[WikiEN-l] incivility consciously as a tactic.

[Charles Matthews]

On 16 April 2013 02:07, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Incivility is difficult to deal with.

That may be the case; but it's not for the reasons usually given.

> One of the reasons is because there is a school of thought that a
> certain level of frankness and brusqueness is necessary in a place
> like Wikipedia. The trouble with that is that people draw the line in
> different places, partly due to cultural differences, partly due to
> personal levels of what they will accept.

Yes, well, one of the "differences" is between people who think that
what they find acceptable should constitute a universal standard; and
those who realise this is no way to set universal standards.

> Some people also treat this as a matter of principle, rather than as
> one of being nice. The way I would describe it (though you really need
> to find an exponent of this view to describe it properly, as I don't
> support this view myself) is that it is more honest to say what you
> really think in simple language, than to dissemble and use careful and
> diplomatic language to essentially say the same thing. I favour the
> latter approach until a certain tipping point is reached, and will
> then be more frank myself.

Excessive frankness usually does nothing for relationships. "To be
frank" usually prefaces something that can usefully be omitted.

> I can see the point people are making when they say that being more
> forthright earlier on and consistently on a matter of principle is
> better, but the end result tends to be the same. Hurt feelings all
> round for those who don't get that viewpoint, and those who have a
> tendency towards the more brusque approach sometimes (not always)
> being baited by those who like winding people up. The other effect,
> most damagingly of all, is that the 'community' (which is a localised,
> nebulous entity that is in flux at the best of times and varies
> depending on location and timing) ends up polarised over the issue.
>
> So you get periodic flare-ups, exacerbated by the nature of online
> communications (the lack of body language to and verbal tone) and the
> lack of empathy for others that some who are drawn to Wikipedia
> exhibit.

The point being that those who actually use incivility as a wedge to
divide the community are quite well aware of that, and this is what
needs to be stamped out as disruption, not intermittent breakdowns of
the civility code.

I saw a recent study suggesting, alarmingly, that online many people
find angry language and comment relatively persuasive; presumably
because they assume it is sincere, and assume that sincerity has
something to do with being right. I find this much more worrying than
the traditional "lack of affect" argument, because you'd assume over
time people would adapt to that (have we not adapted to the phone?)

I think there are probably a couple of serious fallacies being allowed
to dominate this discussion, still.

Charles