Marc Riddell wrote
I have been doing minor editing in WP for a year now and, time permitting, would like to participate more actively in the project. And, like anything a person is considering becoming a part of, I want to get a sense of its beliefs and values.
My work and passion has been, is now, and probably always will be, persons and their interactions. That is why this issue is so important to me.
An argument I have produced before, is that bad language and aggressiveness as a routine form of interaction appeals mostly to the young and male. It happens that males 20 to 25 might be the most significant group here. I think it is also the case that such forms of verbal interaction and self-assertion are likely to put off many other demographic groups. So civility policy is one way of trying to broaden the base of contributors, or to retain people who profile is not a good match to those who think freedom of speech is mostly about the right to be f****** rude all the time.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
on 1/31/07 6:29 AM, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com at charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
An argument I have produced before, is that bad language and aggressiveness as a routine form of interaction appeals mostly to the young and male. It happens that males 20 to 25 might be the most significant group here. I think it is also the case that such forms of verbal interaction and self-assertion are likely to put off many other demographic groups. So civility policy is one way of trying to broaden the base of contributors, or to retain people who profile is not a good match to those who think freedom of speech is mostly about the right to be f****** rude all the time.
Interesting. You know, as I read all of the responses thus far, the one word that my eye and brain keep tripping over is "civility" - perhaps I am associating it with the word "proper" - and that's a button word for me. The only thing I have ever associated with the word civil is disobedience ;-).
Marc
On 31/01/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Interesting. You know, as I read all of the responses thus far, the one word that my eye and brain keep tripping over is "civility" - perhaps I am associating it with the word "proper" - and that's a button word for me. The only thing I have ever associated with the word civil is disobedience ;-).
Wikipedia is a working environment - a volunteer one (which has its own social rules, of course), but nevertheless it's a project with a particular purpose. I've seen how obnoxious editors scare off newbies, and it's not nice at all and is actually damaging to the project.
Other collaborative volunteer projects work other ways. The Linux and OpenBSD mailing lists are famously abrasive. But, as noted, no-one's started a "Nastypedia" ...
I think the basic rule, which I hold is the fundamental rule of all social spaces, is "Don't be a dick." Every other social rule we have is a special case of that.
- d.
on 1/31/07 7:39 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a working environment - a volunteer one (which has its own social rules, of course), but nevertheless it's a project with a particular purpose. I've seen how obnoxious editors scare off newbies, and it's not nice at all and is actually damaging to the project.
Other collaborative volunteer projects work other ways. The Linux and OpenBSD mailing lists are famously abrasive. But, as noted, no-one's started a "Nastypedia" ...
I think the basic rule, which I hold is the fundamental rule of all social spaces, is "Don't be a dick." Every other social rule we have is a special case of that.
Terrific! I much prefer the term "Don't be a dick" to "incivility"; can we make the change :-).
Seriously, is there an attempt made by other, more seasoned editors, to give support to these newbies to assure them they are supported by the majority of the project?
Marc
On Jan 31, 2007, at 7:59, Marc Riddell wrote:
Terrific! I much prefer the term "Don't be a dick" to "incivility"; can we make the change :-).
I have to agree that "Don't be a dick" is a far better handling of the policy... "Be civil" means "respect our social contract"; "don't be a dick" is the contract. Much more to the point.
But clearly we can't use such foul language! /me mutters about fuckheads...
--keitei
On 31/01/07, Keitei nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 31, 2007, at 7:59, Marc Riddell wrote:
Terrific! I much prefer the term "Don't be a dick" to "incivility"; can we make the change :-).
I have to agree that "Don't be a dick" is a far better handling of the policy... "Be civil" means "respect our social contract"; "don't be a dick" is the contract. Much more to the point.
This summary wins a small prize. I think we need it enshrined somewhere.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 31/01/07, Keitei nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 31, 2007, at 7:59, Marc Riddell wrote:
Terrific! I much prefer the term "Don't be a dick" to "incivility"; can we make the change :-).
I have to agree that "Don't be a dick" is a far better handling of the policy... "Be civil" means "respect our social contract"; "don't be a dick" is the contract. Much more to the point.
