When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, objective look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence? That, alone, speaks volumes.
Marc Riddell
---------- From: bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com Reply-To: bawolff+wn@gmail.com, Wikinews mailing list wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:34:14 -0700 To: Wikinews mailing list wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant>
[I happened to stumble upon what appears to be an aftermath of an edit war, and am quite disgusted by it. The following is basically a rant about it, as I'm not really sure how best to bring it up]
I've recently noticed a marked increased in incivility between contributors on Wikinews. I find this really disturbing as it is often between admins who one would think know better. For example (And I'm not trying to pick on anyone, these are just some random ones i came across):
*"But no, you've gotta be an asshole just like always" *"A small amount of brain activity would lead to the presumption that someone in my position knows what they're doing" *"I suggest you get the fuck off your high horse or get the fuck out of dodge" *"they are _MY_ comment sections and _I_ can write what ever the hell _I_ want."
Now, I know I am taking these out of context, but to be blunt I don't care if the context was responding to poop vandalism - It is incredibly inappropriate for admins to say these things under any circumstances. If these were new users making these comments, they would have been blocked in the neighborhood of 2 weeks to a year, maybe even indefinitely.
How can we really expect to recruit and retain new contributors, when this is how the long time contributors are treated?
-Bawolff
_______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, objective look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
Not all projects. I'd like to take this opportunity to shamelessly plug Wikibooks, which is as close to utopia as we get here in wiki world. We don't fight, there's very little hostility, and a relatively small number of hardworking users are producing a pretty impressive group of free textbooks. </shameless plug>.
Projects are self-administering. If you feel the projects are not functioning properly it is the fault of the project, not the fault of the foundation. Get your admins to block your trouble users, and if the admins themselves are causing trouble then petition to have them removed. Everybody wants the WMF "hand of god" to swing down from the sky and deliver relief to various community problems. It won't happen and it can't possibly work anyway. Change and solutions have to come from within, or they won't come at all.
And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence? That, alone, speaks volumes.
And what response do you want from him? This isn't his problem to solve.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, objective look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
on 2/5/09 9:40 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
Not all projects. I'd like to take this opportunity to shamelessly plug Wikibooks, which is as close to utopia as we get here in wiki world. We don't fight, there's very little hostility, and a relatively small number of hardworking users are producing a pretty impressive group of free textbooks. </shameless plug>.
There should be no shame in pride of one's work, Andrew ;-). I do congratulate you and your editors in maintaining a workspace that is both open and civil.
Projects are self-administering. If you feel the projects are not functioning properly it is the fault of the project, not the fault of the foundation. Get your admins to block your trouble users, and if the admins themselves are causing trouble then petition to have them removed. Everybody wants the WMF "hand of god" to swing down from the sky and deliver relief to various community problems. It won't happen and it can't possibly work anyway. Change and solutions have to come from within, or they won't come at all.
I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged at all. Where does one go from there if not the Foundation itself?
And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence? That, alone, speaks volumes.
And what response do you want from him? This isn't his problem to solve.
In a professional setting I would expect an acknowledgement that the email was at least received.
Marc
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged at all. Where does one go from there if not the Foundation itself?
The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems are likely to be unfixable.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged at all. Where does one go from there if not the Foundation itself?
on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
A sad state of affairs.
If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems are likely to be unfixable.
Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between "control" and "management". It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group. It is my professional business to know such things.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
A sad state of affairs.
Yes, it is. Nevertheless it is a fundamental paradox in this kind of project. We grow up with an old authoritarian paradigm where people are taught to take orders, and even expect to be told what to do and how to do it. In the new paradigm of sharing we expect people to take responsibility for what they say and do, and to use common sense in their approach to problems. A co-operative or consensual model is difficult when worth has been defined in term of the rights (or rites) of winning and losing.
There are people out there willing to see themselves badly injured in a traffic accident as long as they believe that doing so was consistent with their "correct" interpretation of the traffic laws.
If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems are likely to be unfixable.
Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between "control" and "management". It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group. It is my professional business to know such things.
As I understand it you do very good work with some very problematical individuals, but those individuals have a very strong incentive for co-operation. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Andrew's observation. Size does matter. In education, smaller classes and smaller schools tend to have better results than big learning factories. The question remains: how can that observation be used to greater advantage?
Ec
(I'm on my Blackberry which makes it hard to comment inline - please bear with me.)
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
A sad state of affairs.
Yes, it is. Nevertheless it is a fundamental paradox in this kind of project. We grow up with an old authoritarian paradigm where people are taught to take orders, and even expect to be told what to do and how to do it. In the new paradigm of sharing we expect people to take responsibility for what they say and do, and to use common sense in their approach to problems.
(<<<End of Ray Saintonge''s comment)
Hear, hear. We're trying to do something new, and new is hard. I applaud everybody who tries to work together in these projects collaboratively and productively.
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:21:36 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant>
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
A sad state of affairs.
Yes, it is. Nevertheless it is a fundamental paradox in this kind of project. We grow up with an old authoritarian paradigm where people are taught to take orders, and even expect to be told what to do and how to do it. In the new paradigm of sharing we expect people to take responsibility for what they say and do, and to use common sense in their approach to problems. A co-operative or consensual model is difficult when worth has been defined in term of the rights (or rites) of winning and losing.
