Can anyone tell me why the policy prohibits editing via an open proxy whilst logged in? I can see nothing abusive in that apart from protecting one's own privacy. One cannot avoid blocks or bans that way.
- Salaskan
2007/6/19, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com:
On 6/19/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Mmm, I think the civility thing directly helps us work on the encyclopaedia. It was made so that when you disputed what another person put in the encyclopaedia that you did not shout "YOU ABUSIVE F***ER, THATS SO TOTALLY WRONG" or some other random very insulting language. Civility is just
how
to get along with one another.
The principle of assuming good faith generally is linked to helping
people
remain civil. If I assume that you too are trying to help the encyclopaedia (and not maliciously hurt it through the insertion of false
information),
then its very likely that I will treat the person in which I'm working with to build the encyclopaedia in a more helpful manner, and work with him
to
figure out if what was being added should stay added. At least that is
how
things look from this guy :)
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There you go again: assertions with no evidence. It's a demonstrable fact that many non-vandalism blocks, and possibly most, are
punitive,
whatever happier word we prefer to describe them as. Spend a day checking out the block log and you'll see it for yourself. The argument goes that punishment is part of prevention, and that's true to an extent, but it doesn't make the blocks any less punitive.
The most important part is not that the blocks actually are preventative, but the thought process that goes into making them considers the preventative, not punitive. The ideology that produces the action, not the action itself. That is my point. (Banning is an exception to this rule, but that's why it's a separate policy.)
Prescription is bad when it's based on unrealistic ideological
baggage
that gets in the way of common sense.
Civility, assuming good faith, and ignoring all rules are all part of unrealistic ideological baggage that baffle common sense. If we're going to write an encyclopedia, let's get to it, right? No, not
exactly.
Assuming good faith is a way of looking at things that all Wikipedians should consider when, well, looking at things. It's a prescriptive guideline, and if it didn't exist, it certainly would not be widely practiced.
Yes, you're right, both civility and assuming good faith are definitely good for the encyclopedia. However, given the way some people act, I think we need being civil as a prescriptive policy. Otherwise, some people might find it more effective to bully other Wikipedians in getting what they want, rather than working with them calmly. Bullying certainly happens, but we shouldn't delete [[WP:CIVIL]] because of it (well, there was one time someone tried to do that, but it was a [WP:POINT]]...) Sometimes, prescription can be a good idea if it can be demonstrated that having a certain attitude is good for the encyclopedia, even if we can't see what good it might bring from where we are, right now. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l