This summary wins a small prize. I think we need it enshrined somewhere.
I don't know about that distinction about the social contract and repecting the social contract. If the social contract includes being respectful then respect too is the social contract. It seems like making too much of a fine point of distinction.
One point which for me makes "Be civil" preferable to "Don't be a dick" is that it advocates something that people should be in preference to what they should not be. It has a more positive outlook.
Ec
On 1/31/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
One point which for me makes "Be civil" preferable to "Don't be a dick" is that it advocates something that people should be in preference to what they should not be. It has a more positive outlook.
Besides that, I can't remember a *single* occassion where linking [[m:DICK]] has ever done anything to calm a situation down. Of *course* the other person is going to be offended, and anyone linking this in a heated dispute is a fool to expect otherwise -- at the very least, get somebody neutral to do the linking. When the directly involved (and most biased) parties start giving each other dick/civility scoldings, it rarely ever calms anything down.
If we want the level of discourse to be more civil, we must first ourselves behave in a civil manner. Nine times out of ten, that precludes linking [[m:DICK]] in my opinion.
-Luna
On 01/02/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
If we want the level of discourse to be more civil, we must first ourselves behave in a civil manner. Nine times out of ten, that precludes linking [[m:DICK]] in my opinion.
I think it's been instruction-crept lately, but at least one previous version noted that calling someone out as a dick was a dickish move itself and somewhat missing the point.
- d.
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 05:53:22PM -0800, Luna wrote:
On 1/31/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
One point which for me makes "Be civil" preferable to "Don't be a dick" is that it advocates something that people should be in preference to what they should not be. It has a more positive outlook.
Besides that, I can't remember a *single* occassion where linking [[m:DICK]] has ever done anything to calm a situation down. Of *course* the other person is going to be offended, and anyone linking this in a heated dispute is a fool to expect otherwise -- at the very least, get somebody neutral to do the linking. When the directly involved (and most biased) parties start giving each other dick/civility scoldings, it rarely ever calms anything down.
If we want the level of discourse to be more civil, we must first ourselves behave in a civil manner. Nine times out of ten, that precludes linking [[m:DICK]] in my opinion.
Besides their relative rudeness as rebukes, there is a substantial difference between the *meaning* of the two phrases. "Don't be a dick" is a far more broad concept, and makes greater reference to motives and meaning; "civility" is more about style and form. For example, a dismissive, one-line response to a carefully considered five paragraph argument is a "dick move" even if perfectly civil. An exasperated ejaculation of emotion may be incivil but is not a dick move--a dick does not act out of desperation or express vulnerability.
andrew.cady@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 05:53:22PM -0800, Luna wrote:
On 1/31/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
One point which for me makes "Be civil" preferable to "Don't be a dick" is that it advocates something that people should be in preference to what they should not be. It has a more positive outlook.
Besides that, I can't remember a *single* occassion where linking [[m:DICK]] has ever done anything to calm a situation down. Of *course* the other person is going to be offended, and anyone linking this in a heated dispute is a fool to expect otherwise -- at the very least, get somebody neutral to do the linking. When the directly involved (and most biased) parties start giving each other dick/civility scoldings, it rarely ever calms anything down.
If we want the level of discourse to be more civil, we must first ourselves behave in a civil manner. Nine times out of ten, that precludes linking [[m:DICK]] in my opinion.
Besides their relative rudeness as rebukes, there is a substantial difference between the *meaning* of the two phrases. "Don't be a dick" is a far more broad concept, and makes greater reference to motives and meaning; "civility" is more about style and form.
Quite the contrary. If you're telling someone to not be a dick that presumes that he was being one in the first place.
For example, a dismissive, one-line response to a carefully considered five paragraph argument is a "dick move" even if perfectly civil.
Not always. Sometimes it just keeps the heat from being cranked up.
An exasperated ejaculation of emotion may be incivil but is not a dick move
Dicks don't ejaculate???? =-O
--a dick does not act out of desperation or express vulnerability.