There are people out there willing to see themselves badly injured in a traffic accident as long as they believe that doing so was consistent with their "correct" interpretation of the traffic laws.
If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems are likely to be unfixable.
Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between "control" and "management". It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group. It is my professional business to know such things.
As I understand it you do very good work with some very problematical individuals, but those individuals have a very strong incentive for co-operation. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Andrew's observation. Size does matter. In education, smaller classes and smaller schools tend to have better results than big learning factories. The question remains: how can that observation be used to greater advantage?
Ec
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dunbar's Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems are likely to be unfixable.
Can we use this idea to good advantage?
Some of us have indeed found our time best spent in smaller projects. Perhaps participation in a WikiProject in a subject of one's choosing should be a prerequisite to adminship. That could give the person experience in co-operation.
Ec
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged at all. Where does one go from there if not the Foundation itself?
Part of the problem is that "the powers that be" in the English Wikipedia is a wide spread, very diffuse group, other than Jimbo.
A larger number of elder statesman admins / experienced users are discussing civility issue problems on-wiki, which is a good sign.
Part of the problem is that there isn't an entirely functional community consensus on what levels of incivility deserve intervention and what don't. I and a number of others are quietly working to establish a functional working standard, by intervening more actively, but several of us have been slapped by parts of the community in the process.
Fred's getting more grumpy about it in public of late, I've had my moments, etc.
I think that there is not realistically going to be a sudden sea change on this issue. But I also think that we realistically can create a momentum for improvement over a multi-year timescale.
That it will probably take that long is unfortunate, but large online communities become very unwieldy in some ways. Having realism about the community dynamics is a necessary step in engaging in them as an agent of change.
Jimbo would have to make it a major in-community priority of his, or Arbcom would have to make it a major in-community priority of theirs, to make it faster. I think Jimbo's too busy and Arbcom is too unwieldy in one sense and focused on more specific problems.
George Herbert wrote:
That it will probably take that long is unfortunate, but large online communities become very unwieldy in some ways. Having realism about the community dynamics is a necessary step in engaging in them as an agent of change.
The model for this kind of community has not yet been written.
Jimbo would have to make it a major in-community priority of his, or Arbcom would have to make it a major in-community priority of theirs, to make it faster. I think Jimbo's too busy and Arbcom is too unwieldy in one sense and focused on more specific problems.
We shouldn't be looking for a panacea. When everyone expects a detailed examination of his petty problems by Arbcom he becomes a big part of the reasons for its disfunctionality.
Ec
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
That it will probably take that long is unfortunate, but large online communities become very unwieldy in some ways. Having realism about the community dynamics is a necessary step in engaging in them as an agent of change.
The model for this kind of community has not yet been written.
I have to disagree. Wikipedia is clearly not exactly like previous large online communities, but it has a lot in common with Usenet and other large online projects and social groups of the past. Failing to heed history and see the analogies where they apply is folly...
Jimbo would have to make it a major in-community priority of his, or
Arbcom
would have to make it a major in-community priority of theirs, to make it faster. I think Jimbo's too busy and Arbcom is too unwieldy in one sense and focused on more specific problems.
We shouldn't be looking for a panacea. When everyone expects a detailed examination of his petty problems by Arbcom he becomes a big part of the reasons for its disfunctionality.
Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are persistently abusive and disruptive to other users. Even being a long time positive contributor cannot overcome the damage done to the community and other editors in particular when one problem abusive user persists. The damage is both severe in the acute sense and insidious in the long term community values sense.
This is a real problem. Take it seriously.
2009/2/5 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are persistently abusive and disruptive to other users.
If Jimbo had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers this would happen too. It hasn't, because he doesn't.
- d.
George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are persistently abusive and disruptive to other users. Even being a long time positive contributor cannot overcome the damage done to the community and other editors in particular when one problem abusive user persists. The damage is both severe in the acute sense and insidious in the long term community values sense.
I disagree that divine intervention is a solution, but I agree with the principle that a productive editor who cannot collaborate is not a productive editor. Perhaps you and others can take a look at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaboration_first >, and put together a convincing essay to that effect. Convincing the silent majority to take a cohesive stance against such behaviour is one possible solution.
George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are persistently abusive and disruptive to other users. Even being a long time positive contributor cannot overcome the damage done to the community and other editors in particular when one problem abusive user persists. The damage is both severe in the acute sense and insidious in the long term community values sense.
on 2/5/09 6:44 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild) at pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree that divine intervention is a solution, but I agree with the principle that a productive editor who cannot collaborate is not a productive editor. Perhaps you and others can take a look at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaboration_first >, and put together a convincing essay to that effect.
Convincing the silent majority to take a cohesive stance against such behaviour is one possible solution.
Absolutely, Jesse. Confront it every time you encounter it. This may be the most important - and most effective - solution to the problem. The remaining problem is how to convince that silent majority that their silence is also a part of the problem.
Marc
Jesse (Pathoschild) wrote:
George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are persistently abusive and disruptive to other users. Even being a long time positive contributor cannot overcome the damage done to the community and other editors in particular when one problem abusive user persists. The damage is both severe in the acute sense and insidious in the long term community values sense.
