[WikiEN-l] What's going on? - Inquiry 2

[Marc Riddell]

> On 9/12/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> I have just spent some time reviewing the List's archives for the past
>> several months, and it is clear something is changing ­ and not for the
>> good. The dialogues have become more combative, argumentative and
>> downright
>> mean. The individual contributions have become more aggressive,
>> intolerant,
>> patronizing, bullying, insulting, and downright mean. There has been a
>> steady decline in fairness, civility and just plain listening.
>> 
>> Also, it appears that the majority of the Members of this List are willing
>> to scrutinize anyone or anything but themselves.
>> 
>> What's going on?
>> 
>> Marc Riddell
> 
> on 9/12/07 6:54 PM, phoebe ayers at phoebe.wiki at gmail.com wrote:

> Did you read through more than just the last few months? There's six years
> of archived lists; they make for pretty interesting if headache-inducing
> reading. I would be interested in your conclusions based on a year or
> three's worth of data. (Of course it's very time-consuming to read archives,
> I know!)

I was able to devote just enough time to review the past few months. I also
spent some time scanning many of the Talk Pages in Wikipedia. It is clear
that, in the interpersonal discourses of the Project, the language is
deteriorating, and the abuse is increasing.

And, of the other Mailing Lists associated with the Project, this one seems
to be in the greatest decline in terms of civility, and the ability of
persons to argue a point without resorting to abusive language. The one
great exception to the Lists is foundation-l. But this is like the
executives of a company, meeting on the topmost floor of the company's
building, completely out of touch with what is happening with the PEOPLE on
the floors below. Not a promising picture!
> 
> Most of what I've seen in the archives is that there are issues that come up
> periodically, with never much consensus or a slow shift in how the issues
> are argued; and issues that keep coming up but have a drift towards
> consensus until something gets done. It's also interesting to note the
> various groups of people that crop up, are very active on the lists for a
> few months or even years, then go away; versus the few hardy souls that are
> still posting and have been here since the beginning. Also interesting are
> the brilliant ideas/proposals that you see pop up once in a while that seem
> perfectly reasonable, but nothing ever happened with; occasionally an
> entirely different, newly enthusiastic person will come up with the same
> idea later. There's definitely a rhythm to what issues come up and how that
> I haven't really spent enough time with the archives to determine; but the
> lists seem to have been pretty argumentative since the beginning all in all,
> with presumably a steadily expanding readership, but perhaps not a
> proportional increase in posters at any one time.
> 
Reasonable points, Phoebe. But there is a great difference between
"argumentative" and abusive. Interpersonal, as well as inter-group
communication is an art as well as a science. There are methods to improve
it. But it requires acknowledgement of a problem, and the determination to
solve it.

Marc