Sounds like they drive a hard bargain. ;-)
Ec
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
andrew.cady at gmail.com wrote:
Besides their relative rudeness as rebukes, there is a substantial difference between the *meaning* of the two phrases. "Don't be a dick" is a far more broad concept, and makes greater reference to motives and meaning; "civility" is more about style and form.
Quite the contrary. If you're telling someone to not be a dick that presumes that he was being one in the first place.
Hmm. That is not contrary to what I said.
For example, a dismissive, one-line response to a carefully considered five paragraph argument is a "dick move" even if perfectly civil.
Not always.
Of course, not always. It seems like a good example to me, though. There are, in any case, others.
Sometimes it just keeps the heat from being cranked up.
Perhaps. In the majority of cases, it should be expected to have the opposite effect.
on 1/31/07 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
One point which for me makes "Be civil" preferable to "Don't be a dick" is that it advocates something that people should be in preference to what they should not be. It has a more positive outlook.
I agree with the positive part, but there's that word "civil" again - I keep wanting to put the word "defense" right after it :-).
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 1/31/07 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
One point which for me makes "Be civil" preferable to "Don't be a dick" is that it advocates something that people should be in preference to what they should not be. It has a more positive outlook.
I agree with the positive part, but there's that word "civil" again - I keep wanting to put the word "defense" right after it :-).
At least you're not putting "war" right after it. Few people would understand if you were referring to a war fought with utmost politeness. :-)
Ec
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 1/31/07 7:39 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a working environment - a volunteer one (which has its own social rules, of course), but nevertheless it's a project with a particular purpose. I've seen how obnoxious editors scare off newbies, and it's not nice at all and is actually damaging to the project.
I think the basic rule, which I hold is the fundamental rule of all social spaces, is "Don't be a dick." Every other social rule we have is a special case of that.
Terrific! I much prefer the term "Don't be a dick" to "incivility"; can we make the change :-).
A significant minority finds the word "dick" offensive because of the sexual overtones.
Seriously, is there an attempt made by other, more seasoned editors, to give support to these newbies to assure them they are supported by the majority of the project?
I'm sure we all would when the direct opportunity arises, but it takes a great deal of maturity and patience. It takes honest recognition of the difference between a newbie and a troublemaker. The police mentality of the vandal hunters and other recent change patrol tends to shoot first and ask questions lateer. I think that many of them attach great importance to ridding us of a wide range of troublesome people, but their tactics can be extreemely disconcerting for newbies who are really trying to make an honest but awkward effort.
Ec
on 1/31/07 8:18 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A significant minority finds the word "dick" offensive because of the sexual overtones.
Ah yes, sex and its associated body parts the great cultural taboos. Talk about groupthink!
Sex, sexuality and the conflicts they produce are the single most common reason persons enter therapy.
Marc
on 1/31/07 8:18 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I'm sure we all would when the direct opportunity arises, but it takes a great deal of maturity and patience. It takes honest recognition of the difference between a newbie and a troublemaker. The police mentality of the vandal hunters and other recent change patrol tends to shoot first and ask questions lateer. I think that many of them attach great importance to ridding us of a wide range of troublesome people, but their tactics can be extreemely disconcerting for newbies who are really trying to make an honest but awkward effort.
I don't think survival of the emotionally fittest should be a working fact in WP. Perhaps a project, group of interested veterans, or whatever could be set up for these new, but unseasoned persons to turn to for support.
Marc
On 31/01/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 1/31/07 6:29 AM, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com at charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
An argument I have produced before, is that bad language and aggressiveness as a routine form of interaction appeals mostly to the young and male. It happens that males 20 to 25 might be the most significant group here. I think it is also the case that such forms of verbal interaction and self-assertion are likely to put off many other demographic groups. So civility policy is one way of trying to broaden the base of contributors, or to retain people who profile is not a good match to those who think freedom of speech is mostly about the right to be f****** rude all the time.
Interesting. You know, as I read all of the responses thus far, the one word that my eye and brain keep tripping over is "civility" - perhaps I am associating it with the word "proper" - and that's a button word for me. The only thing I have ever associated with the word civil is disobedience ;-).