I disagree that divine intervention is a solution, but I agree with the principle that a productive editor who cannot collaborate is not a productive editor. Perhaps you and others can take a look at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaboration_first >, and put together a convincing essay to that effect. Convincing the silent majority to take a cohesive stance against such behaviour is one possible solution.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
For every hundred or so editors whose only contributions are vandalism, there may be one or two editors with long-term positive contributions but who have issues with working with less-gifted editors, but who fail the behavioural standards, and it's always (in my experience) a difficult dichotomy between kicking these people out of the door and culturing their behaviour so as to benefit the encyclopedia. On balance, I feel that these editors are too much trouble to be worth expending effort on; their specialist expertise is not necessarily unique, and the content they bring could equally be brought by someone else. Although our ethos is intended to be collegiate, these editors don't get it and rely on [[WP:TRUTH]]. Sorry, but they should be invited to contribute somewhere else.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
...and it's always (in my experience) a difficult dichotomy between kicking these people out of the door and culturing their behaviour so as to benefit the encyclopedia.
I think this is somewhat of a false dichotomy - making a good faith effort to warn and discuss and work with problematic editors is almost always the best course, with banning an unfortunate less desirable second choice if the situation persists for long periods of time.
Most people do respond well to good faith efforts to get them to behave better...
George Herbert wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
...and it's always (in my experience) a difficult dichotomy between kicking these people out of the door and culturing their behaviour so as to benefit the encyclopedia.
I think this is somewhat of a false dichotomy - making a good faith effort to warn and discuss and work with problematic editors is almost always the best course, with banning an unfortunate less desirable second choice if the situation persists for long periods of time.
Most people do respond well to good faith efforts to get them to behave better...
Sorry, my experience is different; there are some editors whose behavioural problems go on, and on, and on, yet are tolerated, because they contribute "good content". But the overhead to others drains volunteer resources. And when these people eventually get kicked out, they go to Wikipedia Review to carp about injustice; sorry, but it's a classic case of "our house; our rules", and I don't have a problem with subscribing to those rules. Those that don't like them are perfectly free to start their own encyclopedia.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Sorry, my experience is different; there are some editors whose behavioural problems go on, and on, and on, yet are tolerated, because they contribute "good content". But the overhead to others drains volunteer resources.
I can raise you on that - there are editors whose behavioral problems go on and on, and yet they are tolerated because Wikipedia should be free for all, and besides if one person has fights with ten different people, then those ten people should stop ganging up on him...
Andre Engels wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Sorry, my experience is different; there are some editors whose behavioural problems go on, and on, and on, yet are tolerated, because they contribute "good content". But the overhead to others drains volunteer resources.
I can raise you on that - there are editors whose behavioral problems go on and on, and yet they are tolerated because Wikipedia should be free for all, and besides if one person has fights with ten different people, then those ten people should stop ganging up on him...
Absolutely, and that one "super editor" will be defended by people with their own agenda.
This is the basic reason why, instead of working out the minor technical trouble I was having with AWB which curtailed my useful work, I took it as a handy excuse to cut way back on my involvement.
I haven't been called a "nasty little Tony Sidaway sidekick" for months upon months: I don't know what Tony thinks about it, but I for one don't miss it at all.
Wikipedia is free for all to contribute, if they want to contribute to Wikipedia, which is a group project designed to diminish personal attachment, and means editing in a cooperative way. People who want to write articles and get it their way are more likely to succeed if they write them by themselves in the conventional way.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Sorry, my experience is different; there are some editors whose behavioural problems go on, and on, and on, yet are tolerated, because they contribute "good content". But the overhead to others drains volunteer resources.
I can raise you on that - there are editors whose behavioral problems go on and on, and yet they are tolerated because Wikipedia should be free for all, and besides if one person has fights with ten different people, then those ten people should stop ganging up on him...
Absolutely, and that one "super editor" will be defended by people with their own agenda.
This is the basic reason why, instead of working out the minor technical trouble I was having with AWB which curtailed my useful work, I took it as a handy excuse to cut way back on my involvement.
I haven't been called a "nasty little Tony Sidaway sidekick" for months upon months: I don't know what Tony thinks about it, but I for one don't miss it at all. -- Phil -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/FW%3A--Wikinews-l--Increased-incivility-at-wikinews--e... Sent from the WikiMedia Foundation mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
...and it's always (in my experience) a difficult dichotomy between kicking these people out of the door and culturing their behaviour so as to benefit the encyclopedia.
on 2/5/09 7:19 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is somewhat of a false dichotomy - making a good faith effort to warn and discuss and work with problematic editors is almost always the best course, with banning an unfortunate less desirable second choice if the situation persists for long periods of time.
Most people do respond well to good faith efforts to get them to behave better...
Yes! We have no idea how many of the abusers have known nothing but in their own lives. We do what we know 'till we learn something different. For many, being treated well can seen quite strange, quite uncomfortable. Some will, at first, think they are being conned or manipulated. But with consistency and patience, when the axe they firmly believe is going to fall just doesn't, they can eventually be persuaded to become a part of the solution.
Marc
be collegiate, these editors don't get it and rely on [[WP:TRUTH]]. Sorry, but they should be invited to contribute somewhere else.
