on 1/30/07 8:24 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert(a)gmail.com wrote:
To amplify something from my earlier comment, no forum
which is a
complete anarchy on the Internet survives. This is true of other
forms of machine-mediated discussion such as IM, IRC, Usenet, BBSes,
email, etc.
There has to be a social contract, preferably explicit, but implicit
if not otherwise.
People tend to both be more aggressive in online discussions and to
take offense more easily; the lack of visual and audio clues in both
directions of a conversation is something which humans adapt in odd
ways to. The moderating influence of nonverbal communications falls
right away.
This is in no way local to Wikipedia; it's generic to online
text-based communications. Combining immediacy with text-only format
causes the problems.
George,
First, "civility" is a highly subjective thing.
And, regardless of the setting, is being able to speak the words you want to
speak really anarchy?
If we are face to face, and I don't like what you are saying, I have the
right to leave. If it's written, I have the right to tear it up.
That to me is civil.
Marc
--
If you¹re restricted to what is - you are cut off from - - what could be.