 | This page in a nutshell: The policy on civility is a pillar of Wikipedia, but is too often disregarded for experienced editors who are seen as "excellent content creators" |
There has always been a rule to Be Civil, but it has never been well enforced, and it is now essentially disregarded for experienced editors. It is often enforced for inexperienced editors. When inexperienced editors are reminded the first time about the rule, the reminding person is right, although it may be a case of biting the newbie, who may need to be counseled rather than warned. The rule is enforced very well for inexperienced editors who are repeatedly warned but do not learn. They are blocked, and that is unfortunately the right answer. A new editor who can't learn to be civil after several warnings is not a useful addition to the Wikipedia community of editors.
The problem has to do with experienced editors who make very constructive contributions to articles, but who have a long habit of incivility to other editors and of personal attacks. (In a few cases, the personal attacks can be rightfully described as vicious and malicious.) They don't get a free pass, but they get close enough to a free pass that they do real harm. They typically eventually get blocked by one admin who thinks that their history of incivility and personal attacks has gone on too long. Then the length of the block goes to WP:AN. Then multiple admins agree that it was a good block, but several admins say that the blocked editor is an excellent content creator, and that this is a content vs. civility issue, and suggest that content should prevail. It is true but irrelevant that content is the ultimate objective of Wikipedia and its processes. However, when civility is disregarded to retain an editor who is a good content creator but has a long history of incivility and personal attacks, the future is sacrificed for the present. Editors who are very constructive in article space but destructive in talk space are a paradox. In the short run, they benefit article space. In the long run, they degrade article space, by driving away new editors who are appalled at the level of the dialogue in talk space, and so losing potential content creators.
Contributing to the problem that experienced uncivil "content creators" pose to editor retention is the trend in recent years for problematical editors to be dealt with by "the community", which in practice is the community of administrators on WP:AN. In the early days of Wikipedia, problematical editors were banned by Jimbo Wales. In 2005 through 2008, they were typically banned by the Arbitration Committee. However, the trend now has been for "the community", which means the community of administrators, to deal with problematical editors by consensus. This works well with trolls, vandals, and flamers. It does not work for uncivil editors or for rude "content creators", because of the elusive nature of "consensus". Because a substantial minority of administrators believe that excellent content creators should be allowed to continue editing, overlooking their corrosive effect on retention of new editors, there is no consensus to deal with these editors by long blocks or site bans. The ArbCom was able to deal with these editors because the ArbCom was and is not required to achieve an elusive consensus, but could and can impose sanctions by a well-defined supermajority.
At present, the ArbCom typically only takes cases that are a combination of content and conduct disputes, where the conduct of POV-pushing users who are overly invested in particular topics makes resolution of content disputes impossible. The ArbCom has never been intended to resolve content disputes as such, which are dealt with by Third Opinion, content Requests for Comments, or mediation. The Arbcom has not, recently, dealt with "pure" conduct disputes, because those have been dealt with by "the community". However, "the community" is tolerant of experienced uncivil editors who have a history of personal attacks, because of the difficulty to achieve "consensus" that these editors have a long-run harmful effect.
Habitually rude editors who have a reputation for being good content creators have a paradoxical effect. In the short run, they increase the quality of the encyclopedia by making good edits. In the long run, they choke off the ability to retain new editors.
There has also recently been a concern about the gender imbalance in Wikipedia. The premature rollout of Visual Editor may have been a well-meaning but very unsound effort to address the gender imbalance, based on the idea that the need to learn Wiki markup deterred female editors. (My own opinion is that the bugs of Visual Editor are even more user-unfriendly than Wiki markup, but that is only my opinion.) I think that the tolerance of incivility is a barrier to retention of new female editors (and some male editors). A new female editor does not need to be a personal victim of personal attacks to see that Wikipedia talk pages are a place where personal attacks by experienced rude editors are tolerated, and to decide that she doesn't want to stay.
Civility has always been a stated core policy of Wikipedia. Its effective enforcement is needed if we want to promote retention of new editors. That may mean that habitually uncivil editors need to be dealt with by the ArbCom, since the "community consensus" process has been found not to work. An alternate approach would be to create an enforcement mechanism below the ArbCom that acts more quickly than the ArbCom and can be appealed to the ArbCom.
| This page in a nutshell: The policy on civility is a pillar of Wikipedia, but is too often disregarded for experienced editors who are seen as "excellent content creators" |
There has always been a rule to Be Civil, but it has never been well enforced, and it is now essentially disregarded for experienced editors. It is often enforced for inexperienced editors. When inexperienced editors are reminded the first time about the rule, the reminding person is right, although it may be a case of biting the newbie, who may need to be counseled rather than warned. The rule is enforced very well for inexperienced editors who are repeatedly warned but do not learn. They are blocked, and that is unfortunately the right answer. A new editor who can't learn to be civil after several warnings is not a useful addition to the Wikipedia community of editors.
The problem has to do with experienced editors who make very constructive contributions to articles, but who have a long habit of incivility to other editors and of personal attacks. (In a few cases, the personal attacks can be rightfully described as vicious and malicious.) They don't get a free pass, but they get close enough to a free pass that they do real harm. They typically eventually get blocked by one admin who thinks that their history of incivility and personal attacks has gone on too long. Then the length of the block goes to WP:AN. Then multiple admins agree that it was a good block, but several admins say that the blocked editor is an excellent content creator, and that this is a content vs. civility issue, and suggest that content should prevail. It is true but irrelevant that content is the ultimate objective of Wikipedia and its processes. However, when civility is disregarded to retain an editor who is a good content creator but has a long history of incivility and personal attacks, the future is sacrificed for the present. Editors who are very constructive in article space but destructive in talk space are a paradox. In the short run, they benefit article space. In the long run, they degrade article space, by driving away new editors who are appalled at the level of the dialogue in talk space, and so losing potential content creators.
Contributing to the problem that experienced uncivil "content creators" pose to editor retention is the trend in recent years for problematical editors to be dealt with by "the community", which in practice is the community of administrators on WP:AN. In the early days of Wikipedia, problematical editors were banned by Jimbo Wales. In 2005 through 2008, they were typically banned by the Arbitration Committee. However, the trend now has been for "the community", which means the community of administrators, to deal with problematical editors by consensus. This works well with trolls, vandals, and flamers. It does not work for uncivil editors or for rude "content creators", because of the elusive nature of "consensus". Because a substantial minority of administrators believe that excellent content creators should be allowed to continue editing, overlooking their corrosive effect on retention of new editors, there is no consensus to deal with these editors by long blocks or site bans. The ArbCom was able to deal with these editors because the ArbCom was and is not required to achieve an elusive consensus, but could and can impose sanctions by a well-defined supermajority.
At present, the ArbCom typically only takes cases that are a combination of content and conduct disputes, where the conduct of POV-pushing users who are overly invested in particular topics makes resolution of content disputes impossible. The ArbCom has never been intended to resolve content disputes as such, which are dealt with by Third Opinion, content Requests for Comments, or mediation. The Arbcom has not, recently, dealt with "pure" conduct disputes, because those have been dealt with by "the community". However, "the community" is tolerant of experienced uncivil editors who have a history of personal attacks, because of the difficulty to achieve "consensus" that these editors have a long-run harmful effect.
Habitually rude editors who have a reputation for being good content creators have a paradoxical effect. In the short run, they increase the quality of the encyclopedia by making good edits. In the long run, they choke off the ability to retain new editors.
There has also recently been a concern about the gender imbalance in Wikipedia. The premature rollout of Visual Editor may have been a well-meaning but very unsound effort to address the gender imbalance, based on the idea that the need to learn Wiki markup deterred female editors. (My own opinion is that the bugs of Visual Editor are even more user-unfriendly than Wiki markup, but that is only my opinion.) I think that the tolerance of incivility is a barrier to retention of new female editors (and some male editors). A new female editor does not need to be a personal victim of personal attacks to see that Wikipedia talk pages are a place where personal attacks by experienced rude editors are tolerated, and to decide that she doesn't want to stay.
Civility has always been a stated core policy of Wikipedia. Its effective enforcement is needed if we want to promote retention of new editors. That may mean that habitually uncivil editors need to be dealt with by the ArbCom, since the "community consensus" process has been found not to work. An alternate approach would be to create an enforcement mechanism below the ArbCom that acts more quickly than the ArbCom and can be appealed to the ArbCom.