That's a wonderful idea. I will be starting Fightopedia, a Wikipedia clone for people who want to cut each other's throats out over article content. No civility allowed, you will be called names and banned on sight if you're spotted being civil.
skype: node.ue
2009/2/5 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
Jesse (Pathoschild) wrote:
George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are persistently abusive and disruptive to other users. Even being a long time positive contributor cannot overcome the damage done to the community and other editors in particular when one problem abusive user persists. The damage is both severe in the acute sense and insidious in the long term community values sense.
I disagree that divine intervention is a solution, but I agree with the principle that a productive editor who cannot collaborate is not a productive editor. Perhaps you and others can take a look at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaboration_first >, and put together a convincing essay to that effect. Convincing the silent majority to take a cohesive stance against such behaviour is one possible solution.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
For every hundred or so editors whose only contributions are vandalism, there may be one or two editors with long-term positive contributions but who have issues with working with less-gifted editors, but who fail the behavioural standards, and it's always (in my experience) a difficult dichotomy between kicking these people out of the door and culturing their behaviour so as to benefit the encyclopedia. On balance, I feel that these editors are too much trouble to be worth expending effort on; their specialist expertise is not necessarily unique, and the content they bring could equally be brought by someone else. Although our ethos is intended to
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Phil Nash wrote:
who have issues with working with less-gifted editors, but who fail the behavioural standards, and it's always (in my experience) a difficult dichotomy between kicking these people out of the door and culturing their behaviour so as to benefit the encyclopedia. On balance, I feel that these editors are too much trouble to be worth expending effort on;
People who get carried away by their own feelings, should better attend to tasks where their feelings matter less. If an otherwise productive user tends to get involved in POV/NPOV fights, perhaps they should try to proofread scanned books in Wikisource instead of writing articles on controversial topics in Wikipedia. All their energy can be better used when the only goal is to get the letters and words right, instead of getting the opinions right.
Next time, instead of banning them from Wikipedia, see if you can recruit them to Wikisource.
2009/2/5 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged at all. Where does one go from there if not the Foundation itself?
If you mean posting to wikien-l about it, the people there have suggested that you have to take it to the wiki. You demurred from this.
The Arbitration Committee might be a point of approach.
- d.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
One does not know deteriorated discourse unless they've, you know, lived in the projects.[1]
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems are likely to be unfixable.
Interesting article. I just realized my Bacon number is higher than my Dunbar number, thanks Andrew.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between "control" and "management". It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group. It is my professional business to know such things.
Yes, "management" implies that those subjected to it enjoy some degree of freedom, so that it still seems fun for them. Treading lightly in this regard is crucial.
Or in the business world, assuming a supervisory position most often imply a departure from actual work. Even one's de jure duty of "supervising" can easily be delegated to a lower person: "Go supervise these people." ... "B-but you're the boss here, not me." ... "Yes, I am your boss. Now: go supervise these people." ... "So I'm their boss now?" ... "Yup."
Conversations like this usually mark the birth of a workplace Ponzi scheme. I've been in scenarios like this much of my adult life.
—C.W.
[1] the "t" is silent.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Marc Riddell wrote:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good,
objective
look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation
with
you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence? That, alone, speaks volumes.
First of all, Erik may or may not have received your email, and the reasons he did or did not respond to you can be immense and varied. You should not make assumptions based on a lack of communication by anyone, staff or community member.
Secondly, what gives you the impression that Foundation staff are able to sweep in and make everyone behave; or furthermore, why should you not assume that we've not already tried some way to encourage conviviality and discourage attacks. I have personally found myself in the predicament of trying to solve issues for people and getting my head bitten off by the very people I was trying to help! At least one of those individuals resorted to calling me denigrating names on lists cc'd to numerous folks, including coworkers, Jimmy Wales, and my boss; and his fellow complainants did nothing to object.
The Foundation, as successful as the last fundraiser went, remains to having limited resources. Our volunteering model is next to impossible to define, given the enormity of our community.
Discussions take place on IRC about the simple idea of removing admin access to anyone who uses ugly or rude block messages. This idea is met with huge opposition; by solid contributors. You're asking people to stop acting like people.
Perhaps we should follow the Wikinews discussion more closely...even participate in it, rather than expanding it to include all of the Foundation projects in one fell swoop. Given that the community is much smaller there, a solution might take place that will result in people being more proactive about reducing ugliness and being kinder to one another and promoting an assumption of good faith.
Maybe Wikinews can even come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects.
Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Marc Riddell wrote:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good,
objective
look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation
with
you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence? That, alone, speaks volumes.
on 2/5/09 1:30 PM, Cary Bass at cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
First of all, Erik may or may not have received your email, and the reasons he did or did not respond to you can be immense and varied. You should not make assumptions based on a lack of communication by anyone, staff or community member.
This is an issue for Erik to respond to (or not); not for you to make excuses for him.
Secondly, what gives you the impression that Foundation staff are able to sweep in and make everyone behave; or furthermore, why should you not assume that we've not already tried some way to encourage conviviality and discourage attacks.
Where? When?
I have personally found myself in the predicament of trying to solve issues for people and getting my head bitten off by the very people I was trying to help!
This is not about solving specific issues for people; it is about teaching them how to civilly and constructively solve their own. Learn the difference.
At least one of those individuals resorted to calling me denigrating names on lists cc'd to numerous folks, including coworkers, Jimmy Wales, and my boss; and his fellow complainants did nothing to object.
