[WikiEN-l] talk pages policy (was rampant scientism)

[Sheldon Rampton]

Jimbo wrote:

>Sheldon Rampton wrote:
>>  Setting aside the question of scientism's merits, isn't the talk page
>>  _supposed_ to be a place where POV statements are allowed?
>
>Allowed, yes.  Encouraged, no.

That's different from my understanding of how things are intended to 
operate. I've been operating on the understanding that articles 
themselves strive to attain NPOV, but that in order to achieve that 
goal, individual users need a place to express their differing points 
of view so that they can work toward a satisfactory synthesis. It 
would seem therefore that expression of points of view is actually 
_necessary_ on the talk pages. Am I understanding things properly?

>The talk page is supposed to be about the article, about how to
>improve the article.  As such, the debate or discussion can be more
>wide-ranging there than in the actual article.  But even on the talk
>pages, things work best when people try not to _argue_, but rather to
>_co-operate_ in finding a wording that works well for everyone.

Agreed.

With regard to name-calling and other linguistic abuse on the talk 
pages, Jimbo wrote:

>I think we find it completely unacceptable, but at the same time we're
>very slow to do anything about it most of the time.

Is being "slow to do anything" a policy, a custom, or merely lack of 
vigilance? I'm asking because I'm trying to better determine policy 
for myself. At Disinfopedia, I'm following a "two strikes and you're 
out" policy for self-evident vandalism (e.g., insertion of profanity, 
flagrantly false information, etc.) The reason I'm making it "two 
strikes" rather than one is that sometimes people who happen upon the 
site for the first time might make a semi-accidental edit while 
they're experimenting with the system to see how it works. I've also 
had lots of cases where someone has inserted the word "hi" into an 
article and then immediately deleted it. I don't regard that as 
vandalism.

We've only recently started to encounter cases of what I consider 
"gray areas" -- belligerent behavior from people who don't like 
someone else's edits and express themselves through name-calling on 
the talk pages. If you find this kind of behavior "completely 
unacceptable," does that mean that you would support a policy of 
banning users the first time sort of behavior emerges? Would you try 
to reason with them first? I think an argument could be made both 
ways. Banning them quickly makes a clear statement that such behavior 
is indeed "completely unacceptable," and may elevate the overall tone 
of discussions and save everyone from aggravation by putting out 
flame wars before they have a chance to reach full blaze. On the 
other hand, it creates a greater risk of arbitrary enforcement, may 
drive away users who have the potential to become worthwhile 
contributors, and might even provoke banned individuals to escalate 
through other means, such as starting up multiple user accounts or 
even attempts at outright hacking.

Jimbo also wrote:

>This is one reason I personally rarely edit, by the way.  Not because
>I don't want people to call me a fascist, I really don't care about
>that.  But because I would feel compelled to accept bad behavior
>directed towards me that I would not accept when directed towards
>others.

That's an interesting approach. Why do you think that personally 
editing would compel you to accept worse behavior directed toward 
yourself than you would accept toward others?

In a possibly related vein, Ed Poor wrote:

>Newbies have hardly any influencies on "old hands" such as myself. 
>Oh, they can make suggestions and even "vote" on stuff, and if what 
>they propose makes sense I'll try it. But if their proposals don't 
>make sense to me I /disregard/ them.
>
>I refuse to be tyrannized by a majority or a minority. I follow the 
>rules laid down by our PhilosopherKing Jimbo Wales -- or, I do the 
>best I can to follow them; I have my occasional lapses, like anyone 
>else (Hi, Erik!).

This statement clearly suggests that there is a hierarchy operating 
here, with Jimbo as Philosopher King and old hands like Ed enjoying a 
status that newbies do not possess. I don't necessarily oppose such a 
hierarchy (in fact, I think it's necessary), but is there a sliding 
scale of "newbie-ness," so that someone who has been around for a 
year like myself is still more of a newbie than someone like Ed, who 
has been around longer? Is it also okay for newbies to "refuse to be 
tyrannized by a majority or a minority" of old hands? Does Ed's 
statement reflect a general custom or policy for the Wikipedia, or is 
Ed simply describing his personal practice? And getting back to 
Jimbo's statement above, should "old hands" feel an obligation to 
some degree of self-restraint along the lines of the self-restraint 
that Jimbo imposes on himself? Or is Jimbo's decision to "rarely 
edit" a rule that only applies to Philosopher Kings?

I don't have answers to any of these questions, but I think it would 
be interesting to see how others answer them.