Really? And by saying that *I* am a "big part of the problem" are you instituting a personal attack on me? Are you being incivil and therefore taking a hypocritical position? Ask yourself that question and let me know the answer before we proceed. Thanks
In a message dated 2/15/2009 2:24:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, michaeldavid86@comcast.net writes:
Will, by this statement, and your attitudes displayed in other of your posts on this subject clearly shows that you are a big part of the problem here. What really are your objections to this whole issue?
**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntu...)
on 2/15/09 6:57 PM, WJhonson@aol.com at WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Really? And by saying that *I* am a "big part of the problem" are you instituting a personal attack on me? Are you being incivil and therefore taking a hypocritical position? Ask yourself that question and let me know the answer before we proceed. Thanks
Not a very successful attempt at taking control and avoiding my original question, Will. Are you going to answer it?
Marc
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 2/15/09 6:57 PM, WJhonson@aol.com at WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Really? And by saying that *I* am a "big part of the problem" are you instituting a personal attack on me? Are you being incivil and therefore taking a hypocritical position? Ask yourself that question and let me know the answer before we proceed. Thanks
Not a very successful attempt at taking control and avoiding my original question, Will. Are you going to answer it?
Seems to be a perfectly valid question to ask, actually...I believe Will is attempting to prove how thin and subjective the line of "incivility" can be, and also proving his initial point about most cases of so-called incivility being at least somewhat justified because they're usually *in response* to incivility.
- GlassCobra
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 2/15/09 6:57 PM, WJhonson@aol.com at WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Really? And by saying that *I* am a "big part of the problem" are you instituting a personal attack on me? Are you being incivil and therefore taking a hypocritical position? Ask yourself that question and let me know the answer before we proceed. Thanks
Not a very successful attempt at taking control and avoiding my original question, Will. Are you going to answer it?
on 2/15/09 7:15 PM, Alex Sawczynec at glasscobra15@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to be a perfectly valid question to ask, actually...I believe Will is attempting to prove how thin and subjective the line of "incivility" can be, and also proving his initial point about most cases of so-called incivility being at least somewhat justified because they're usually *in response* to incivility.
Incivility should not be met with more incivility; this merely perpetuates and expands to problem.
Marc
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Incivility should not be met with more incivility; this merely perpetuates and expands to problem.
Certainly. However, proposals to treat incivility as a bright-line auto-blockable offense, like 3RR, have the problems that the bright line isn't really all that bright or that definite. They become very game-able, as well; if such a rule was instituted, being treated uncivilly is something every canny edit warrior will be playing for, since it gets their opponent blocked. Expect it to encourage a hyper-sensitivity to incivility and even more attempts to label honest disagreement and argument as uncivil.
Especially, I'd expect, there will be much screaming that criticizing anyone's behavior is uncivil, which is a problem we already face. Sometimes the person really IS the problem, and we should not outlaw mentioning that.
-Matt
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Incivility should not be met with more incivility; this merely
perpetuates
and expands to problem.
Certainly. However, proposals to treat incivility as a bright-line auto-blockable offense, like 3RR, have the problems that the bright line isn't really all that bright or that definite. They become very game-able, as well; if such a rule was instituted, being treated uncivilly is something every canny edit warrior will be playing for, since it gets their opponent blocked. Expect it to encourage a hyper-sensitivity to incivility and even more attempts to label honest disagreement and argument as uncivil.
Especially, I'd expect, there will be much screaming that criticizing anyone's behavior is uncivil, which is a problem we already face. Sometimes the person really IS the problem, and we should not outlaw mentioning that.
There are at least two poles with a spectrum in between:
Single-offender incivility, where one person has (something between bad day and bad entire Wikipedia experience) and goes off on people.
Multiparty incivility, where people taunt each other back and forth to some degree and one person finally goes too far.
I think it's entirely reasonable to ask of anyone who is going to be acting to respond to civility problems on-wiki that they take a look at the situation and determine where it falls on that spectrum, and whether someone was unprovoked or was provoked, and whether the other side need to be calmed down / cautioned / warned / blocked as well as the immediate offender.
2 of the last 3 things I responded to were single-offender incivility incidents, where nobody really had provoked it at all and it was just one person going off on something.
The third was clearly a one-person minor abuse incident that was escalated by a small pack who responded provocatively and baited him and it then escalated it into intermediate. In that case, the initial offender got a mid-range warning and the pack of them / thread got a "Don't provoke or bait people" warning as well.
It's important in this to acknowledge that there are both single-party incidents and more complex ones. Treating more complex ones as if they were single-party will become a tyranny of the mob in short order - a bunch of people show up and bait someone with a short fuze, and then call for ANI, and that's all she wrote. That's not right at all.
But sometimes, there is no second side, it's just party A going ape over something.
2009/2/16 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
on 2/15/09 6:57 PM, WJhonson@aol.com at WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Really? And by saying that *I* am a "big part of the problem" are you instituting a personal attack on me? Are you being incivil and therefore taking a hypocritical position? Ask yourself that question and let me know the answer before we proceed. Thanks
Not a very successful attempt at taking control and avoiding my original question, Will. Are you going to answer it?
You do it quite a lot, and it certainly strikes me as incivil. So imagine I've asked you rather than him, and please answer it.
- d.
2009/2/16 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
on 2/15/09 6:57 PM, WJhonson@aol.com at WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Really? And by saying that *I* am a "big part of the problem" are you instituting a personal attack on me? Are you being incivil and therefore taking a hypocritical position? Ask yourself that question and let me know the answer before we proceed. Thanks
Not a very successful attempt at taking control and avoiding my original question, Will. Are you going to answer it?
on 2/15/09 7:18 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You do it quite a lot, and it certainly strikes me as incivil. So imagine I've asked you rather than him, and please answer it.
David, I will not be drawn in. My original question to Will was "What really are your objections to this whole issue [of dealing with the problem of incivility in the wiki]? When he answers the question I will continue the discussion with him.
Marc