[WikiEN-l] Civility poll results

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:18 AM, FT2<ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm openly in support of a strong civility ethos - but it can't be a gamed
> one where some can and others can't. A community like this can't have some
> who can do stuff with impunity and others who'll get blocked for the same
> stuff. A good ethos matters; a policy is just words in comparison.
>
> The aim of a civility ethos/policy (if it can be said to have an aim) is
> roughly this:
>
>   - When people speak rudely, others tend to get defensive, feel attacked,
>   and often over-react. Others get dragged in to the incipient drama to
>   "defend" rather than to "resolve". It encourages "heat" and not "light" to
>   do so.
>   - Most users wish to contribute content. They see disputes as undesirable
>   and an obstruction to that. When a dispute arises, it can poison the
>   atmosphere or discourage or de-motivate others as a result.
>   - People are realistic, they know there will be disagreement, often
>   strongly. But seeing people behave like children and speaking in a rude
>   offensive manner, may be demotivating. Especially, being spoken to that way
>   can be.
>   - Politeness - as an affirmative choice - tends to hold the emotional
>   temperature down. It helps disputes to be resolved calmer if people are not
>   uptight and heated. It may not stop users misbehaving (eg civil edit
>   warring) but a general policy of disallowing disrespectful speech will
>   almost always have some positive effect.
>
>
> The thing about a policy is, it needs wide and level enforcement. How many
> of the current concerns, I wonder, would be addressed, if admins were
> actively expected to enact a high level of good conduct? If there were norms
> like "do not intervene in a dispute between others except to help settle it
> according to communal norms and support good quality resolution"?
>
> While some poor conduct is unavoidable, a lot would be improved if more
> users considered themselves responsible for avoiding "heating" speech in
> favor of "lighting" speech. Especially, a double standard for admins (or
> arbs, or established content writers) is not okay - users have the right to
> expect more, not less, from such trusted users.

Maybe a tad too much jargon there?

It is also human nature that everyone, at one time or another, feels
the need to speak frankly and forcefully. If that is met by hurt cries
of "you are being incivil", that is a detriment to open discourse.

Carcharoth