Hi all, as the title suggests, I'm writing about etiquette. Specifically, whether it's ok to delete valid questions or comments from a talk page (in the particular case I'm talking about, deleting a question from their own user talk page).
Personally, I think this is highly uncivil. "Sorry, I am just going to ignore you, no, in fact, I am going to pretend you never asked the question in the first place" (without even the "courtesy" of saying this). However, there is scant mention of this in policy or guideline pages (admittedly, I've only looked at English Wikipedia and Wikibooks). Why?
Is it not considered rude to ignore someone? Is refusing to answer questions not an ominous sign in a collaborative environment? (Ok, when someone has just asked their umpteenth ignorant question, it might be understandable, but this was my first contact with the person.)
For what it's worth, the only mention I found was on either project's policy pages was on [[w:en:Wikipedia:Etiquette]], which says "don't ignore questions". Etiquette isn't even a policy or guideline on Wikibooks - I'm addressing that at the moment.
So, has anyone else had a similar thought or frustration? And while I'm asking about this, I'll also ask: what's the difference between Etiquette and Civility? As far as I can define it (in Wikimedia terms), etiquette is about specific instances of niceness or rudeness, whereas civility is about a whole attitude, comprised of etiquette, no personal attacks etc. Or what do you think?
Cormac
On 3/20/06, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, as the title suggests, I'm writing about etiquette. Specifically, whether it's ok to delete valid questions or comments from a talk page (in the particular case I'm talking about, deleting a question from their own user talk page).
What about when the question is from a troll? Would the advice about [[don't feed the troll | not feeding trolls]] mean might actually be a good idea in some cases?
Even if the question wasn't from a troll, should people be forced to communicate with others when they really don't want to? If there's an issue with an article, that can be brought up on the article talk page, where it would be wrong to delete it, but I think users should have some control over whether or not they want to respond to messages on their talk page.
Angela.
On 3/20/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/20/06, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, as the title suggests, I'm writing about etiquette. Specifically, whether it's ok to delete valid questions or comments from a talk page (in the particular case I'm talking about, deleting a question from their own user talk page).
What about when the question is from a troll? Would the advice about [[don't feed the troll | not feeding trolls]] mean might actually be a good idea in some cases?
Even if the question wasn't from a troll, should people be forced to communicate with others when they really don't want to? If there's an issue with an article, that can be brought up on the article talk page, where it would be wrong to delete it, but I think users should have some control over whether or not they want to respond to messages on their talk page.
Angela.
Yes, I agree that we cannot *force* people to answer other questions. But what I am saying is that we should be encouraging as *good practice* a spirit of listening. In the case of a troll, I fully reserve the right to ignore that person. But in the case of a lengthy question posed directly to a person (deliberately avoiding the particular page I was disputing to avoid people thinking badly of this person while we debated a point), and then that person simply deleting my question, I think this is very bad practice. It smacks of someone holding their hands over their ears and shouting "I'm not listening".
I agree that we can't decree "Thou shalt answer all questions put unto ye". That's why I see this as a guideline, not a policy - we enforce a code of civility, but encourage an attitude of etiquette.
Cormac
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We expect the users who are involved in a matter to maintain civil communication with one another. Like you, I would be at a loss to point to specific language. If someone is touchy about their talk page, use the talk page of the article or other matter you are concerned with.
Fred
On Mar 20, 2006, at 2:00 AM, Cormac Lawler wrote:
Hi all, as the title suggests, I'm writing about etiquette. Specifically, whether it's ok to delete valid questions or comments from a talk page (in the particular case I'm talking about, deleting a question from their own user talk page).
Personally, I think this is highly uncivil. "Sorry, I am just going to ignore you, no, in fact, I am going to pretend you never asked the question in the first place" (without even the "courtesy" of saying this). However, there is scant mention of this in policy or guideline pages (admittedly, I've only looked at English Wikipedia and Wikibooks). Why?
Is it not considered rude to ignore someone? Is refusing to answer questions not an ominous sign in a collaborative environment? (Ok, when someone has just asked their umpteenth ignorant question, it might be understandable, but this was my first contact with the person.)
For what it's worth, the only mention I found was on either project's policy pages was on [[w:en:Wikipedia:Etiquette]], which says "don't ignore questions". Etiquette isn't even a policy or guideline on Wikibooks - I'm addressing that at the moment.
So, has anyone else had a similar thought or frustration? And while I'm asking about this, I'll also ask: what's the difference between Etiquette and Civility? As far as I can define it (in Wikimedia terms), etiquette is about specific instances of niceness or rudeness, whereas civility is about a whole attitude, comprised of etiquette, no personal attacks etc. Or what do you think?
Cormac _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/20/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We expect the users who are involved in a matter to maintain civil communication with one another. Like you, I would be at a loss to point to specific language. If someone is touchy about their talk page, use the talk page of the article or other matter you are concerned with.