The Foundation, as successful as the last fundraiser went, remains to having limited resources.
Oh, please, Cary, money has nothing to do with what I am talking about, and you should know it.
Our volunteering model is next to impossible to define, given the enormity of our community.
This is purely an excuse for your inaction.
Discussions take place on IRC about the simple idea of removing admin access to anyone who uses ugly or rude block messages. This idea is met with huge opposition; by solid contributors.
"Solid" (whatever that is) contributors are objecting to ruling out "ugly or rude messages"!?! Time for a new definition of solidity.
You're asking people to stop acting like people.
No, I am asking that people work and communicate civilly and constructively with one another so that important matters can be resolved.
Perhaps we should follow the Wikinews discussion more closely...even participate in it, rather than expanding it to include all of the Foundation projects in one fell swoop. Given that the community is much smaller there, a solution might take place that will result in people being more proactive about reducing ugliness and being kinder to one another and promoting an assumption of good faith.
Maybe Wikinews can even come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects.
It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model. The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model. The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem, rather than the solution.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model. The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem, rather than the solution.
I think he misunderstood something. Cary said: "Maybe Wikinews can even come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects." Marc seems to have read this as though they already had.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model. The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem, rather than the solution.
I think he misunderstood something. Cary said: "Maybe Wikinews can even come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects." Marc seems to have read this as though they already had.
Considering that the emphasis on "has" in all-caps indicates that Marc thought he was correcting that statement by Cary, I have a hard time seeing how what Cary said could be the basis for Marc's assertion.
--Michael Snow
Marc Riddell wrote:
It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model. The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
Michael Snow wrote:
What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem, rather than the solution.
on 2/5/09 4:36 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I think he misunderstood something. Cary said: "Maybe Wikinews can even come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects." Marc seems to have read this as though they already had.
Thank you, Ray, I did misread it a bit. But, on the other hand, a model set here by Wikinews is the fact that someone from there is actually openly objecting and calling attention to it. That is the beginning of a successful model.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model. The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
Michael Snow wrote:
What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem, rather than the solution.
on 2/5/09 4:36 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I think he misunderstood something. Cary said: "Maybe Wikinews can even come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects." Marc seems to have read this as though they already had.
on 2/5/09 5:36 PM, Marc Riddell at michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Thank you, Ray, I did misread it a bit. But, on the other hand, a model set here by Wikinews is the fact that someone from there is actually openly objecting and calling attention to it. That is the beginning of a successful model.
Marc
A lot of good input so far regarding the state of communication in the wikis. I would like to take some time and construct a dialogue model for discussing this issue further. I feel this would be better - more productive - than me just listing a bunch of things that I think ought to be done (and a hell of a lot more interesting :-) ).
And, you are right George; this is a serious problem. There are many truly creative people out there, with some truly creative ideas for the Project, but who are intimidated by the abusive nature of some of the dialogue. The result: they simply keep their thoughts and ideas to themselves - or take them elsewhere.
Back soon,
Marc
on 2/5/09 6:27 PM, Marc Riddell at michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
A lot of good input so far regarding the state of communication in the wikis. I would like to take some time and construct a dialogue model for discussing this issue further. I feel this would be better - more productive
- than me just listing a bunch of things that I think ought to be done (and
a hell of a lot more interesting :-) ).
Back soon,
I'm back.
A society is the "who's who in the zoo". A culture represents the values and mores of that society. And this is most clearly reflected in the manner in which the members of that culture interact.
The wiki society is made up of persons with a wide variety of educational backgrounds, experiences and learning. To communicate effectively this means, for example, that the computer experts and nuclear physicists among you are going to have to simplify the lingo for me if we are going to communicate in any effective and constructive way. Otherwise I will be totally intimidated by your language and will most likely choose not to participate in a discussion with you.
Likewise, this society is made up of persons with a wide variety of personalities and emotional tolerances. To communicate effectively in this case means that the more aggressive among you are going to have to tone down your language. Otherwise some in the discussion will be totally intimidated by your language and will most likely choose not to participate in a discussion with you. With the result that much valuable input will be lost, and the resulting Project's work will not reflect the total of its membership's potential.
Every discussion, aside from the "how ya hangin'", "how's the weather" chatter has a purpose; whether it's to solve a problem or to determine policy.
With that in mind, I am proposing the following:
A guideline (or "rule" if you want) stating, Do not make any statement in a discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement of that discussion. And that, any statement found in a discussion by another reader of that discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement of that discussion be challenged immediately, openly and directly.
This will take time, patience, and probably involve a bit of controversy. But with this very clear, direct approach a culture will be created. A culture of fairness and civility that will be the signature culture of the Wikipedia Project.
Thoughts?
Marc Riddell
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
[snip] With that in mind, I am proposing the following:
A guideline (or "rule" if you want) stating, Do not make any statement in a discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement of that discussion. And that, any statement found in a discussion by another reader of that discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement of that discussion be challenged immediately, openly and directly.
This will take time, patience, and probably involve a bit of controversy. But with this very clear, direct approach a culture will be created. A culture of fairness and civility that will be the signature culture of the Wikipedia Project.
Thoughts?
