There can be no WP editing without people. And when people gather there follows some sort or form of association for the purpose of maintaining order amongst those people. It is a given that WP is vulnerable to incivil behavior. The question becomes what to do once the behavior and the perpetrator have been identified. WP should be bound by an ironclad commitment to a safe and comfortable working environment for ALL employees. (I say employees knowing we are all unpaid. But, except for that minor detail we are "at work".) We should be assured of a professional workspace.
[edit] Civility is the lubricant between faceless editors
The object of the discussion is:
- to insure a comfortable, non-contentious, professional workplace for all concerned,
- to reward (via freedom of movement) editors that respect their fellow editors,
- to preserve feelings of compatability & congeniality thru mutual respectful interaction,
- to investigate possible solutions for growing concerns regarding incivil behavior.
[edit] why are some editors uncivil (rude)
The steady stuccato of an uncivil editors actions shows individuals that like to sow controversy. Minor skirmishes develope into major timewasters for all involved. Uncivil editors enjoy the debate not the editing process. They are preoccupied with creating dis-order and anomosity. It is the reason they come to Wikipedia. This is their Battleground!
- competition--who is better at name calling, single digit waving, etc.
- pride--Wow! Am I a great wordsmith or what? Did you'all read that?
- participation--negative but still in the game. Its all they know to do.
- natural or cultural instinct-- bottom line, an excuse not to change!
- it's easier than co-operating or finding a common ground. Or so it seems.
- ethnic slurs, insulting profanity, and unnecessary commenting on the contributor rather than the content.
Incivility conveys a meaning - Disdain...Power...Anger...Threat...Control...Ignorance.
Wikipedia provides a delay mechanism, the Show preview button. The editor has a moment to reconsider. A civil editor rephrases. An un-civil editor doesn't.
[edit] When You Are a Hammer, Everything in the World Looks Like a Nail
Why do some editors choose incivility as a building block for their WP career? They seem to act without thinking. They are completely reactionary and are resistent to advice. Sorry to say, but some editors (and their behavior) are expendable. They have a stubborn resistence to correcting their ways. When they just won't listen.....or.....they outright refuse to understand civility.....or.....are unwilling to change any of their rude behavior; They need to go. Or at least sit on the sidelines until they cool down. (Civility Parole)
The question should never be "how can I counter-attack a fellow editor?" But, rather, "how does this useless diatribe forward the Living Encyclopedia?" We need awareness of and appreciation for the connectedness between mutually responsible editors. It is a critical component of a solution. We have established norms and values. They should be respected for the goodwill they create.
[edit] A New Age
We live in a new time where some of the old rules just don't fit anymore. The computer and related toys have become an important part of freetime for many people. Wikipedia exists on the Internet where the roots of incivility are traceable to several societal changes....
- First, no one is satisfied with being average. Almost everyone wants to be associated with some kind of extreme activity or accomplishment. We want to be noticed in this new environment. For some, if that notice comes for the "wrong" reason, well....thats OK!
- Secondly, controls of the past that prevented incivil social behavior do not exist on the Internet. It's pretty much..."Anything goes....who's gonna stop me".
- Also, the Internet provides a worldwide audience. A site like Wikipedia is viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. True, for this discussion about incivility, its a notorious worldwide platform but it is still a platform...and the toxic editor is being noticed. He is the topic of conversation. Its all about him!
- Which brings to mind another factor: the toxic editor is anonymous. When you take away someones name you take away personal responsibility and the dark side appears. Rage, hatred, jealousy, bitterness and other qualities that most people would never reveal bubble to the surface. And the toxic editor gives them voice.
- Another societal change that derails age-old civil constraints on how we behave in public is Reality TV where the really good parts, the ones that get the most camera time and audience attention are the obnoxious, inflammatory contestants that are quick to anger and to blow up. Controls of the past that inhibited bad behavior are so far expanded and ignored that almost anything goes.
