[WikiEN-l] Start an Epidemic

[Charles Matthews]

Marc Riddell wrote:
> Carcharoth, I believe the problem we as a community are having with the
> issue of civility is finding a definition of it that everyone can agree
> upon. And, since the very concept of civility is so highly subjective, that
> agreeing upon a firm definition is impossible. 
On the other hand ... it is not the only such issue.  And insisting that 
everything be spelled out in detail is a type of wikilawyering.  We have 
had extensive experience of this kind of issue with policies.  We do not 
accept that the only criterion of a robust policy is a water-tight 
definition.  For example, disruption is not accepted on Wikipedia, but 
there is no actual policy with a definition.

What works is this:

- there is a policy and it is open to revision by those who think they 
can improve it;
- policies apply to everyone who contributes to Wikipedia, not just 
those who approve of that particular policy and its formulation;
- policies have a central point for which there is a real consensus, 
whatever the details as represented in the wording says today;
- this central point is deserving of respect in the context of what we 
do, daily, as editors, and creates a clear expectation on behaviour of 
those on Wikipedia;
- people show respect for the policy by "staying on the fairway", not 
gaming it at the margins;
- policies are in the end enforced on everyone, even though enforcement 
of policy is an art not a science and always takes into account factors 
such as the good of the mission;
- the community rules out the creation of special cases and insists on a 
universal approach.

Together these aspects of policy work.  Not all policies do work as well 
as they should, but I think the fault can then be laid  at the door of 
some breakdown in those seven points. Invoking general "cultural 
factors" is something of a cop-out. 

Charles