Proper, decent, civil... it may be worth remembering that "decent human behaviour" and "campaigns for decency" use the same words, but mean very different moral principles :-)
A thing which I feel needs to be brought out in this discussion is that (with a few fundamental exceptions), policies and guidelines are *descriptive*, not *prescriptive* - our policy on Foo is effectively saying "the community, when doing Foo, strongly favours the following approach and may get very upset if you ignore it", rather than "the law says Foo should be handled thusly"; it's the way the community works, and thus the way it expects its members to work. So "civility" isn't a rule against being nasty to people; it's a statement that "the community expects civil behaviour", and... well, an instruction on how not to fall out with them.
[I have not read the civility policy or guideline or whatever it is. But I know what it needs to say - "play nice"]
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 31/01/07, Marc Riddell wrote:
Interesting. You know, as I read all of the responses thus far, the one word
that my eye and brain keep tripping over is "civility" - perhaps I am associating it with the word "proper" - and that's a button word for me. The only thing I have ever associated with the word civil is disobedience ;-).
Proper, decent, civil... it may be worth remembering that "decent human behaviour" and "campaigns for decency" use the same words, but mean very different moral principles :-)
Yes, it can be a great marketting buzz-word.
[I have not read the civility policy or guideline or whatever it is. But I know what it needs to say - "play nice"]
I admit that I haven't read it either. Not reading policy keeps me civil. ;-)
Ec
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 1/31/07 charles.r.matthews wrote:
An argument I have produced before, is that bad language and aggressiveness as a routine form of interaction appeals mostly to the young and male. It happens that males 20 to 25 might be the most significant group here. I think it is also the case that such forms of verbal interaction and self-assertion are likely to put off many other demographic groups. So civility policy is one way of trying to broaden the base of contributors, or to retain people who profile is not a good match to those who think freedom of speech is mostly about the right to be f****** rude all the time.
Interesting. You know, as I read all of the responses thus far, the one word that my eye and brain keep tripping over is "civility" - perhaps I am associating it with the word "proper" - and that's a button word for me. The only thing I have ever associated with the word civil is disobedience ;-).
At its root, ''civilis'', civil relates to the citizen and his role in society. It's application appears to range from the practicalities of the codified state to an idealized form of people knowing almost intuitively how to get along. We face that range regularly. Thus "civility" becomes a quality in the relationship between the individual and the common weal.. In Johnson I see "Freedom from barbarity, the state of being civilized ... Politeness, complaisance, elegance of behaviour ... Rule of decency, practice of politelness". The duty of civil disobedience fits well with this. I suspect that Jefferson would have approved of that.
You do well to be wary of "proper". The emphasis there is more on the individual, hence property and proprietary.
Ec
On 1/31/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote
I have been doing minor editing in WP for a year now and, time permitting, would
like to
participate more actively in the project. And, like anything a person is considering becoming a part of, I want to get a sense of its beliefs and values.
My work and passion has been, is now, and probably always will be,
persons
and their interactions. That is why this issue is so important to me.
An argument I have produced before, is that bad language and aggressiveness as a routine form of interaction appeals mostly to the young and male. It happens that males 20 to 25 might be the most significant group here. I think it is also the case that such forms of verbal interaction and self-assertion are likely to put off many other demographic groups. So civility policy is one way of trying to broaden the base of contributors, or to retain people who profile is not a good match to those who think freedom of speech is mostly about the right to be f****** rude all the time.
Charles
I totally agree with this; being civil is a good way of ensuring that you're trying to interact in a positive manner with all possible types of contributors. Online, you never know who's on the receiving end of your comments: what their background is, what their beliefs are, or how they'll take something you'll say.
As for free speech, the vast majority of the time it's possible to get ideas across either politely or offensively. I can say "I don't agree with this policy, and here's why <list of thoughtful reasons here>"; or I can resort to Godwin's law: "people who support this policy are nazis and fuckheads!" Generally, the former should carry more weight. That's not about free speech; it's about being coherent and respectful of other people (both their time and their intelligence); we are, as Charles said, colleagues here trying to get work done on a project. This isn't (shouldn't be?) a forum for acting out simply because you can*.
-- phoebe
* unless maybe the end result is really, really entertaining.