[WikiEN-l] NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors

[Marc Riddell]

> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31 January 2011 19:42, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Please review
>>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
>>> If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for
>>> years, I file a request for arbitration, I expect the Arbitration
>>> Committee to address the question.
>>> If you think that is not in your remit, please review:
>>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#
>>> Rules
>> 
>> 
>> Yes. Civility is *core* policy and that's directly in arbcom's remit.
>> 
>> If the community don't want that, arbcom should suggest they repeal
>> the policy in question.
>> 
>> 
>>> The real issue, however, is to establish customs of courtesy and
>>> friendliness among the community at large, not to scapegoat egregious
>>> offenders. For that purpose it is not rigorous enforcement of the rules
>>> that is called for but leadership.
>> 
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> If the admins - who the arbcom do in fact directly supervise - are
>> enlightened as to the importance of civility, they *will* enforce it
>> in the rest of the community. Because they won't put up with others
>> behaving badly when they're not being allowed to.
>> 
>> This is directly in the arbcom's power *and remit* per current policy
>> and precedent. Only a lack of will stops the arbcom at this point.
> 
on 1/31/11 2:59 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> +2 to all of this.
> 
> This topic is especially tricky, as civility is not equivalent to the
> absence of bad words, and there's a lot of controversy and significant
> pushback when people act in ways that indicate that a bad words police
> state is emerging on Wikipedia.
> 
> It's also tricky as *all of us* (myself included) break down and do
> rude things from time to time - in particular when tired, sick, or
> stressed from Real World - and we have to balance "Hey, can you knock
> that off" with not acting in ways that drive away experienced
> contributors and admins for minor or negligent infractions.
> 
> That said - Civility, NPA, and the like are policy, we had the
> civility policy enforcement poll a year and ... a half? ago, and that
> indicated that people both despaired of effective enforcement and
> wanted effective and fair enforcement, including more focus on admins
> when they transgress.  Arbcom does have this in its remit.  It might
> be constructive if some cases regarding this were filed and accepted
> for incidents over which desysopping and/or banning are not really
> necessary, but for which admonishment or warnings or restrictions
> might be - holding a small, foam hammer of someone's head in the test
> case is probably a smoother way to move into the problem than holding
> the sledgehammer of loving permanent correction.
> 


The problem of abusive, combative, counter-productive behavior between (and
among) persons in the Project is not going to be solved with new rules or
policies - but by example. If each person takes the time to really review
what they have written, and ask themselves: If the person were sitting
across from me would I say the very same thing, in the very same way? - I
believe much of the Project would have a very different tone. And we may
even be able to get more substantive work done, and in a shorter period of
time.

Community Members need to keep in mind that we are here to present to, and
focus on, issues related to the Project. In all cases, and at all times, we
need to keep what we are saying focused on the subject at hand - not on the
person we are discussing it with. If we ask ourselves: Is what we have said
helping to advance the discussion or, by switching the focus to the other
person, stopping it dead in its tracks?

Personally, before I send any message, I speak it aloud. Try it once, it can
really be revealing.

If you find yourself being taunted by another, this may be helpful:

Learn your vulnerable spots - we all have them. They are like bruises on the
body; when touched - we react. Learn that reaction. When communicating with
someone, if you feel that reaction: Stop - Know what it is - Acknowledge it
to yourself - Take a breath - and Stay on subject. Or, simply, don't
respond. Remember: We teach people how to treat us.

Someone who truly wants to communicate with you will deliberately try to
avoid any spot they think might be a bruise - especially if they have a
similar one of their own.

I believe if we all take a pledge to stay focused on the issue being
discussed; to direct our emotions at the substance of the message, and not
at the person delivering it, the Project might not be so painful at times to
work on.

If we all pledge to follow this, it will ultimately become the culture of
the Project; and anyone deliberately attacking another person will simply
not be responded to - or, ultimately, not tolerated.

If you have a personal problem with another Community Member - take it to
private email. Or, as my favorite bartender says at least twice an evening:
"Take it outside!" :-).

Don't be the issue.

Marc Riddell