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,
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )