Wikipedia is revolves around a few basic ideas. Free knowledge for everyone, everyone can contribute, decisions should be made by consensus & there are no "rules". As the community has grown, we've tried to stick to those ideals - even enshrined them as the " Five Pillars of Wikipedia". However, one consequence of the larger community is that people hold different views and will discuss them. This essay is based around how editors discuss their views.
The problem we face
Face-to-face communication works well in the real world, because the human mind has the ability to adapt to its circumstances. Two men in a pub will communicate with each other in a very different manner than that of a coffee shop, or an office place or a more structured environment such as a courtroom. Generally, if someone is uncomfortable with how the conversation is going, they will give subtle signals to that effect and the group as a whole finds a happy medium to discuss things.
On the internet, especially Wikipedia, there are a number of factors which mean that this does not happen.
- Communication is reduced to straight text, other forms of communication are lost. This allows for misinterpretation of comments.
- With millions of people talking, all from different backgrounds and cultures, there is no universal standard. The question is where to draw the line
- Because people are not talking to each other directly, it is easy to forget that comments are made to or about people.
- As there is no real comeback on comments, certain people will act in a provocative manner just to see what reaction they get.
Civility is so subjective that there is no line when a comment becomes uncivil. There are some cases where things are so obviously uncivil that the call is easy to make, but most of the time it is not.
Offence
Let's get this out of the way first of all. Taking offence is culture driven and assuming good faith, the editor who said the original comment did not mean to offend you. Referring to an area of research as "pseudoscience" seems obvious to some, yet to others it will be highly offensive. Similarly with many other contentious topics like religion or nationality. We should all be mindful of comments but at the same time we should accept that other editors have a different culture and may not realise the offence they have caused. It is important to remember that wikipedia is not censored, so you are likely to find articles on subjects that you find offensive - along with editors who are willing to write those articles and therefore don't find the subject offensive.
"Naughty" words
One of the easiest areas to see the difference in cultures is in swearing. Whilst some people mind their language, refusing to use the seven dirty words - other people use the same words so often that they do not even notice. Using swearwords is not in and of itself uncivil - if you take offence to it, that unfortunately is your issue. There are ways to deal with that issue, but remember that you are the one with the issue.
Personal attacks
Personal attacks are grossly uncivil and have no place on wikipedia.
Sarcasm and condescending comments
Enforcing civility
Civility shouldn't be enforced in the same way that we enforce other policies. Civility is so subjective - if an administrator were to block for it (even for a pattern of incivility) then the block will instantly be controversial. We do have a "bright line" of personal attacks which we can and should block for, but general incivility we need a better mechanism to deal with.
At the moment, talking to the uncivil editor seems like the most sensible thing to do - actually talking to them, not dropping a bland "Your comments violate CIVIL" warning, which in itself could be regarded as uncivil. Too often on Wikipedia we talk at each other and then walk away, there's no conversation therefore little or no realistic chance of a productive outcome.
After the discussion, it is important that the uncivil editor is given some time to reflect on the discussion and to improve on their own. Remember that civility is a grey area, editors may well not be aware of how they come across. The time not only allows them to reflect but also find personal ways to improve.
Unfortunately, the only remaining steps are formal processes like requests for comment, administrators notice boards or even the arbitration committee - these processes have fundamental flaws when dealing with issues like civility, they can definitely be regarded as overkill, but they are the only remaining options that we have.
Civility police
One phrase that has been used regularly on Wikipedia is that of the "civility police". The vague handwavy concept is that there is a group of self-appointed editors who go round looking for swearwords or rude comments and try to get the otherwise productive editors sanctioned. This concept is flawed, however, as it assumes that civility and offence are the same thing - that the "otherwise productive editor" has done nothing wrong and the issue is with the "civility police" who are taking offence, where none was meant.
Wikipedia is revolves around a few basic ideas. Free knowledge for everyone, everyone can contribute, decisions should be made by consensus & there are no "rules". As the community has grown, we've tried to stick to those ideals - even enshrined them as the " Five Pillars of Wikipedia". However, one consequence of the larger community is that people hold different views and will discuss them. This essay is based around how editors discuss their views.
The problem we face
Face-to-face communication works well in the real world, because the human mind has the ability to adapt to its circumstances. Two men in a pub will communicate with each other in a very different manner than that of a coffee shop, or an office place or a more structured environment such as a courtroom. Generally, if someone is uncomfortable with how the conversation is going, they will give subtle signals to that effect and the group as a whole finds a happy medium to discuss things.
On the internet, especially Wikipedia, there are a number of factors which mean that this does not happen.
- Communication is reduced to straight text, other forms of communication are lost. This allows for misinterpretation of comments.
- With millions of people talking, all from different backgrounds and cultures, there is no universal standard. The question is where to draw the line
- Because people are not talking to each other directly, it is easy to forget that comments are made to or about people.
- As there is no real comeback on comments, certain people will act in a provocative manner just to see what reaction they get.
Civility is so subjective that there is no line when a comment becomes uncivil. There are some cases where things are so obviously uncivil that the call is easy to make, but most of the time it is not.
Offence
Let's get this out of the way first of all. Taking offence is culture driven and assuming good faith, the editor who said the original comment did not mean to offend you. Referring to an area of research as "pseudoscience" seems obvious to some, yet to others it will be highly offensive. Similarly with many other contentious topics like religion or nationality. We should all be mindful of comments but at the same time we should accept that other editors have a different culture and may not realise the offence they have caused. It is important to remember that wikipedia is not censored, so you are likely to find articles on subjects that you find offensive - along with editors who are willing to write those articles and therefore don't find the subject offensive.
"Naughty" words
One of the easiest areas to see the difference in cultures is in swearing. Whilst some people mind their language, refusing to use the seven dirty words - other people use the same words so often that they do not even notice. Using swearwords is not in and of itself uncivil - if you take offence to it, that unfortunately is your issue. There are ways to deal with that issue, but remember that you are the one with the issue.
Personal attacks
Personal attacks are grossly uncivil and have no place on wikipedia.
Sarcasm and condescending comments
Enforcing civility
Civility shouldn't be enforced in the same way that we enforce other policies. Civility is so subjective - if an administrator were to block for it (even for a pattern of incivility) then the block will instantly be controversial. We do have a "bright line" of personal attacks which we can and should block for, but general incivility we need a better mechanism to deal with.
At the moment, talking to the uncivil editor seems like the most sensible thing to do - actually talking to them, not dropping a bland "Your comments violate CIVIL" warning, which in itself could be regarded as uncivil. Too often on Wikipedia we talk at each other and then walk away, there's no conversation therefore little or no realistic chance of a productive outcome.
After the discussion, it is important that the uncivil editor is given some time to reflect on the discussion and to improve on their own. Remember that civility is a grey area, editors may well not be aware of how they come across. The time not only allows them to reflect but also find personal ways to improve.
Unfortunately, the only remaining steps are formal processes like requests for comment, administrators notice boards or even the arbitration committee - these processes have fundamental flaws when dealing with issues like civility, they can definitely be regarded as overkill, but they are the only remaining options that we have.
Civility police
One phrase that has been used regularly on Wikipedia is that of the "civility police". The vague handwavy concept is that there is a group of self-appointed editors who go round looking for swearwords or rude comments and try to get the otherwise productive editors sanctioned. This concept is flawed, however, as it assumes that civility and offence are the same thing - that the "otherwise productive editor" has done nothing wrong and the issue is with the "civility police" who are taking offence, where none was meant.