[edit] responsibility
All WP editors should be concerned and responsible for safeguarding the comfort level of the WP workplace. But, when faced with implementing solutions, who are the proper custodians of this task? Who will step forward and state that they will secure the value and prestige of WP? Who is responsible (liable?) for monitoring and changing the negative behavior of rogue editors? The preservation of compatability, professionalism, conviviality, mutually respectful interaction, etc. are necessary in this social setting we call WP. Incivility is bad for morale. It places WP at risk of criticism. And at risk of dissolving into disorder and turmoil. Who mediates this endless tug of war?
[edit] Create a single Civility Administrator/Ombudsman
I suggest a single (I don't mean unmarried) Civility Administrator (and maybe some clerks as assistants)
- a Safety Representative. For the safety of GFEs and WikiPedia. He is willing to 'Bell the cat'.
- appointed (?)...elected (?)....delegated (?)....selected (?).
- bans/blocks incivil editors----> No waiting! No bickering! Not to many options for the offending editor.
- If it Looks like a duck. Walks like a duck. TALKS like a duck. ITs a duck! It's the re-accuring Bully that is the MAIN target. Disfunctional activity is no longer acceptable or tolerated.
- maintains a centralized list, a Rogues Gallery, as it were, of hazardous editors. Maintains pertinent information for future reference and use. Documents unsuitable behavior to prevent ongoing brutishness from article to article. A central kiosk. Is this editor a Bully or just having a moment? He/she knows the players...they can't hide behind the guidelines!
- steps forward with the facts...a watchdog? A referee? The Hockey penalty Box comes to mind. He stops the gridlock, the wasted time, the endless non-forwarding attacking chatter.
- co-ordinates the steps (?) necessary to facilitate an improvement in the constant negative interplay of incivil editors with good faith editors.
- resolves disputions...then again, maybe not. Too much buzy work. Too much chatter. Too much defending. Makes a judgement. Thats it!
- assists/inputs/has a major voice in implementing solutions and safeguards. Via a useful dialogue, the CivCzar nurtures a more realistic attitude.
- a strict controller of behavior...a civility Czar. Takes the time to investigate the history of diffs prior to the reported incident of incivility. Has had (or is aware of) previous dealings with the parties.
- provides guidance and mentorship to those that will listen. Or, better yet, can send them to a guide or a mentor. He is not a teacher or a mentor or a friend. But he can find you one if that is what you need.
- has a clear understanding of incivil behavior and can recognize it without question or doubt. The resident InCivility Expert.
- is sensitive to the overall value of productive working editors over troublesome "talk only" editors.
- has a clear SELF definition of incivil behavior.
- is grounded in the concept of assuring a comfortable and non-controversial workplace. A Leader.
- Provides a word to the wise and can do something if they are not Wise enough to follow his word.
- has the well being of the Wikipedia Project as a basic core mission.
I can think of a few editors that would be fair and impartial and bring their integrity of purpose to the role of Civility Administrator/Safety Representative/CivilCzar (or whatever he/she is called). Some are taking part in the discussion at WP:Civility/Poll. Exemplars of WP editing behavior. Trustworthy. Analytical. Investigative.
- The current process is not trusted. I think its 'cause there are to many chefs in the kitchen. If there was just one chef (and maybe a sous-chef or two) we would all have a better idea of what was cooking and what to expect. And if the community did not like the flavor of the soup..."too bitter...too salty...not enough meat..."...we could change the chef until we found the right one.
[edit] verification of incivil acts
Up to the CA/SR/CivCzar.....Its his/her call. No questions asked. CA/SR has the communities trust and backing! We know they have researched and investigated. Incivility is not that hard to recognize. We can all recognize it when we see it. We may be willing to ignore it or not give it much concern. But we know it when we see it. Civility Admin--->...."No discussion required...You did it...I saw it (in the history)....Here's the price you pay!""
[edit] notification of action
Notify the offender. in no uncertain terms, that they are in the spotlight, their behavior is under scrutiny by the Official Behavior Scrutinizer and they risk being blocked/banned for X length of time. Without notice. Not just at the article in question. Anywhere in WikiWorld.
