Jimbo wrote:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Setting aside the question of scientism's merits, isn't the talk page _supposed_ to be a place where POV statements are allowed?
Allowed, yes. Encouraged, no.
That's different from my understanding of how things are intended to operate. I've been operating on the understanding that articles themselves strive to attain NPOV, but that in order to achieve that goal, individual users need a place to express their differing points of view so that they can work toward a satisfactory synthesis. It would seem therefore that expression of points of view is actually _necessary_ on the talk pages. Am I understanding things properly?
The talk page is supposed to be about the article, about how to improve the article. As such, the debate or discussion can be more wide-ranging there than in the actual article. But even on the talk pages, things work best when people try not to _argue_, but rather to _co-operate_ in finding a wording that works well for everyone.
Agreed.
With regard to name-calling and other linguistic abuse on the talk pages, Jimbo wrote:
I think we find it completely unacceptable, but at the same time we're very slow to do anything about it most of the time.
Is being "slow to do anything" a policy, a custom, or merely lack of vigilance? I'm asking because I'm trying to better determine policy for myself. At Disinfopedia, I'm following a "two strikes and you're out" policy for self-evident vandalism (e.g., insertion of profanity, flagrantly false information, etc.) The reason I'm making it "two strikes" rather than one is that sometimes people who happen upon the site for the first time might make a semi-accidental edit while they're experimenting with the system to see how it works. I've also had lots of cases where someone has inserted the word "hi" into an article and then immediately deleted it. I don't regard that as vandalism.
We've only recently started to encounter cases of what I consider "gray areas" -- belligerent behavior from people who don't like someone else's edits and express themselves through name-calling on the talk pages. If you find this kind of behavior "completely unacceptable," does that mean that you would support a policy of banning users the first time sort of behavior emerges? Would you try to reason with them first? I think an argument could be made both ways. Banning them quickly makes a clear statement that such behavior is indeed "completely unacceptable," and may elevate the overall tone of discussions and save everyone from aggravation by putting out flame wars before they have a chance to reach full blaze. On the other hand, it creates a greater risk of arbitrary enforcement, may drive away users who have the potential to become worthwhile contributors, and might even provoke banned individuals to escalate through other means, such as starting up multiple user accounts or even attempts at outright hacking.
Jimbo also wrote:
This is one reason I personally rarely edit, by the way. Not because I don't want people to call me a fascist, I really don't care about that. But because I would feel compelled to accept bad behavior directed towards me that I would not accept when directed towards others.
That's an interesting approach. Why do you think that personally editing would compel you to accept worse behavior directed toward yourself than you would accept toward others?
In a possibly related vein, Ed Poor wrote:
Newbies have hardly any influencies on "old hands" such as myself. Oh, they can make suggestions and even "vote" on stuff, and if what they propose makes sense I'll try it. But if their proposals don't make sense to me I /disregard/ them.
I refuse to be tyrannized by a majority or a minority. I follow the rules laid down by our PhilosopherKing Jimbo Wales -- or, I do the best I can to follow them; I have my occasional lapses, like anyone else (Hi, Erik!).
This statement clearly suggests that there is a hierarchy operating here, with Jimbo as Philosopher King and old hands like Ed enjoying a status that newbies do not possess. I don't necessarily oppose such a hierarchy (in fact, I think it's necessary), but is there a sliding scale of "newbie-ness," so that someone who has been around for a year like myself is still more of a newbie than someone like Ed, who has been around longer? Is it also okay for newbies to "refuse to be tyrannized by a majority or a minority" of old hands? Does Ed's statement reflect a general custom or policy for the Wikipedia, or is Ed simply describing his personal practice? And getting back to Jimbo's statement above, should "old hands" feel an obligation to some degree of self-restraint along the lines of the self-restraint that Jimbo imposes on himself? Or is Jimbo's decision to "rarely edit" a rule that only applies to Philosopher Kings?
I don't have answers to any of these questions, but I think it would be interesting to see how others answer them.