An encyclopedia will best be written by rational people who are in control of their emotions. Similarly, constructive discussion will only occur in an atmosphere of reasoned debate. Wikipedia’s anarchic lack of formal process functions best if disputes are dealt with via rational debate, which promotes encyclopedicity in articles and greater mutual understanding between editors.
Therefore, certain types of behaviour which do not contribute to rational debate – such as ethnic slurs, insulting profanity, and unnecessary commenting on the contributor rather than the content – are generally frowned upon as not being in accord with the principles of good wikiquette. Violation of this standard should not be dealt with via blocking, but repeated instances will be taken into account when assessing whether an editor’s contributions qualify as disruptive or not.
In summary, “civility” is best understood as rational commentary and debate: “incivility” as behaviour which does not come up to this standard. It should also be noted that “rational debate” does not just mean the usage of a good tone, but also willingness to compromise and adapt to the positions of other editors: simply repeating one's original position ad nauseam in the face of solid criticism – no matter what tone is used – is not civil, but merely tendentious.
An encyclopedia will best be written by rational people who are in control of their emotions. Similarly, constructive discussion will only occur in an atmosphere of reasoned debate. Wikipedia’s anarchic lack of formal process functions best if disputes are dealt with via rational debate, which promotes encyclopedicity in articles and greater mutual understanding between editors.
Therefore, certain types of behaviour which do not contribute to rational debate – such as ethnic slurs, insulting profanity, and unnecessary commenting on the contributor rather than the content – are generally frowned upon as not being in accord with the principles of good wikiquette. Violation of this standard should not be dealt with via blocking, but repeated instances will be taken into account when assessing whether an editor’s contributions qualify as disruptive or not.
In summary, “civility” is best understood as rational commentary and debate: “incivility” as behaviour which does not come up to this standard. It should also be noted that “rational debate” does not just mean the usage of a good tone, but also willingness to compromise and adapt to the positions of other editors: simply repeating one's original position ad nauseam in the face of solid criticism – no matter what tone is used – is not civil, but merely tendentious.