- Attach a temporary non-removable tag to the abusive editors user and talk pages...
- reward improved behavior w/ an Official Notification of Improvement, a barnstar maybe.
[edit] fear of retaliation
Let us not forget the fear of retaliation that hangs over the situation. A real fear about a real threat. Stated or not. Be careful. If you cross them, you might easily become #1 on their Hit List. A negative relationship has been created. An editor with a history of incivility is unpredictable. Temper and Anger and the cursing that go with it are right around the corner. So is revenge and retaliation. These editors are hard to work with---hard to live with. A safe working environment is threatened if you dare cross swords with one of them.
[edit] Language
-
- American English in its Cultural Setting, by DH Lloyd and HR Warfel, 1956.
- Language is the instrument we use to communicate.
- Language is a channel through which messages flow with the least friction and the most significance.
- Language is the clear, clean, adequate conveyance of meaning.
-
- Language is the prime vehicle of our conduct as members of a human society (Wikipedia).
-
-
-
- Civility at Wikipedia is no more a mystery than proper civil behavior in any social setting is a mystery. We deal with the written word, not the spoken word. The Editor has time to think, to use his social radar to make decisions. Writing is only a loose parallel to verbal speech. Lacking qualifiers, writing is a less effective transmission of what we mean. We don't blurt out writing like in a pool hall. We have time to think, to decide, to weight the result. We make use of words to convey what we mean in spite of the limitations. Rudeness, vulgarity, disrespect, etc. toward another editor should be rare in this environment. We don't except grafitti on the garage door. Is incivility really any different? Editors should be persuaded that defamatory actions don't work. They may achieve Momentary Power but it's just a waste of time
[edit] Writing
- Reading and writing are not a mystery anymore than proper civil behavior is a mystery.
- Writing is only a loose parallel to verbal speech.
- writing lacks "vocalizations'...
- no inflections--no shouting or whispering---no pitch or tempo...no rasping voice or volume
- no gestures...no body emphasizers...hand, head, body movement
- no musical score to tell the reader HOW TO READ ALOUD the prose.
- writing is a less effective transmission of what we mean...
-
- The persons whom we address (when we write) are not in our presence;
- writing is the means by which men and women in human societies communicate with each other
- They do not meet our eyes with theirs;
- They do not lean into the communication and "help" coax it into being;
- They do not talk over, alongwith, along side, at the same time, etc.
-
- Writing lacks the face-to-face immediacy (and intimacy) of conversation; it lacks the SUPPORT of our ACTUAL presence, the reinforcement of our vocal qualifiers and our gestures and our ability to hear and be heard with the help of our "hear-ers" (and "here-ers")
[edit] ...with conscious control of their effect on the people we address.
-
- In writing, we don't just "blurt" it out like we may do in speaking. Writing is a decisive act. Decisions are made on the words we choose and their meanings and the effect we wish to accomplish. Here, at WP, we have access to the Show preview button and we need to hit the Save Button. This brings into play the issue of the toxic editor who chooses swearing, racial/ethnic slurs, etc, (the tools of the uncivil editor). All to make a point or give emphasis: but knowing that with it come all the negative connectors and responses and that the conversation will start downward. It is a conscious decision. The toxic editor has been down this road before. And he/she chooses to go down it again and again. Why? Because we let him or her.
[edit] editorial control
Editors that choose incivility are a small but defiant group. The vast majority of us are GFEs (Good Faith Editors). We are intitled to work without bad manners surrounding us...intruding into what should be a rather clean environment. We are not bloggers! The current system is too impartial, too random. Too many chefs in the kitchen (or should it be mops in the janitors closet). GFEs should be allowed to protest and ask for censure of an obvious transgressor. Right now the recourse is illusive. And random based on the administrator handling the Case.
[edit] initial point of contact
new editors=the easiest victims of uncivil behavior
....Rules of the Road...non-compliance? You lose your drivers license.
