I guess I kind of forgot what we were talking about when Marc brought up
an authority. The original subject was nastiness, but that too is
possibly unrelated to the question of why more women don't edit.
Yes, it is the community that determines the editing environment, not
rules or enforcement. They are just useful when someone violates
community norm and then wants to argue about it. Community norms that we
all support are what works.
Fred
If you want a different editing environment, using a body like arbcom
will
get you nowhere fast. You can't create a friendly environment by
kneecapping
people who are uncivil - done like that it will either look like
arbitrary
justice of people we don't like - or in the interest of transparency of
process you'll be reduced to counting sweary words. The problem with NPA
is
that anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows how to
deliver
an infuriating put-down, or frustrate by playing dumb-insolence, without
personally attacking anyone. On the other hand, we end up blocking
someone
for calling a troll "a troll".
What you need is something else. I'm not Jimbo's biggest fan, and I'm
never
greatly taken by his idealistic "Jimbofluff" approach, but when you
actually
had a leader (who at that time was perceived to have influence) those who
wanted to have influence with him, would strive not to disappoint the
leader. That ethos rubs off. Jimmy was very good at saying to people he
valued, "I'm disappointed with how you handled this" - and it stung.
The problem with arbcom is that it although people may seek to avoid
behavior which might lead to sanctions, there's little positive
reinforcement. Unless one is angling to be elected (or still needs to
pass
RfA) then having, and expressing contempt, for all and sundry doesn't
have
consequences. I speak from experience here. I've battled for BLP issues
for
years, to do that I've had to fight for unpopular positions, and I've
needed
to know arbcom will support me.- That I am often overly-combatative,
short
tempered, and unnecessarily uncivil, ends up being beside the point -as
arbcom would look very petty were they to pass a critical resolution in
the
midst of dealing with important issues. A leader(ship) would find it
easier
to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you
tone it down a bit".
If you want a atmosphere change it needs led, and not driven by threats.
It
is also the case that much of the incivility of regulars is due to
long-term
frustration caused by the fact that getting any small change on
en.Wikipedia
means battle and endless debates with hundreds of people. The problem is
structural - change (when it comes) is driven and not lead - so you learn
to
fight and equally you get frustrated.
As hard as it is to change structures, it is far easier to change
structures
than to change people. And structures shape people.
But we've discussed structural change time and time again, and it can't
happen. The bastards won't let it, so sod the lot of them.
Scott (Doc)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l