[WikiEN-l] Civility poll results

[Marc Riddell]

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Marc Riddell<michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddell<michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 2009/8/12 Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Try evasive.
>>>>> 
>>>> on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
>>>>> 
>>>> "Assume good faith" in this Project has come to mean "Don't ask questions".
>>>> That era is finally over.
>> 
>> on 8/12/09 8:58 AM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp at googlemail.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> That era never existed. There have always been people prepared to ask
>>> difficult questions and demand answers. It is actually possibly to ask
>>> such questions while still assuming good faith. It is also possible to
>>> avoid asking such questions and still assume bad faith by your
>>> actions. In other words, your interpretation of "assume good faith" or
>>> what it has meant in the past, is overly simplistic.
>>> 
>>> A fuller description of the realities of AGF is here:
>>> 
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
>>> 
>> Think about it, Carcharoth, you are referencing the very thing I am
>> challenging.

on 8/12/09 9:47 AM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp at googlemail.com wrote:
> 
> It was a link to ensure that people here had actually read the current
> page. Why do you think I was referencing it?
> 
>> More to the point of this thread, what do you think about the condition of
>> the Project's culture as far as how people are being treated is concerned?
> 
> It varies depending on where in the project you are active and who you
> are interacting with. I don't think you can generalise completely
> here. I've always thought there has been a strong undercurrent of
> BITE-y behaviour at controversial pages, a general lack of leadership
> and improvement in some controversial areas, a lack of learning
> lessons from the successes, some elements of OWN-ership in
> out-of-the-way places, and too much overt politics and personal
> grudges being played out in something akin to a soap opera at times.
> But I also think people miss the productive areas and focus on the
> high-profile areas where things are less ideal. A kind of selection
> bias - remembering the bad stuff and forgetting the good stuff. In
> many cases, I think too many people try and get involved, and things
> deteriorate from there.
> 
We, at least, seem to agree on most things, Carcharoth :-). Two words in
your message state what is the main, insidious problem with the Project's
culture: "It varies." To be fully productive, to reach its greatest
potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary.
To work, to create, at their full potential, a person must be able to focus
on that: the work. They cannot be constantly looking over their shoulder, or
live with the anxiety that an unstable, unpredictable workplace can produce.

And the old party-liners - those who have "led" by insinuation and not
consensus - can blow all the smoke they want at the messengers, but the
message is still there loud an clear.

Marc