Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the encyclopedia.
Wow. That was kind of harsh, even by my standard. Even *i* would not tell someone to "shut up" and get back to work.
I think Steven was meaning this generically; 'you' meant all of us, not singling out SV.
-Matt
Oh, then I retract. I need to more vitamin E, to thicken the skin. :)
You should have Assumed Good Faith ;-)
It's no joke, he really should have. I think this is one of our biggest problems - people go looking to be offended, and so they are offended. When communicating in a text format you don't have tone of voice and body language to help you interpret someone's meaning, so messages such as that one can be ambiguous. It it therefore vital to assume good faith. If someone is actually trying to offend you, they'll go out of their way to make sure you know it. If there's any doubt, you can be pretty sure if wasn't intended to offend.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Good faith or not, there is no faith assumption with telling folks to shut up. Its rude. The onus is on the poster, not the recipient to ensure messages are not ambiguous.
./scream