Marc Riddell
It will never work. What's constructive? Who decides what's constructive? Is calling someone a troll constructive? What if they really are trolling? Is it constructive when I repeat a point I've already made? What if you just disagree with me, could you then challenge my points as being non- constructive since they aren't right?
Such a system requires common sense. We wouldn't be in this mess if people had common sense to begin with.
-Chad
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
[snip] With that in mind, I am proposing the following:
A guideline (or "rule" if you want) stating, Do not make any statement in a discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement of that discussion. And that, any statement found in a discussion by another reader of that discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement of that discussion be challenged immediately, openly and directly.
This will take time, patience, and probably involve a bit of controversy. But with this very clear, direct approach a culture will be created. A culture of fairness and civility that will be the signature culture of the Wikipedia Project.
Thoughts?
Marc Riddell
on 2/6/09 11:33 AM, Chad at innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
It will never work. What's constructive? Who decides what's constructive? Is calling someone a troll constructive? What if they really are trolling? Is it constructive when I repeat a point I've already made? What if you just disagree with me, could you then challenge my points as being non- constructive since they aren't right?
Such a system requires common sense. We wouldn't be in this mess if people had common sense to begin with.
"It will never work." ? That's a pretty solid wall you've put up, Chad.
The key phrase in your message is "common sense". And I don't believe the term "constructive" needs to be endlessly defined here. This is a collaboration and not a court of law. I believe the majority of editors in the Project possess enough of a sense to be able to determine whether a statement is constructive, i.e., helps build upon what's been said toward a reasonable conclusion and one that serves only to be an obstacle, a distraction to that construction. I am asking reasonable, intelligent persons to make reasonably intelligent judgments here. I believe we are capable of that.
As for "calling someone a troll"; we shouldn't be calling anyone anything.
Marc
I've proposed something that may help in this matter on en:wp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboar...
Comments and suggestions there are likely to be read by the en:wp arbcom.
- d.
on 2/8/09 2:41 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've proposed something that may help in this matter on en:wp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboar... How_to_raise_the_tone_of_the_wiki
Comments and suggestions there are likely to be read by the en:wp arbcom.
Thank you for this, David. I can see from reading the dialogue on the Talk Page that many do feel a declining tone of civility in the Project. But I also see several who insist on going the "show me your proof" route. Thanks, also for not being dragged into that avoidance pit.
In a city, when the cops are overwhelmed by the growing amount of crime, and seem not to have the sufficient amount of manpower to present to it all, the people form neighborhood watch groups. In this way, every person in that neighborhood becomes an enforcer of the laws and policies of that neighborhood. The well-worn phrase is "take back our neighborhood". I believe it is time for the quiet majority of us to stop being so quiet and to take back our culture.
Marc
2009/2/8 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
on 2/8/09 2:41 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've proposed something that may help in this matter on en:wp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboar... How_to_raise_the_tone_of_the_wiki Comments and suggestions there are likely to be read by the en:wp arbcom.
Thank you for this, David. I can see from reading the dialogue on the Talk Page that many do feel a declining tone of civility in the Project. But I also see several who insist on going the "show me your proof" route. Thanks, also for not being dragged into that avoidance pit.
I specifically avoided giving examples, because the focus would then be turned only on those. And also, if people don't see it then they aren't going to be convinced by any number of examples.
In a city, when the cops are overwhelmed by the growing amount of crime, and seem not to have the sufficient amount of manpower to present to it all, the people form neighborhood watch groups. In this way, every person in that neighborhood becomes an enforcer of the laws and policies of that neighborhood. The well-worn phrase is "take back our neighborhood". I believe it is time for the quiet majority of us to stop being so quiet and to take back our culture.
You've advocated top-down action at length - on en:wp, the closest there is is not the Foundation, not Jimmy Wales, not me or various Foundation volunteers like me, but the arbcom. And they're not really a government, but have occasion to reluctantly be the closest there is to one on en:wp. Starting at the top (the arbcom) and acting specifically on chronic personal attacks by admins will, I predict, have a *remarkable* effect on the tone of the place.
- d.
2009/2/8 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
on 2/8/09 2:41 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've proposed something that may help in this matter on en:wp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboar d# How_to_raise_the_tone_of_the_wiki Comments and suggestions there are likely to be read by the en:wp arbcom.
Thank you for this, David. I can see from reading the dialogue on the Talk Page that many do feel a declining tone of civility in the Project. But I also see several who insist on going the "show me your proof" route. Thanks, also for not being dragged into that avoidance pit.
on 2/8/09 6:17 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I specifically avoided giving examples, because the focus would then be turned only on those. And also, if people don't see it then they aren't going to be convinced by any number of examples.
In a city, when the cops are overwhelmed by the growing amount of crime, and seem not to have the sufficient amount of manpower to present to it all, the people form neighborhood watch groups. In this way, every person in that neighborhood becomes an enforcer of the laws and policies of that neighborhood. The well-worn phrase is "take back our neighborhood". I believe it is time for the quiet majority of us to stop being so quiet and to take back our culture.
You've advocated top-down action at length - on en:wp, the closest there is is not the Foundation, not Jimmy Wales, not me or various Foundation volunteers like me, but the arbcom. And they're not really a government, but have occasion to reluctantly be the closest there is to one on en:wp. Starting at the top (the arbcom) and acting specifically on chronic personal attacks by admins will, I predict, have a *remarkable* effect on the tone of the place.