Fred
Yup. Well, for reasons I won't go into, I think the talk page from whence the matter came is just as sensitive for the person in question, so I've asked to move to my talk page instead. Like I said, this user is quite new, so I'm just simply trying to encourage conversation. And lest anyone go off and do their homework trying to find out who this person is, let me say that it really doesn't matter - for now at least. I'm just trying to get opinions and ideas here for the moment.
Cormac
On Mar 20, 2006, at 2:00 AM, Cormac Lawler wrote:
Hi all, as the title suggests, I'm writing about etiquette. Specifically, whether it's ok to delete valid questions or comments from a talk page (in the particular case I'm talking about, deleting a question from their own user talk page).
Personally, I think this is highly uncivil. "Sorry, I am just going to ignore you, no, in fact, I am going to pretend you never asked the question in the first place" (without even the "courtesy" of saying this). However, there is scant mention of this in policy or guideline pages (admittedly, I've only looked at English Wikipedia and Wikibooks). Why?
Is it not considered rude to ignore someone? Is refusing to answer questions not an ominous sign in a collaborative environment? (Ok, when someone has just asked their umpteenth ignorant question, it might be understandable, but this was my first contact with the person.)
For what it's worth, the only mention I found was on either project's policy pages was on [[w:en:Wikipedia:Etiquette]], which says "don't ignore questions". Etiquette isn't even a policy or guideline on Wikibooks - I'm addressing that at the moment.
So, has anyone else had a similar thought or frustration? And while I'm asking about this, I'll also ask: what's the difference between Etiquette and Civility? As far as I can define it (in Wikimedia terms), etiquette is about specific instances of niceness or rudeness, whereas civility is about a whole attitude, comprised of etiquette, no personal attacks etc. Or what do you think?
Cormac _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Cormac Lawler wrote:
Is it not considered rude to ignore someone?
If that "someone" is a troll or a stalker, it is they who are rude, and not their victim. Some questions are nothing but provocations ("have you stopped beating your wife?" being the most well-known example). You cannot really have rules to keep people from being rude, because the truely rude will always abuse such rules to their own benefit. We're all volunteers here, nobody is forced to do any work or answer any questions.
On 3/20/06, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
Is it not considered rude to ignore someone?
If that "someone" is a troll or a stalker, it is they who are rude, and not their victim. Some questions are nothing but provocations ("have you stopped beating your wife?" being the most well-known example). You cannot really have rules to keep people from being rude, because the truely rude will always abuse such rules to their own benefit. We're all volunteers here, nobody is forced to do any work or answer any questions.
This is all fine if we want to create a rule that gives flexibility to people acting in good faith, and doesn't expect them to answer stupid, petty, provocative or otherwise pointless questions. But that's not what I'm talking about here. To repeat, with a bit more context, what I'm talking about is a situation where i noticed that two users were in an edit conflict, which provoked a question on this person's talk page, which this person deleted. I then made a similar comment that was more broad in scope, and the user then deleted this. I restored my question, asking to please discuss the matter with me. He deleted again.
I'm not being rude, I'm not trolling (I might have come across slightly authoritatively, and I've apologised for this). I'm asking for clarification on a point of conflict, and pointing out where their behaviour isn't very helpful, which this person refuses to talk about. (The full context of this makes it even worse, but I'm deliberately not giving it here to be fair to the person, who admittedly is pretty new.) I can't believe that people here don't think this is clearly being uncivil. What I'm arguing for is a general point of at least *trying* to engage with other people - this is showing good faith. Sure, we work as volunteers, but we also work in an inherently collaborative environment. Give them a chance - don't delete a comment on your first contact with someone, unless it is itself clearly uncivil. And, to be clear, I'm not talking about a rule or law to hold people to - I'm simply talking about setting out good and bad examples of behaviour. It'd be pretty clear if someone was trolling and used the fact that someone didn't respond to a question against them, that this person was still a troll. But that's just not the case here.
Cormac
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Cormac Lawler wrote:
This is all fine if we want to create a rule that gives flexibility to people acting in good faith, and doesn't expect them to answer stupid, petty, provocative or otherwise pointless questions. But that's not what I'm talking about here. To repeat, with a bit more context, what I'm talking about is a situation where i noticed that two users were in an edit conflict, which provoked a question on this person's talk page, which this person deleted. I then made a similar comment that was more broad in scope, and the user then deleted this. I restored my question, asking to please discuss the matter with me. He deleted again.
Cormac
The issue here is really the ability of the "owner" of a user talk page to censor the content on that talk page. I'm using the term "owner" very loosly here, and I know that, but in this case the talk page is directly tied to a specific user account by default with MediaWiki software, and has features built in where that user will be notified with a special message if some new content is added to that page. Certainly by custom among Wikimedia users this has been used as a communications venue for asking questions that are addressed to a specific user. Sometimes, like in the case of Jimbo's user page, it sometimes becomes a community forum, but this is really quite unusual. Admins sometimes have this happen occasionally to a lesser degree, or for very active Wikimedia users.