Greeting by bot/explaining Safety Representative/Civility Czar.
A tag--->limited to civility training
-
- ---->procedures for reporting
- ---->Contact suggestions.
A warning of the repercussions for incivil behavior should be an integral facet of the initial greeting or welcome of a new editor to WP.
[edit] Protect the Assets
Editors of value are worth protecting. They do the work of encyclopedia building. They should not have to suffer Incivility. Turmoil, and the stress that accompanies it, should not be the "pay" an editor gets for his efforts. We need to do more to safeguard where we work.
-
- Our editors participate in the project expecting to be treated with courtesy. We must maintain high standards of decorum appropriate to an intellectual project. Attacks, smears, and threats directed against our colleagues must not be tolerated. Participating in Wikipedia can be fun and exciting, but editors who lack the maturity and self-control needed to take part in a fundamentally serious undertaking must be firmly asked to leave.
-
- Troublesome editors waste far more of the community's time than vandals. One who sometimes has good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia. This is in part due to people's fascination with conflict. Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult.
[edit] What we do will echo down the Halls of Time
-
- That certainly speaks to the Wikipedia experience. And confronts the need (and some might claim the obligation) of WikiEditors to work together to create a positive historic path. The subtle almost un-noticed drift into incivility is always so obvious when we observe it as bystanders but it is hard to resist when we are on the playfield. The attack is toward a lone individual (usually) but it lives forever and "attacks" others with its meanness for the rest of all time..
[edit] peer pressure
- a valid force to change behavior. (See principle of visibility below)
- a challenge to confront incivility when it appears even tho it is not directed at you.
- voice displeasure each time rudeness or incivility happens in your presence. Let the offending editor know that more and more of the community is displeased. Also, it lets future admins that may get involved know and realize that the offense did not happen in a vacuum and that more than the victim was affected.
- a reminder to the offender that the social norms and values of Wikipedia are for the protection of the workspace, not just the editors.
- the capacity to be a vehicle for change or a protector of the downtrodden or a spokeperson for civility. Take your pick!
[edit] random editor comments about incivility
[edit] retreaved from here and there
- Some editors' uncivil behavior is perennially tolerated, and this fosters a problematic atmosphere where it is unclear what is ok and what is not.
- For good reasons, we do not generally tolerate name-calling in our real-life professional environments, and we should not do so here.
- the problem is that too many editors view the Wikipedia community as a microcosm of their own whole real-life community, where incivil behaviour is tolerated, and without strong consequences for unacceptable actions or comments. No big deal if you flip your finger at the guy who cut you off.
- Wikipedia is a workplace staffed by volunteers, and the workplace environment should be protected. If someone volunteers their my time at a local community center, but they were rude and abrasive to their co-workers, they would probably be asked to leave. We ought to do the same more often here. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right.
- ....if you are intelligent enough to contribute to this project, you are intelligent enough to understand that its not acceptable to insult other people. You will be civil or you will be gone. Either outcome solves the problem, and its entirely up to the editor in question to which occurs. ...editors who already have a persistent civility issue (as recognized by Arbs or the community issuing a parole) are told enough is enough, and then given 3 additional chances to consider whether how much they want to be a member of our community.
- "Is WP:CIV being abused with significant frequency?" (which is very counter-productive) To which my answer is yes, significantly, but not exclusively. Also, a good question "Is there a coherent style of collective enforcement" to which I answer "no".
- Some styles work, I think - I have had good results when I engage carefully - but some do not (the good old "My WPCIVIL club is bigger than yours is WHACK" approach...). When we fail to engage at all, it hurts. When we let someone engage on WP:CIVIL issues and they proceed to be overly aggressive or disrespectful to the parties in the way they respond, it hurts. Not having any consistency about the responses doesn't engender trust in the policy.
