A number of us who are concerned about civility on Wikipedia do not see swearing in and of itself as uncivil. Many people may include professionalism and decorum under the umbrella of civility, but others do not, and they are not hypocritical because they do not. The problem is not the words themselves, but when those words are used by editors to attack other editors.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < [email protected]> wrote: > >In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use > of profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in >extreme > cases is it considered actionable when *actually directed at an > individual*. So it's hard to understand why many editors of long->tenure > have reacted in such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be > the unique nature of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I >would be surprised > to learn that many users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do > the New York Times. The most likely >conclusion is that profanity and > vulgar language are almost exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and > the difference here is that >readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it > from a woman. > > While I think this has something to do with it, I suspect some of the > commentators may have seen this as hypocritical: A member of the > Arbitration Committee, newly elected as one of several arbs committed to > restoring civility and mitigating our gender imbalance, writes a Signpost > op-ed using profanity in the headline, while some users (and, more > importantly, their supporters) who believe (whether reasonably or not does > not matter as the belief informs their actions either way) that last year’s > ArbCom results effectively painted a bullseye on their backs, know that use > of such language by them in discussions is routinely hauled out as evidence > against them in AN/I threads and (more importantly) at ArbCom. > > I don’t fault the Signpost for its editorial decision to run it. But I > wonder if someone should have talked to Emily about this before she did it. > Because now it’ll be hard for her to cast votes in cases where a user’s > profanity has been brought up as evidence of consistent incivility without > a whole host of users bringing this up immediately on the talk page. It > will haunt her effectiveness as an Arb for a long time to come, I’m afraid. > > And for what it’s worth, it is not acceptable to curse onwiki where I have > anything to say about it. I have blocked people for this when they have > refused to cease and desist and/or apologize. I have declined unblock > requests without review of the edit history if people used foul language > (this usually results in a new request with a profuse apology and more > reasonably stated case for unblock). > > Daniel Case > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
