http://geeketiquette.com/archives/2007/08/19/geek-to-geek-communications-wit...
And just think about what happens to the social environment when you mix lots of people communicating like that into a working group of four thousand or so.
- d.
So AGF is an "inbound tact filter"? I like that.
I think the combination of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL is an excellent example of how geek-to-geek ("g2g", I don't like that) communication works. We expect people to be civil to eachother, but we don't require people to go out of their way to be civil, we simply require them not to do anything actively uncivil.
On 20/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So AGF is an "inbound tact filter"? I like that. I think the combination of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL is an excellent example of how geek-to-geek ("g2g", I don't like that) communication works. We expect people to be civil to eachother, but we don't require people to go out of their way to be civil, we simply require them not to do anything actively uncivil.
Another excellent quote to keep in mind:
"I think we've forgotten it comes from the whole biting-the-head-off-chickens thing."
- d.
On 8/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's come on a long way since then. Language changes over the years. They really are independent definitions of "geek".
I suspect David was making some insightful commentary by ways of an ironic observation :)
--Oskar
On 8/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think the combination of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL is an excellent example of how geek-to-geek ("g2g", I don't like that) communication works. We expect people to be civil to eachother, but we don't require people to go out of their way to be civil, we simply require them not to do anything actively uncivil.
Another way of saying "don't be a dick".
On 21/08/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think the combination of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL is an excellent example of how geek-to-geek ("g2g", I don't like that) communication works. We expect people to be civil to eachother, but we don't require people to go out of their way to be civil, we simply require them not to do anything actively uncivil.
Another way of saying "don't be a dick".
"Don't be a dick" is more general. It applies to everything. Not being a dick when communicating with someone boils down to being civil. WP:CIVIL is just one aspect of not being a dick.
On 8/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://geeketiquette.com/archives/2007/08/19/geek-to-geek-communications-wit...
And just think about what happens to the social environment when you mix lots of people communicating like that into a working group of four thousand or so.
OK, thought about it. Next topic.
(ducks;-)
Magnus
David Gerard wrote:
http://geeketiquette.com/archives/2007/08/19/geek-to-geek-communications-wit...
And just think about what happens to the social environment when you mix lots of people communicating like that into a working group of four thousand or so.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What if everyone else is annoying, and the geeks are fine? </smartassery>
Realistically, though, I think there is something to be said for clear, no-bullshit communication. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be rude, but if I had to pick between someone being blunt with me and someone lying to or misleading me, I'll pick blunt every time.
on 8/20/07 9:25 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://geeketiquette.com/archives/2007/08/19/geek-to-geek-communications-wit... -michael-schwern/
And just think about what happens to the social environment when you mix lots of people communicating like that into a working group of four thousand or so.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What if everyone else is annoying, and the geeks are fine? </smartassery>
Realistically, though, I think there is something to be said for clear, no-bullshit communication. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be rude, but if I had to pick between someone being blunt with me and someone lying to or misleading me, I'll pick blunt every time.
If I want a direct, no-bullshit answer - I will ask a direct, no-bullshit question. It's the difference between, "Do you like me", and "How do you feel about me".
Marc
On 8/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Realistically, though, I think there is something to be said for clear, no-bullshit communication. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be rude, but if I had to pick between someone being blunt with me and someone lying to or misleading me, I'll pick blunt every time.
Like companies which politely tell everybody "thank you for your suggestion, we'll take it under consideration" no matter how boneheaded it is.
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 8/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Realistically, though, I think there is something to be said for clear, no-bullshit communication. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be rude, but if I had to pick between someone being blunt with me and someone lying to or misleading me, I'll pick blunt every time.
Like companies which politely tell everybody "thank you for your suggestion, we'll take it under consideration" no matter how boneheaded it is.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Exactly! I'd rather hear "Look, there's no way in hell that's going to happen." At least then you know where it stands.
On 21/08/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Realistically, though, I think there is something to be said for clear, no-bullshit communication. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be rude, but if I had to pick between someone being blunt with me and someone lying to or misleading me, I'll pick blunt every time.
Like companies which politely tell everybody "thank you for your suggestion, we'll take it under consideration" no matter how boneheaded it is.
"Under consideration" means we've lost the file; "under active consideration" means we're trying to find it...
Realistically, though, I think there is something to be said for clear, no-bullshit communication. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be rude, but if I had to pick between someone being blunt with me and someone lying to or misleading me, I'll pick blunt every time.
I agree absolutely, but then we're talking on a Wikipedia mailing list, so I think we probably qualify as geeks. ;)
The talk reported in the blog explains it quite well. Geeks are happy to add in the pleases and thank yous that they know were meant, so you don't have to waste time typing them. Non-geeks generally aren't. I prefer the geek way, but I think we're somewhat outnumbered.