- For me the issue of civility is of prime importance, because it is at the core of enabling a community to colaborate. ....many editors even the most established ones have an understanding of being civil that amounts to "no swear words" - But the real problem is with "polite incivilty" consisting of using arrogant language without four-letter words, being uncooperative, dismissive, ridiculing or humiliating other editors, assuming bad faith, not being willing to admit errors, not being willing to apologize for what others perceive as hurtful or confrontational. For example a lot of persons attitude when confronted with someone asking them to be more civil is..."..that is not uncivil" or "..that is not a personal attack". If the other party finds it to be a personal attack - then the appropriate response is always "ok, sorry. I didn't mean it to be an attack". I also see that veteran editors (and particularly admins) get a much longer leash on civilty issues than other users - this is a problem.
- Civility is not to be confused with wrapping things up in cotton wool. Politeness costs nothing. Rudeness achieves little.
- .....at the origin of this phenomenon is a deficient theory of mind. Everyone is a little jerk at the age of four, because hey, you are the center of the universe. Then we are socialized, and come to assume that others are at the center of their universes, and we learn to make allowance for this, expecting them to make the same allowance for us. Then, during our teenage years we learn, very painfully, that we are really exocentric, and (we learn) that we can only be whole if we bear ourselves with both self-esteem and humility. But some people do not make this transition, and they take their toddler solipsism into adulthood, very much to their own grief, but also to the significant annoyance of their environment and the people in it.
- .... Communicating clearly (not in English, which is not my first language) is what I do for a living. It has never occurred to me that I might make myself more clear by interjecting obscenities - quite the opposite.
- Civility never impedes clarity. It only seems like it to editors who do not have the social skills to recognize when they are being incivil and then simply refrain from it, or who lack the verbal skills (or the will) to rephrase their emotionally charged comments to neutral polite responses. Everything that can be said in an incivil way can also be said (with better results) in a civil respectful manner.
- (A sincere apology)...
- I responded to your concerns on my talkpage, however I wanted to add a brief note here. Since it seems that my wording have may have been offensive to you personally, I want to offer my personal apology if I have caused you to feel hurt in any way. Sincerely, [[User:_____]]
- The current policy has been made into a sieve designed to be too vague and lenient to be useful. It is no coincidence that very many of the names on its history pop up at regular interval when aggressiveness and rudeness are discussed. As written, it makes a complete farce and mockery of our fourth pillar.
- ...... downgrading this core policy to a guideline. There is already enough wikilawyering over this, along with a lot of feigned ignorance about what constitutes civil discourse. Collaborative editing and working towards consensus can only be achieved in a civil environment.
- "I've been able to get through Wikipedia for years, in one of the most controversial of areas, with other people getting into trouble for civility violations right and left around me. I've had people take me to ArbCom twice, and a terribly hostile RfC. I edited for many months with most everyone, including admins, out to get me. And I've been able to say everything I needed to say, and almost everything I wanted to say. This is not because I only needed to say nice things. It's because I know how to be civil. So, I simply disagree that we need to have a watered down civility policy."
- Conflict is as addictive as cocaine, and unfortunately Wikipedia's civility policies only limit incivility among those who respect them in the first place, and who have the personal strength not to need to retaliate. Anonymity is to cowardice what Viagra is to impotence.
- "..... but requires also the acquisition of adaptations that permit co-existence with potential competitors."
[edit] ...and here and there
- "This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." -- User:Cool Hand Luke [2]
- You wrote: "Try to do whatever on you can on Wikipedia that genuinely satisfies you." The problem is that some people are genuinely satisfied by fighting, arguing, and scheming. We have a preponderance of editors who, given the choice, would sooner comment on 100 dramas du jour than improve a single uncontroversial article. I think they are doing what satisfies them.
- Civility is largely a social construct - what passes for polite conversation amongst a group of stevedores would scarcely pass muster at a gathering of the lords and ladies of the court - so one has to take cues on what is polite from other members of a particular society. You can see what sort of message you're getting. User:________ reminds us (above) that there is a human being behind the virtual User:---X---, and I urge you to bear in mind that the people you communicate with are also human, with the same need for a 'measure of dignity' that you have.
