Simple civility principle
 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Be civil to everyone always. |
- Simple civility principle: 'Every editor, newbie, veteran, admin, bureaucrat, puppet, blocked, banned, POV pushing, deceitful or otherwise dickish editor should be treated with respect.' Quoting what is supposed to be one of five fundamental principles: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."
If "civility" only means having to be civil to those who are not jerks, it's not a principle, it's a banal description of the obvious.
No excuses
The concepts that retaliatory incivility is acceptable, or that an editor can be "provoked" into incivility and therefore not culpable, is childish. Adult editors endowed with free will can make choices, and adults accept responsibility for their choices. They started it is not a justification.
The concept that upholding standards endorses so called "baiting" makes as much sense as saying prosecuting an individual who blows away a punk because they keyed their car is endorsing keying cars.
The concept that "good content editors" should be held to lesser standards than others is counterproductive and infeasible. Unsanctioned incivility begets more incivility. There will never be agreement on how much contribution entitles an editor to how much incivility.
The concept that the community shouldn't address "surface incivility" because it doesn't have adequate techniques to deal with insidious incivility makes as much sense as a police force saying "I'm sorry you were assaulted and robbed. But even though we have video footage of the crime, we're not going to do anything because we have a murder from last month we haven't been able to solve."
It is absolutely true too much tendentious, I didn't hear that incivility isn't dealt with. Often requests for help on notice boards for this type of incivility are met with "we don't discuss content." Editors concerned about civility issues should take the time to assist editors in these situations.
Use all available tools
The parroting of "blocks are not punitive" is a shallow interpretation of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The legal jurisdiction where I reside posts highway signs that say 65 and maintains a police force which issues tickets at approximately ≥ 72 -- most folks drive at 70. It's not just about the specific editor; more importantly, both blocking and not blocking sends signals to the entire Wikipedia community about what is and what is not acceptable behavior.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing — Burke, attributed
"Not punitive" implies others means of resolution are preferable; in the case of personal attacks, redaction or striking. "Not punitive" means attempting every other possible intervention before blocking disruptive editors. "Not punitive" implies a generous reading of unblock requests, contrasted with "do the crime, serve the time" gestalt. An "editor X is such a jerk they won't change, so a block would be punitive" reading is a ludicrous Wiki-22.
Simple civility principle
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: Be civil to everyone always. |
- Simple civility principle: 'Every editor, newbie, veteran, admin, bureaucrat, puppet, blocked, banned, POV pushing, deceitful or otherwise dickish editor should be treated with respect.' Quoting what is supposed to be one of five fundamental principles: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."
If "civility" only means having to be civil to those who are not jerks, it's not a principle, it's a banal description of the obvious.
No excuses
The concepts that retaliatory incivility is acceptable, or that an editor can be "provoked" into incivility and therefore not culpable, is childish. Adult editors endowed with free will can make choices, and adults accept responsibility for their choices. They started it is not a justification.
The concept that upholding standards endorses so called "baiting" makes as much sense as saying prosecuting an individual who blows away a punk because they keyed their car is endorsing keying cars.
The concept that "good content editors" should be held to lesser standards than others is counterproductive and infeasible. Unsanctioned incivility begets more incivility. There will never be agreement on how much contribution entitles an editor to how much incivility.
The concept that the community shouldn't address "surface incivility" because it doesn't have adequate techniques to deal with insidious incivility makes as much sense as a police force saying "I'm sorry you were assaulted and robbed. But even though we have video footage of the crime, we're not going to do anything because we have a murder from last month we haven't been able to solve."
It is absolutely true too much tendentious, I didn't hear that incivility isn't dealt with. Often requests for help on notice boards for this type of incivility are met with "we don't discuss content." Editors concerned about civility issues should take the time to assist editors in these situations.
Use all available tools
The parroting of "blocks are not punitive" is a shallow interpretation of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The legal jurisdiction where I reside posts highway signs that say 65 and maintains a police force which issues tickets at approximately ≥ 72 -- most folks drive at 70. It's not just about the specific editor; more importantly, both blocking and not blocking sends signals to the entire Wikipedia community about what is and what is not acceptable behavior.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing — Burke, attributed
"Not punitive" implies others means of resolution are preferable; in the case of personal attacks, redaction or striking. "Not punitive" means attempting every other possible intervention before blocking disruptive editors. "Not punitive" implies a generous reading of unblock requests, contrasted with "do the crime, serve the time" gestalt. An "editor X is such a jerk they won't change, so a block would be punitive" reading is a ludicrous Wiki-22.