incivility consciously as a tactic.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

incivility consciously as a tactic.

Kathleen McCook
Right--and this would make all the difference. I am teaching a college
class for which an optional assignment is to learn to edit in Wikipedia.
Most of the students have had good experiences. Only a few have felt
 "incivility consciously as a tactic. " We discuss this in class and a few
snide/bullying editors do great damage. There just isn't any reason for it.
Good people will not tolerate bullying. It's no rite of passage that people
must undergo.



On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Charles Matthews <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 15 April 2013 18:39, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > "You're an idiot, and you're damaging the project. It's not about
> > copyright, or understanding it. What I'll do is to keep swearing at
> > you, and I'll be uploading tons of files onto en.WP, not Commons. That
> > will just disadvantage other users, and will cause Commons admins more
> > work eventually in having to go through the process of transferring
> > them to Commons. I will refuse to categorise. And I will encourage all
> > other editors to do the same. Continue your personal vendetta against
> > me—fine. Again, you and your thug friends on Commons are idiots and
> > deserve no respect. Tony (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)"
> >
> > That's the comment Charles refers to. Oops! I can see why some
> > frustration on Tony1's part is legit; a Commons admin deleted the
> > image illustrating the Signpost article on the attempt by the DCRI to
> > have a French Wikipedia article deleted, and then failed to explain it
> > in a way that would make sense to a non-expert. You won't see me argue
> > against accusations that Commons is dysfunctional, but the response is
> > clearly way out of proportion.
> >
> > But the point that I made, and that probably hundreds of people have
> > made before me, is that there isn't much we can do without altering
> > the fundamental architecture of the community.
>
> Actually, that is defeatist talk, and we can.
>
> It is completely clear that some editors use incivility consciously as
> a tactic. (The cited conversation is a smoking gun, if one were
> needed.) Such people should be sanctioned. Many more people have a
> temper (come to think of it, just about everyone does), and the point
> needs to be made that sanctioning those who use incivility
> systematically and disruptively does not mean sanctioning everyone on
> the planet.
>
> Then perhaps we could deal more rationally with the issue that
> discussions on enWP are often conducted in the wrong "register".
>
> Charles
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: incivility consciously as a tactic.

Fred Bauder-2
> Right--and this would make all the difference. I am teaching a college
> class for which an optional assignment is to learn to edit in Wikipedia.
> Most of the students have had good experiences. Only a few have felt
>  "incivility consciously as a tactic. " We discuss this in class and a
> few
> snide/bullying editors do great damage. There just isn't any reason for
> it.
> Good people will not tolerate bullying. It's no rite of passage that
> people
> must undergo.

You are correct. This is not a new issue; efforts to control it have
extended over years with mixed results. Please report these issues to
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and we will do what we
can.

Fred


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: incivility consciously as a tactic.

Carcharoth
In reply to this post by Kathleen McCook
Incivility is difficult to deal with.

One of the reasons is because there is a school of thought that a
certain level of frankness and brusqueness is necessary in a place
like Wikipedia. The trouble with that is that people draw the line in
different places, partly due to cultural differences, partly due to
personal levels of what they will accept.

Some people also treat this as a matter of principle, rather than as
one of being nice. The way I would describe it (though you really need
to find an exponent of this view to describe it properly, as I don't
support this view myself) is that it is more honest to say what you
really think in simple language, than to dissemble and use careful and
diplomatic language to essentially say the same thing. I favour the
latter approach until a certain tipping point is reached, and will
then be more frank myself.

I can see the point people are making when they say that being more
forthright earlier on and consistently on a matter of principle is
better, but the end result tends to be the same. Hurt feelings all
round for those who don't get that viewpoint, and those who have a
tendency towards the more brusque approach sometimes (not always)
being baited by those who like winding people up. The other effect,
most damagingly of all, is that the 'community' (which is a localised,
nebulous entity that is in flux at the best of times and varies
depending on location and timing) ends up polarised over the issue.

So you get periodic flare-ups, exacerbated by the nature of online
communications (the lack of body language to and verbal tone) and the
lack of empathy for others that some who are drawn to Wikipedia
exhibit.

Carcharoth

On 4/16/13, Kathleen McCook <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Right--and this would make all the difference. I am teaching a college
> class for which an optional assignment is to learn to edit in Wikipedia.
> Most of the students have had good experiences. Only a few have felt
>  "incivility consciously as a tactic. " We discuss this in class and a few
> snide/bullying editors do great damage. There just isn't any reason for it.
> Good people will not tolerate bullying. It's no rite of passage that people
> must undergo.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Charles Matthews <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 15 April 2013 18:39, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > "You're an idiot, and you're damaging the project. It's not about
>> > copyright, or understanding it. What I'll do is to keep swearing at
>> > you, and I'll be uploading tons of files onto en.WP, not Commons. That
>> > will just disadvantage other users, and will cause Commons admins more
>> > work eventually in having to go through the process of transferring
>> > them to Commons. I will refuse to categorise. And I will encourage all
>> > other editors to do the same. Continue your personal vendetta against
>> > me—fine. Again, you and your thug friends on Commons are idiots and
>> > deserve no respect. Tony (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)"
>> >
>> > That's the comment Charles refers to. Oops! I can see why some
>> > frustration on Tony1's part is legit; a Commons admin deleted the
>> > image illustrating the Signpost article on the attempt by the DCRI to
>> > have a French Wikipedia article deleted, and then failed to explain it
>> > in a way that would make sense to a non-expert. You won't see me argue
>> > against accusations that Commons is dysfunctional, but the response is
>> > clearly way out of proportion.
>> >
>> > But the point that I made, and that probably hundreds of people have
>> > made before me, is that there isn't much we can do without altering
>> > the fundamental architecture of the community.
>>
>> Actually, that is defeatist talk, and we can.
>>
>> It is completely clear that some editors use incivility consciously as
>> a tactic. (The cited conversation is a smoking gun, if one were
>> needed.) Such people should be sanctioned. Many more people have a
>> temper (come to think of it, just about everyone does), and the point
>> needs to be made that sanctioning those who use incivility
>> systematically and disruptively does not mean sanctioning everyone on
>> the planet.
>>
>> Then perhaps we could deal more rationally with the issue that
>> discussions on enWP are often conducted in the wrong "register".
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: incivility consciously as a tactic.