[edit] Safe Harbor
This discussion deals mainly with civility and the lack of it (incivility) on the talk pages of WP articles. Vandalism, Graffitti, etc., while showing disdain for the value of WP and are certainly uncivil, are handled by WP:Vandal, WP:Bite, and others.
[edit] manners
- common courtesy to handle shortcomings,
- common vocabulary (no legalese, jargon, etc)
- good natured banter.
[edit] acceptable social behavior
- a mellow tone,
- consensus building via easy interactions,
- indenting,
- staying on topic within a thread,
- no animosity,
- no negative reactions.
[edit] respect
- a minimum requirement of good editing is civil behavior toward others,
- we are all editors doing work in a mutual condition and arena,
- at the heart of AGF,
- a commonality with your fellow editor.
[edit] comparative judgement
- decision making on what to say and how to say it,
- with what level of confidence or strength,
- the right comment at the right time for the right reason,
- maintaining a professional working environment.
[edit] collaboration
- useful, forwarding dialogue.
- positive relationships.
- Preservational: ideas which influence those that hold them to continue to hold them for a long time. Ideas which encourage longevity in their hosts, or leave their hosts particularly resistant to abandoning or replacing these ideas, enhance the preservability of memes and afford protection from the competition or proselytism of other memes.
- Adversative: ideas which influence those that hold them to attack or sabotage competing ideas and/or those that hold them. Adversative replication can give an advantage in meme transmission when the meme itself encourages aggression against other memes.
- Cognitive: ideas perceived as cogent by most in the population who encounter them. Cognitively transmitted memes depend heavily on a cluster of other ideas and cognitive traits already widely held in the population, and thus usually spread more passively than other forms of meme transmission. Memes spread in cognitive transmission do not count as self-replicating.
- Motivational: ideas that people adopt because they perceive some self-interest in adopting them. Strictly speaking, motivationally transmitted memes do not self-propagate, but this mode of transmission often occurs in association with memes self-replicated in the efficiency parental, proselytic and preservational modes
[edit] A New Age
(repeated from above) We live in a new time where some of the old rules just don't fit anymore. The computer and related toys have become an important part of freetime for many people. Wikipedia exists on the Internet where the roots of incivility are treacable to several societal changes.
First, no one is satisfied with being average. Almost everyone wants to be associated with some kind of extreme activity or accomplishment. We want to be noticed in this new environment. For some, if that notice comes for the "wrong" reason, well....thats OK!
Secondly, controls of the past that prevented incivil social behavior do not exist on the Internet. It's pretty much..."Anything goes....who's gonna stop me".
Also, the Internet provides a worldwide audience. A site like Wikipedia is viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. True, for this discussion about incivility, its a notorious worldwide platform but it is still a platform...and the toxic editor is being noticed. He is the topic of conversation. Its all about him!
Which brings to mind another factor: the toxic editor is anonymous. When you take away someones name you take away personal responsibility and the dark side appears. Rage, hatred, jealousy, bitterness and other qualities that most people would never reveal bubble to the surface. And the toxic editor gives them voice.
Another societal change that derails age-old civil constraints on how we behave in public is Reality TV where the really good parts, the ones that get the most camera time and audience attention are the obnoxious, inflammatory contestants that are quick to anger and to blow up. Controls of the past that inhibited bad behavior are so far expanded and ignored that almost anything goes.
[edit] A State of Peace
- Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
[edit] Let me cut that up into bite size pieces
a state of balance and understanding
- in yourself and between others,
- where respect is gained by
- the acceptance of differences,
- tolerance persists,
- conflicts are resolved through dialogue,
peoples rights are respected
-
-
-
- and
- their voices are heard,
-
-
- and
- everyone is at their highest point
- without social tension.
