the unwritten expectation that she would steer clear of dive bars and house parties. But as I got to know her, I realized that she put a great deal of thought into how she conducted herself in such venues. You might find her at a table of people pontificating about a local news story, but you wouldn't find her weighing in. You might see her with a drink in her hand, but you wouldn't see her drunk. And you might hear her expressing strong opinions (unrelated to what she would hear in court), but you wouldn't hear her swearing. It's not that she felt that strong opinions, getting drunk, or swearing were awful things -- but given her position, they were things that could compromise her relationship with the people she served. My takeaway -- I think there are many good reasons for people (and perhaps publications) in a position of trust observing rules of decorum that *exceed* expectations of civility that they might apply to others, in order to earn and retain the respect of their peers.

Rob, I very much appreciate your perspective on this as an experiment that yields worthwhile lessons. I am glad that a diverse set of opinions have emerged, and that you are engaging with them. I believe that in the long run, the heightened emotions around this one will seem unnecessary...but of course, the emotional responses are real, and I don't want to discount what drives them. At any rate, I appreciate the candor everybody is bringing to this conversation, and continue to read with interest.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel@gmail.com> wrote:
A number of us who are concerned about civility on Wikipedia do not see swearing in and of itself as uncivil.  Many people may include professionalism and decorum under the umbrella of civility, but others do not, and they are not hypocritical because they do not.   The problem is not the words themselves, but when those words are used by editors to attack other editors.    

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use of profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in >extreme cases is it considered actionable when actually directed at an individual. So it's hard to understand why many editors of long->tenure have reacted in such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be the unique nature of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I >would be surprised to learn that many users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do the New York Times. The most likely >conclusion is that profanity and vulgar language are almost exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and the difference here is that >readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it from a woman.

While I think this has something to do with it, I suspect some of the commentators may have seen this as hypocritical: A member of the Arbitration Committee, newly elected as one of several arbs committed to restoring civility and mitigating our gender imbalance, writes a Signpost op-ed using profanity in the headline, while some users (and, more importantly, their supporters) who believe (whether reasonably or not does not matter as the belief informs their actions either way) that last year’s ArbCom results effectively painted a bullseye on their backs, know that use of such language by them in discussions is routinely hauled out as evidence against them in AN/I threads and (more importantly) at ArbCom.

I don’t fault the Signpost for its editorial decision to run it. But I wonder if someone should have talked to Emily about this before she did it. Because now it’ll be hard for her to cast votes in cases where a user’s profanity has been brought up as evidence of consistent incivility without a whole host of users bringing this up immediately on the talk page. It will haunt her effectiveness as an Arb for a long time to come, I’m afraid.

And for what it’s worth, it is not acceptable to curse onwiki where I have anything to say about it. I have blocked people for this when they have refused to cease and desist and/or apologize. I have declined unblock requests without review of the edit history if people used foul language (this usually results in a new request with a profuse apology and more reasonably stated case for unblock).

Daniel Case


_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap