[Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)

[FT2]

Of note, arguments against the spirit of the civility policy badly miss the
point Marc and others are making.  The expectation for collegial conduct
between editors (by whatever name) is not a means of repression as some cast
it. Its a means to ensure those who will leave if bitten, don't get bitten.
It's a necessary culture for long term project growth and survival.  People
who care about the project should strive for more respect for its spirit,
and to live within that. Not less.

To underline that, I've been an editor for close to 7 years, dealt with
horrible POV warriors (later Arbcom banned, often after months or a yar of
engagement on talk pages), dealt with abusive admins..... I can speak to the
need for incivility. It's vanishingly rare. I can think of 2 occasions by
email, one on a web site off-wiki, and none on-wiki, that I've dropped
civility in a Wikimedia-related context, and each of those was due to a
specific situation involved (where little else would have effect), and after
consultation with other experienced users. It may be some people's habit,
but so is original research and making claims without evidence, and we don't
think twice about expecting people to restrain those habits when they edit.


In brief, we don't (as a community) take manners to others seriously enough.
That starts at the top and works down (anything else would be hypocrisy).
If admins are expected one day to toe the line on the spirit of being
supportive, helpful, courteous-if-firm, to everyone, then that would
percolate to new admins and the community as a whole. Doing so does not
affect people's effectiveness or ability to control problems as admins.
Those who cannot may simply disqualify themselves as admins until they
learn, much as those who cannot avoid original research would disqualify
themselves for various positions of trust and reputation.

Good conduct is not alien or hard. Expecting it is not "civility police",
it's a basic need of a community this size seeking to engage people who are
not hardened veterans of internet wars.  It's a habit. It can be learned,
and it can be expected, and it can happen here as well. You'd be surprised
how fast people learn when it's needed to do what they want.

FT2


On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>wrote:

>
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:14 AM, James Alexander <jamesofur at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I would say it like that (that they would simply stop
> >> responding at all) but I worry that the method at which discussion
> >> and criticism has developed is encouraging the growth of a culture where
> >> goes against the very thing we say we vocally fighting for. This
> >> is definitely not  just a foundation-l thing and you're right to say it
> like
> >> that is a bit of a red herring and ignores the real issue... It is also
> >> something that I think has roots in all of the active
> >> aspects of the community.
>
> on 2/18/11 8:08 PM, Samuel Klein at meta.sj at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > James, this was a good post.  We do need a more active focus on
> > kindness, effective skepticism, and constructive criticism.
> >
> > And I agree that the problem being expressed here (not MZM's comment
> > about transparency, which is valid and should be considered
> > separately) -- the universal trouble with people attacking one another
> > and making public spaces feel unsafe -- affects many parts of the
> > community.
> >
> > The fact that we associate "active Wikipedia work" on en:wp with AN/I
> > is indicative of the trend.  That noticeboard is hardly relevant to
> > the work of most editors, lingering on conflicts of various sorts.
> >
> >> So frequently whenever someone opens their mouth they get bitten,
> regardless
> >> of what is happening the tenants of assuming good faith are just thrown
> out
> >> the window.
> >
> > This is where not having safe spaces to discuss what's going on limits
> > transparency...
> >
> >
> >> Maybe this is how I work but I feel like we want a culture where it is
> >> perfectly acceptable for someone to respond without all the data, for
> them
> >> to make mistakes and get corrected and have that debate and those
> arguments.
> >
> > So do I.
>
> To James: This is one of the most accurate, and articulate, descriptions of
> the present enWikipedia culture that I have read. Thank you. But, so far,
> any suggestions for change has been met with apathy or, those advocating
> change being considered malcontents and troublemakers. Yes, I have been
> accused of trolling:-). I have been trying to call attention to this
> problem
> of a dysfunctional culture in the Project for 4 years now. However, the
> initiative for change, and the know-how to create it, doesn't appear to
> exist at the highest levels of the Project. Pity.
>
> To Samuel: And, so do I.
>
> Marc Riddell
>
>