on 1/30/07 8:24 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To amplify something from my earlier comment, no forum which is a complete anarchy on the Internet survives. This is true of other forms of machine-mediated discussion such as IM, IRC, Usenet, BBSes, email, etc.
There has to be a social contract, preferably explicit, but implicit if not otherwise.
People tend to both be more aggressive in online discussions and to take offense more easily; the lack of visual and audio clues in both directions of a conversation is something which humans adapt in odd ways to. The moderating influence of nonverbal communications falls right away.
This is in no way local to Wikipedia; it's generic to online text-based communications. Combining immediacy with text-only format causes the problems.
George,
First, "civility" is a highly subjective thing.
And, regardless of the setting, is being able to speak the words you want to speak really anarchy?
If we are face to face, and I don't like what you are saying, I have the right to leave. If it's written, I have the right to tear it up.
That to me is civil.
Marc