In this sense, the user who has set up the account should also be able to control what the public in general is going to be seeing associated with this user. And in the specific case of the user that you have been having a conflict with Cormac, he is using his user talk page as a registration site for people who are interested in enrolling in the Wikiversity class that he is putting together and offering to teach. Keeping it free from non-registration comments seems to be a general goal of this user in this situation. This is not a standard practice or a typical experience for a user talk page, but it certainly is an interesting and innovative use for user talk pages.
I think it would breech common courtesy and ettiquette (not necessarily policy here) if you were delete content from somebody else's user talk page, and IMHO would be a much larger concern or a sign of vandalism even. That is certainly not the issue being discussed.
In this situation the user who is deleting other users attempts to communicate with them is clearly in the wrong. Two metapolicies are being violated, Assume good faith and our consensus decision making policy. If they are not willing to negotiate they are apparently trying to impose their will in other ways, reverting, etc. What we have here is a failure to communicate. It's a shame that that line was put into the mouth of a fascist in Cool Hand Luke. Talking things over in good faith is one of our basic assumptions.
Fred
On Mar 20, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Cormac Lawler wrote:
To repeat, with a bit more context, what I'm talking about is a situation where i noticed that two users were in an edit conflict, which provoked a question on this person's talk page, which this person deleted. I then made a similar comment that was more broad in scope, and the user then deleted this. I restored my question, asking to please discuss the matter with me. He deleted again.
Fred Bauder wrote:
In this situation the user who is deleting other users attempts to communicate with them is clearly in the wrong. Two metapolicies are being violated, Assume good faith and our consensus decision making policy. If they are not willing to negotiate they are apparently trying to impose their will in other ways, reverting, etc. What we have here is a failure to communicate. It's a shame that that line was put into the mouth of a fascist in Cool Hand Luke. Talking things over in good faith is one of our basic assumptions.
Fred
Please keep in mind this is a user talk page, and the user who "owns" the talk page is doing the deletion. As has been pointed out, there are other forums for expressing dissatisfaction, including this e-mail list. As to the ethics of removing that content may be debateable, it is clear that the intended user did indeed get the message, even if they are making a statement by removing that content afterward. Just as I delete stuff in my in-box for my e-mail account... even if it isn't strictly spam.
Fred Bauder wrote:
In this situation the user who is deleting other users attempts to communicate with them is clearly in the wrong. Two metapolicies are being violated, Assume good faith and our consensus decision making policy. If they are not willing to negotiate they are apparently trying to impose their will in other ways, reverting, etc. What we have here is a failure to communicate. It's a shame that that line was put into the mouth of a fascist in Cool Hand Luke. Talking things over in good faith is one of our basic assumptions.
It's been many years since I've seen the movie, but I would have seen Cool Hand as more an anarchist than a fascist. More like the kind of guy that you could go drinking with, and be almost certain that it would be an exciting evening.
Ec
Cormac Lawler wrote:
Hi all, as the title suggests, I'm writing about etiquette. Specifically, whether it's ok to delete valid questions or comments from a talk page (in the particular case I'm talking about, deleting a question from their own user talk page).
Personally, I think this is highly uncivil. "Sorry, I am just going to ignore you, no, in fact, I am going to pretend you never asked the question in the first place" (without even the "courtesy" of saying this). However, there is scant mention of this in policy or guideline pages (admittedly, I've only looked at English Wikipedia and Wikibooks). Why?
Is it not considered rude to ignore someone? Is refusing to answer questions not an ominous sign in a collaborative environment? (Ok, when someone has just asked their umpteenth ignorant question, it might be understandable, but this was my first contact with the person.)
For what it's worth, the only mention I found was on either project's policy pages was on [[w:en:Wikipedia:Etiquette]], which says "don't ignore questions". Etiquette isn't even a policy or guideline on Wikibooks - I'm addressing that at the moment.
So, has anyone else had a similar thought or frustration? And while I'm asking about this, I'll also ask: what's the difference between Etiquette and Civility? As far as I can define it (in Wikimedia terms), etiquette is about specific instances of niceness or rudeness, whereas civility is about a whole attitude, comprised of etiquette, no personal attacks etc. Or what do you think?
As I see it civility is a matter of how we express things; inappropriate name calling would be uncivil.
Etiquette is a series of often unwritten rules that define interpersonal protocol. No single breach of etiquette is significant by itself, but cumulative breaches contribute to a negative view of the person. . There's nothing wrong from deleting questions from one's own user talk page after they have been there for a reasonable amount of time. One should strive to answer questions as much as reasonable possible. But there's a limit to how much can be answered, and some question can't easily be answered.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org