I have advocated "top-down" intervention because the situation seemed to be getting worse by the day. I trust your judgment about the effects of stronger arbcom intervention, David. I also see a great benefit in the average editors getting involved and confronting the problem every time they encounter it. Perhaps these two elements working simultaneously can send the strongest message of all.
Marc
Marc, without denying or confirming there are problems with discourse at Wikinews (because I have no personal knowledge), I would posit that your messages about this topic to this list have been a little... terse. Cary was proposing some perfectly valid thoughts (and money DOES have to do with this problem... who do you think pays the Foundation people that you want to swoop in from on high? They don't work for beads, you know...) and you acted fairly aggressively towards him.
Slow down, take a deep breath, and think about detailing the issues specifically, rather than some broad sweeping statement. Then, we as a list can start to think through what we - the volunteers who make up this particular list - can offer in the way of help (if anything).
I know you're frustrated. I bet I would be too. I'm just suggesting that maybe there's another way to handle this...
__________________ Philippe|Wiki philippe.wiki@gmail.com
[[en:User:Philippe]]
On Feb 5, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Marc Riddell wrote:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good,
objective
look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation
with
you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence? That, alone, speaks volumes.
on 2/5/09 1:30 PM, Cary Bass at cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
First of all, Erik may or may not have received your email, and the reasons he did or did not respond to you can be immense and varied. You should not make assumptions based on a lack of communication by anyone, staff or community member.
This is an issue for Erik to respond to (or not); not for you to make excuses for him.
Secondly, what gives you the impression that Foundation staff are able to sweep in and make everyone behave; or furthermore, why should you not assume that we've not already tried some way to encourage conviviality and discourage attacks.
Where? When?
I have personally found myself in the predicament of trying to solve issues for people and getting my head bitten off by the very people I was trying to help!
This is not about solving specific issues for people; it is about teaching them how to civilly and constructively solve their own. Learn the difference.
At least one of those individuals resorted to calling me denigrating names on lists cc'd to numerous folks, including coworkers, Jimmy Wales, and my boss; and his fellow complainants did nothing to object.
The Foundation, as successful as the last fundraiser went, remains to having limited resources.
Oh, please, Cary, money has nothing to do with what I am talking about, and you should know it.
Our volunteering model is next to impossible to define, given the enormity of our community.
This is purely an excuse for your inaction.
Discussions take place on IRC about the simple idea of removing admin access to anyone who uses ugly or rude block messages. This idea is met with huge opposition; by solid contributors.
"Solid" (whatever that is) contributors are objecting to ruling out "ugly or rude messages"!?! Time for a new definition of solidity.
You're asking people to stop acting like people.
No, I am asking that people work and communicate civilly and constructively with one another so that important matters can be resolved.
Perhaps we should follow the Wikinews discussion more closely...even participate in it, rather than expanding it to include all of the Foundation projects in one fell swoop. Given that the community is much smaller there, a solution might take place that will result in people being more proactive about reducing ugliness and being kinder to one another and promoting an assumption of good faith.
Maybe Wikinews can even come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects.
It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model. The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
Marc Riddell
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Philippe|Wiki wrote:
Marc, without denying or confirming there are problems with discourse at Wikinews (because I have no personal knowledge), I would posit that your messages about this topic to this list have been a little... terse. Cary was proposing some perfectly valid thoughts (and money DOES have to do with this problem... who do you think pays the Foundation people that you want to swoop in from on high? They don't work for beads, you know...) and you acted fairly aggressively towards him.
I don't think that it's a problem that can easily be solved by throwing money at it. The Securities and Exchange Commission likely had more than enough money to do its job, and the likes of Madoff still managed to get around it.
Maybe if we could get all the problem makers and problem solvers together, and locked them in together until they fixed things the results would be interesting. That would cost a lot for travel and accommodations, but I'm not prepared to show great optimism that such a solution will come about.
Ec
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
This is an issue for Erik to respond to (or not); not for you to make excuses for him.
<snip>
This is purely an excuse for your inaction.
<snip>
No, I am asking that people work and communicate civilly and constructively with one another so that important matters can be resolved.
May I suggest that you try to follow this piece of advice of yours? I am sure you've got plenty of interesting ideas to solve this issue, unfortunately your anger is hiding them very efficiently.
2009/2/5 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email.
You're right - I apologize. I'll send a response to your original mail later today.
2009/2/5 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
Marc, this may be a surprise to you, but you're not a lone voice in the wilderness. Everyone with experience knows that many of our communities are dysfunctional to a greater or lesser degree; we have hordes of people who fundamentally don't get along and don't seem to want to do so.
It's not like we've all ignored it forever. Everyone who is committed to the projects wants a more pleasant working environment. We've wanted it for years, we've discussed it for years, and we've all tried to lance the boils in our own way (in some cases more dramatically than others).
You can see the results we've had: viz, not a lot. It's not like we can put our foot down and say "play nice, now, guys" and things get better. If we could solve this problem easily, we'd have done it years ago.