[edit] where are we
Some say ban. Some say Ignore. Still others support the freedom of expression that is swearing, name calling, etc. Those with the intensity of passion to constantly use uncivil behavior would claim that controlling their toxic behavior would amount to a straight-jacket of restrictive prohibitors that will hamper their freedom of expression.
When you come onto a page in order to defend your position to swear, etc., then that is what is talked about. Not improving the article, not concern for our customer, not creating an Encyclopedia.
We are searching for a handling of language and behavior that is characteristic of the norm of WP and that is uniform in its implementation.
Goal: Maintaining a proper balance....and establishing a predictable, uniform standard.
[edit] The Workplace
- Incivility and negative behavior make uneasy bedfellows with normal, forwarding WP editing.
- Thru thoughtful debate and the building of enthusiasm and support among fellow editors...the work of the encyclopedia gets done.
- Why tolerate here what would not be tolerated in RL.
- Collaborative potential is everywhere until you piss on my/our leg!
- the key is be friendly, smile, put on deodorant and brush your teeth.
[edit] Social Order
Social order is a concept used in sociology, history and other social sciences. It refers to a set of linked social structures, social institutions and social practices which conserve, maintain and enforce "normal" ways of relating and behaving. A social order is a relatively stable system of institutions, patterns of interactions and customs, capable of continually reproducing at least those conditions essential for its own existence. The concept refers to all those facts of society which remain relatively constant over time. These conditions could include both property, exchange and power relations, but also cultural forms, communication relations and ideological systems of values.
[edit] principle of dependence
If a group means alot to a person, they will do what it is that the group wants them to do. In this case they will stop doing what the group wants them to stop doing.
[edit] principle of visibility
The behavior of group members can be viewed by other members of the group. The higher the observation rate of a group is, the more likely the members of that group will follow the group's norms. And the more likely that a wayward editor might see the error of his ways and alter his behavior. If enough GFE's show up, behavior will most likely change for the better.
[edit] principle of extensiveness
The more important the norms are to a society, the better these norms tie and hold the group together as a whole. How we engage with each other at the talk pages is critical to the health of Wikipedia.
[edit] 5 stages of growth
per John V. Wilmerding, Jr., a Vermont Quaker.
- transend the surface awareness
- acquiescence
- pacifism
- passive resistance into active resistance
- Active Peace
[edit] possible interventions
- be specific - we need more concrete examples of what behaviors, within the scope of civility, are definitely not acceptable at Wikipedia. If it would offend most people, it is uncivil.
- be a model - show the way. Don't get pulled in. Avoid the Combat. Remain calm and in control and focussed on solving the problem. Lead by example.
- ask why - to better understand the behavior and the editors that choose it. We may be surprised at the answers and the results of this type of outreach.
- follow thru - stay in touch in a civil good faith way. It works in RL...why not here!
- ask for assistance - not to gang up, but to show how a normal WP conversation works. A covey of GFE's is very impressive and displays the norms and customs that are requested. Sensitivity Training.
- stay within the system 'cause the system works.
[edit] "You're Not the Boss of Me"
[edit] personal responsibility and accountability
It may be that we need to adjust our perspective of and our standards for WP Civility. Perhaps for our own social well-being and sanity we should work to communicate to our "toxic neighbors" that we accept that they have different standards of civility, but that we expect and hope they will take some personal responsibility and accountability for demonstating more empathy and caring for their fellow editors. They can be more self-policing, showing a capacity toward tolerance, and we can support their efforts to co-exist. They need to willingly follow the norms and customs of Wikipedia. But, if they continue to distract more than they contribute, they need to go. If they cannot follow a simple direction like respecting another editor, they need to go.
[edit] Bell the Cat
LONG ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this, and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. “You will all agree,” said he, “that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighbourhood.” This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: “That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?” The mice looked at one another and nobody spoke. Then the old mouse said: “IT IS EASY TO PROPOSE IMPOSSIBLE REMEDIES.”[1]
- ^ Æsop. Fables, retold by Joseph Jacobs. Vol. XVII, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/17/1/.
