Marc Riddell wrote:
Carcharoth, I believe the problem we as a community
are having with the
issue of civility is finding a definition of it that everyone can agree
upon. And, since the very concept of civility is so highly subjective, that
agreeing upon a firm definition is impossible.
On the other hand ... it is not the
only such issue. And insisting that
everything be spelled out in detail is a type of wikilawyering. We have
had extensive experience of this kind of issue with policies. We do not
accept that the only criterion of a robust policy is a water-tight
definition. For example, disruption is not accepted on Wikipedia, but
there is no actual policy with a definition.
What works is this:
- there is a policy and it is open to revision by those who think they
can improve it;
- policies apply to everyone who contributes to Wikipedia, not just
those who approve of that particular policy and its formulation;
- policies have a central point for which there is a real consensus,
whatever the details as represented in the wording says today;
- this central point is deserving of respect in the context of what we
do, daily, as editors, and creates a clear expectation on behaviour of
those on Wikipedia;
- people show respect for the policy by "staying on the fairway", not
gaming it at the margins;
- policies are in the end enforced on everyone, even though enforcement
of policy is an art not a science and always takes into account factors
such as the good of the mission;
- the community rules out the creation of special cases and insists on a
universal approach.
Together these aspects of policy work. Not all policies do work as well
as they should, but I think the fault can then be laid at the door of
some breakdown in those seven points. Invoking general "cultural
factors" is something of a cop-out.
Charles