The reason you keep getting a "there he goes again" response on the lists is, well, that we keep hearing demands to do more from you, to somehow change the system. But the fact that we haven't done that yet isn't because no-one has ever listened to you - it means it's a damn big problem, and everything we've tried so far doesn't work. Being told to do it, when we all want to do it *and can't*, just gets people's backs up.
So, please, if you know how we can make this situation better, *tell us*. Please explain, clearly and practically, what you think we need to do. You clearly have some understanding of the issue, but I hope you can see that you've really not been managing to communicate it to any of us!
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
You can see the results we've had: viz, not a lot. It's not like we can put our foot down and say "play nice, now, guys" and things get better. If we could solve this problem easily, we'd have done it years ago.
To be fair - we're playing really nice with offenders, rather than playing nasty hardball.
We could politely play nasty hardball, and squash a few people under our polite polished jackboots of propriety.
It wouldn't necessarily be a self-contradiction to use excessive force to try and impose politeness. That said, the ultimate problem is community interaction issues that incivility and abuse cause, and abusive admin responses make *that* worse even if we help the incivility problem, so it's probably not a wise approach.
That said, making more of the civility blocks stick would be helpful. The sense of the community that some of the problematic contributors are more worth having than asking to leave is probably a mistake.
--- On Thu, 2/5/09, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
From: George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 3:56 PM On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
You can see the results we've had: viz, not a lot.
It's not like we
can put our foot down and say "play nice, now,
guys" and things get
better. If we could solve this problem easily,
we'd have done it years
ago.
To be fair - we're playing really nice with offenders, rather than playing nasty hardball.
We could politely play nasty hardball, and squash a few people under our polite polished jackboots of propriety.
It wouldn't necessarily be a self-contradiction to use excessive force to try and impose politeness. That said, the ultimate problem is community interaction issues that incivility and abuse cause, and abusive admin responses make *that* worse even if we help the incivility problem, so it's probably not a wise approach.
That said, making more of the civility blocks stick would be helpful. The sense of the community that some of the problematic contributors are more worth having than asking to leave is probably a mistake.
Personally I think that is the wrong approach. It would be most effective to move the center. There are always going to be people who feel the need to be shocking. If we can get the people who are only occasionally rude or who are just crossing the line of civility to follow consistently higher standards, then I think that extreme cases will improve also. That sort of approach should be more successful than making blocks stick for the extreme cases.
Birgitte SB
Perhaps it would help if we disallowed certain words in block summaries?
- Asshole - Fuck - Idiot...
I'm no fan of censorship, but there's no reason these words should be in block summaries at all as far as I can think of.
skype: node.ue
2009/2/5 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, objective look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence? That, alone, speaks volumes.
Marc Riddell
From: bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com Reply-To: bawolff+wn@gmail.com, Wikinews mailing list wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:34:14 -0700 To: Wikinews mailing list wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant>
[I happened to stumble upon what appears to be an aftermath of an edit war, and am quite disgusted by it. The following is basically a rant about it, as I'm not really sure how best to bring it up]
I've recently noticed a marked increased in incivility between contributors on Wikinews. I find this really disturbing as it is often between admins who one would think know better. For example (And I'm not trying to pick on anyone, these are just some random ones i came across):
*"But no, you've gotta be an asshole just like always" *"A small amount of brain activity would lead to the presumption that someone in my position knows what they're doing" *"I suggest you get the fuck off your high horse or get the fuck out of dodge" *"they are _MY_ comment sections and _I_ can write what ever the hell _I_ want."
Now, I know I am taking these out of context, but to be blunt I don't care if the context was responding to poop vandalism - It is incredibly inappropriate for admins to say these things under any circumstances. If these were new users making these comments, they would have been blocked in the neighborhood of 2 weeks to a year, maybe even indefinitely.
How can we really expect to recruit and retain new contributors, when this is how the long time contributors are treated?
-Bawolff
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I remember one time the arbitration committee sanctioned an editor who referred to another as an imbecile and then tried to justify it on the basis that the other editor was obviously stupid. We've come a long way from there. Now people rise to power and maintain it on the basis of their nastyness.
Fred
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, objective look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence? That, alone, speaks volumes.
Marc Riddell
From: bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com Reply-To: bawolff+wn@gmail.com, Wikinews mailing list wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:34:14 -0700 To: Wikinews mailing list wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant>
[I happened to stumble upon what appears to be an aftermath of an edit war, and am quite disgusted by it. The following is basically a rant about it, as I'm not really sure how best to bring it up]
I've recently noticed a marked increased in incivility between contributors on Wikinews. I find this really disturbing as it is often between admins who one would think know better. For example (And I'm not trying to pick on anyone, these are just some random ones i came across):
*"But no, you've gotta be an asshole just like always" *"A small amount of brain activity would lead to the presumption that someone in my position knows what they're doing" *"I suggest you get the fuck off your high horse or get the fuck out of dodge" *"they are _MY_ comment sections and _I_ can write what ever the hell _I_ want."
Now, I know I am taking these out of context, but to be blunt I don't care if the context was responding to poop vandalism - It is incredibly inappropriate for admins to say these things under any circumstances. If these were new users making these comments, they would have been blocked in the neighborhood of 2 weeks to a year, maybe even indefinitely.
How can we really expect to recruit and retain new contributors, when this is how the long time contributors are treated?
-Bawolff
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org