Stan Shebs wrote:
I suppose if someone had a note on their user page -
"no need to be
civil here", then it could be an exception to the general rule. I don't
think there are very many people in that category though. One of the
interesting aspects of online communication is that body language and
nonverbal cues seem to be more important than anybody ever realized -
misunderstandings in online interaction happen far more, and are more
likely to spiral out of control. For instance, somebody could be saying
something nasty-sounding in person, but they're smiling and relaxed
while saying it, so you know they're probably leading up to a sardonic
joke.
The smile is very important when presnting awards for meretricious
service to the community.
Satire without a smiley face is routinely taken
seriously, no
matter how well-written. People who are good editors, but take other
people's statement to heart, can get so upset that they no longer want
to work in WP, and that's certainly a loss to the project. So the
civility rule is partly about backing down to a level that reduces hurt
and misunderstandings across a broad range of individuals.
The smiley face is often ignored by those determined to be offended.
The obvious hyperbole of statements like, "You ought to be shot for
saying that," tends to be ignored in favour of an impossible litersal
interpretation.
There is also on the net a frequent tendency toward one-dimensionality.
Thus "LOL" is most frequently taken to mean "Lots of Laughs", and in
some circumstances readers will read it as some kind of insult by
laughing at their work. For others it can mean, "Lots of Luck," in the
same way that one would say, "Break a leg," to someone about to go on
stage. No-one would seriously take that expression literally. "Lots of
Luck," can also be used ironically meaning, "I don't believe you can
accomplish that without luck." When I first encountered the
abbreviation it meant, "Little Old Lady." Cf [[The Little Old Lady from
Pasadena]].
It's also important to recognize that the same event can have quite a
different cultural impact in different societies. The now infamous
super-bowl "wardrobe malfunction" outraged some people, but for others
of us it was hilarious that such a trivial event should get such an
overblown reaction. Here along the border it frequently happens that
the same movie shown with full dialogue on Canadian television will have
offensive words bleeped on US television. As more countries mix more
different vegetables into the soup the flavours become more nuanced.
Those of us who don't like olives on pizza need to find an accomodation
with those that do, and bulldozing all the olive trees in the world is
not an option. Things do mean exactly what the user intends. Alice
understood this, both in Wonderland and in Her Restaurant. Great works
of art, literature and music will say entirely different things to each
person who experiences them. We need to guard against obligatory
equation of meanings between the artist and his audience.
Yes, we have lost good editors who got upset with our form of social
darwinism. I can imagine that this has been especially difficult from
some of our American Wikipedians who have now found a raven or coyote
sitting on the pulpit of their values. I say this with the utmost
sympathy, for I know that some have adapted well. In the present world
climate it can't be easy to be an American.
I think we have barely touched the surface of the paradigm shift
implicit in the developments of communications technology. I've been
reading the book, "Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes
Everything," by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams. The authors
mention Wikipedia extensively, along with many of the other well-known
on-line initiatives. In a paradign shift the shakedown of the old ways
can be brutal. Intellectual property and economics are only the first
areas to feel the heat. In the United States Lou Dobbs of CNN is
constantly carrying-on about incompetent politicians, many of whom leave
the impression that the primary duty of an elected politician is to get
re-elected. Even if you remove the understandably nationalistic tone of
his statements, they remain applicable. It's only a matter of time
until the denizens of the blogosphere discover that maybe they should
suggest alternatives that are more people friendly than the
constitutional brick that was proposed for the European Union. Maybe we
don't need countries at all.
The civility rule is also for one's own
self-protection - everything you
say online is publicly visible and recorded forever.
That application is not limited to WP. Many are there who never learn it.