Something to bear in mind when asking for civility is whether one's own
actions bear up to scrutiny. We've all seen individuals who are uncivil
themselves, yet demand higher standards of other people. It can go over as
hypocritical and sanctimonious.
I had an off-list conversation with someone about that earlier today about a
stream of vulgar language he had sent my way. After several tries I was
unable to persuade him to reconsider. He kept replying that agreeing with a
stranger in a profane manner shouldn't be offensive, and I kept replying
that it was. We stalled on that point. And now I'm having second thoughts
about my own habit of asking for more civility onsite. Perhaps there are
times when speaking up is worse than holding one's tongue.
Ambrose Bierce comes to mind, if you don't mind sardonic humor mixed with
religion.
CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely
inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.
One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not
inconsistent with a life of sin.
-Durova
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> Civility, like courtesy, is contagious - it begins with you.
on 2/26/09 8:48 AM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com wrote:
If it has a shorter lifespan, might need more effort to successfully
inoculate. But you are right, the effects of being polite and civil do
spread. But there will always be some level of incivility. How do you
know when the levels are acceptable once again? When more articles are
being written? My theory is that the articles still get written, just
slower, and some article writers are lost for good (or never arrive).
Carcharoth, I believe the problem we as a community are having with the
issue of civility is finding a definition of it that everyone can agree
upon. And, since the very concept of civility is so highly subjective,
that
agreeing upon a firm definition is impossible.
That's what I meant when I
said before. "I know it when I see it."
If I happen upon a discussion that I'm not directly involved in and feel
one
or more of the participants are being uncivil, I
will interject a comment
about it. The culture of a community is what the majority of its members
decide it will be.
Speaking only of this medium here, when I am directly involved in a
discussion and encounter what I feel is an uncivil response to something
I
have said (whether it be on a mailing list or
talk page) I simply ignore
it
and stay focused on the subject being discussed.
If the entire post
consists
only of an uncivil remark, and doesn't even
deal with the issue being
discussed, I don't respond at all. This works for me.
It's a good approach. I definitely do the latter (aim to avoid being
distracted by incivility in discussions I am taking part in) but
probably not enough of the latter (pointing out incivility in
discussions I'm following but not actively taking part in). That is
definitely something more people could do, while taking care not to
become "civility cops" or anything like that. Some people will also
take affront and accuse someone who is pointing out incivility of
being incivil, but if people are reasonable, that won't happen (but
then reasonable people don't need to be super-careful about civility,
as they will see reason at some point and pull back from escalating
the situation - and vice-versa).
Carcharoth
_______________________________________________
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