Charles Matthews
On 16 April 2013 02:07, Carcharoth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Incivility is difficult to deal with.

That may be the case; but it's not for the reasons usually given.

> One of the reasons is because there is a school of thought that a
> certain level of frankness and brusqueness is necessary in a place
> like Wikipedia. The trouble with that is that people draw the line in
> different places, partly due to cultural differences, partly due to
> personal levels of what they will accept.

Yes, well, one of the "differences" is between people who think that
what they find acceptable should constitute a universal standard; and
those who realise this is no way to set universal standards.

> Some people also treat this as a matter of principle, rather than as
> one of being nice. The way I would describe it (though you really need
> to find an exponent of this view to describe it properly, as I don't
> support this view myself) is that it is more honest to say what you
> really think in simple language, than to dissemble and use careful and
> diplomatic language to essentially say the same thing. I favour the
> latter approach until a certain tipping point is reached, and will
> then be more frank myself.

Excessive frankness usually does nothing for relationships. "To be
frank" usually prefaces something that can usefully be omitted.

> I can see the point people are making when they say that being more
> forthright earlier on and consistently on a matter of principle is
> better, but the end result tends to be the same. Hurt feelings all
> round for those who don't get that viewpoint, and those who have a
> tendency towards the more brusque approach sometimes (not always)
> being baited by those who like winding people up. The other effect,
> most damagingly of all, is that the 'community' (which is a localised,
> nebulous entity that is in flux at the best of times and varies
> depending on location and timing) ends up polarised over the issue.
>
> So you get periodic flare-ups, exacerbated by the nature of online
> communications (the lack of body language to and verbal tone) and the
> lack of empathy for others that some who are drawn to Wikipedia
> exhibit.

The point being that those who actually use incivility as a wedge to
divide the community are quite well aware of that, and this is what
needs to be stamped out as disruption, not intermittent breakdowns of
the civility code.

I saw a recent study suggesting, alarmingly, that online many people
find angry language and comment relatively persuasive; presumably
because they assume it is sincere, and assume that sincerity has
something to do with being right. I find this much more worrying than
the traditional "lack of affect" argument, because you'd assume over
time people would adapt to that (have we not adapted to the phone?)

I think there are probably a couple of serious fallacies being allowed
to dominate this discussion, still.

Charles

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: incivility consciously as a tactic.

Fred Bauder-2

> The point being that those who actually use incivility as a wedge to
> divide the community are quite well aware of that, and this is what
> needs to be stamped out as disruption, not intermittent breakdowns of
> the civility code.
>
> I saw a recent study suggesting, alarmingly, that online many people
> find angry language and comment relatively persuasive; presumably
> because they assume it is sincere, and assume that sincerity has
> something to do with being right. I find this much more worrying than
> the traditional "lack of affect" argument, because you'd assume over
> time people would adapt to that (have we not adapted to the phone?)
>
> I think there are probably a couple of serious fallacies being allowed
> to dominate this discussion, still.
>
> Charles

Yes there is research:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/how-rude-reader-comments-may-undermine-scientists-authority/32071
Nastiness works. However, our problem is with the enablers.

Fred


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: incivility consciously as a tactic.

Matthew Jacobs
In reply to this post by Kathleen McCook
The problem I've consistently seen with incivility as a tactic is that, the
longer someone is around, the more of it they can get away with.

Administrators and other high-profile, long-term editors should be held to
the highest standards of civility, but the enablers just make excuses for
them, and lackeys tend to form around them, stalling, preventing, or just
complicating any attempt to deal with their behavior.

I got really sick of meeting rude, or even abusive, editors, only to
realize they were admins, too. They have long dragged down the project as a
whole, but no-one ever seems interested in actually doing anything about
the problem.

Matt
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: incivility consciously as a tactic.

Charles Matthews
On 16 April 2013 20:37, Matthew Jacobs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The problem I've consistently seen with incivility as a tactic is that, the
> longer someone is around, the more of it they can get away with.

Indeed. See four example this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harris%27s_List_of_Covent_Garden_Ladies&diff=next&oldid=528383888

directed towards someone who has a total of four edits. And who
apparently doesn't feel accountable. Then work out the common factor
with Tony1.

Charles

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l