Hello colleagues,
In the Wikiverse one of my continuing struggles is with the topic of how we can be vibrantly diverse, and accepting of strong debates and open disagreement, while also not intimidating good faith contributors who may be less willing to comment in a public space due to fear of criticism. I am also mindful that people who would be good contributors may leave the Wikiverse completely because they find that the Wikiverse is too stressful for them.
I am currently thinking along four tracks.
First, the nature of Wikiverse topics probably make us be a relatively stressful and relatively high conflict environment. We have a public service mission to educate, and although I think that many of us love the mission, we deal with many high conflict topics within the scope of that mission. I think that this will remain a constant.
Second, I want to encourage quieter people to be brave in speaking up, but in my personal initiatives I haven't succeeded at that in any way that I can see. Does anyone have suggestions about how we can encourage quieter people to participate more often in public discussions, and to feel more courageous?
Third, I am also thinking about our struggles to define civility, and to make a distinction between justified personal criticisms and unjustified personal attacks. I don't think that relatively authoritarian central control of public discussion (by WMF or anyone else) is a good idea, for three reasons: 1. a comment that may be insulting in culture A may be normal and acceptable in culture B, 2. I don't want to decrease public accountability for problems like governance failures or incompetence, and 3. I don't want to give powerful people easy access to wikilegal justifications for suppressing personal criticism of themselves or their allies. (I oppose, for example, saying that “deliberate intimidation” is off limits, because in some circumstances I think that it is very reasonable to threaten people with demotions, blocks, or termination of employment.) At the same time, I don't want Wikimedia sites to host and to publicize groundless personal attacks or trolling. In many cases I think that distinguishing justified criticism from garbage can be done easily, but sometimes making the distinction is more challenging.
A fourth track seems to me to have significant potential for good. We can increase the quality and quantity of positive feedback, and we can place more emphasis on cultivating certain spaces where we mutually agree to leave the conflicts outside. (The Wikiverse as a whole is not a "safe space", but we cultivate some exceptions within that. Maybe an analogy for these places would be public gardens.) Hopefully these initiatives would decrease stress, improve retention, and improve morale. These can be done while simultaneously being supportive of candid discussions in the broader Wikiverse.
I am interested in hearing your comments, if you would like to share.
Yours in service,