Ryan....no. I'm sorry, but there are very good reasons why I would not be supporting any such initiative from you. I think you are well aware of what they are. Frankly, some of the stuff I see being referred to as a personal attack should get the person calling it a personal attack blocked.
Risker On 24 February 2016 at 22:20, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> wrote: > What I don't understand is if administrators like Risker and Mike Peel are > so concerned about civility on Wikipedia that they object to Keliana's > swearing, why aren't they the people that are making hard blocks against > vested contributors who are unambiguously violating civility with personal > attacks? Instead, Keliana is the one doing that. She's the one actually > putting herself on the line to try to change the civility climate on > Wikipedia. Banning swear words from the Signpost isn't going to do that. > Consistently blocking users who attack other editors as "worthless" or > "low-lifes" or "idiots" (or a million other non-swearing insults) will. > > Risker: I will be happy to support a ban on swearing if you will support a > ban on personal attacks and be willing to act on it. What do you say? > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Regarding "swearing is not in itself uncivil" -- >> >> I agree strongly with that sentiment. However, in group communication it >> can be valuable to have clear lines that must not be crossed, in order to >> keep everybody on the same page. As an analogy, it seems to me that a clear >> expectation of avoiding ALL CAPS in various Internet forums has been >> positive. It's not that anybody thinks all caps is in itself uncivil or >> disrespectful; but very often, they are used in ways that accompany >> disrespectful communication. Establishing, and adhering to, a clear >> expectation of avoiding that format tends to keep people cognizant of the >> idea that their mode of expression matters. >> >> I am not suggesting that the Signpost should rigidly adhere to a "no >> swearing" rule. But I do think it would be good (as you have already >> acknowledged) for varying expectations around swearing to be incorporated >> more carefully into future decisions. >> >> Also, Daniel raises a good point. I had forgotten that Emily had joined >> ArbCom. I agree, that probably colors many people's reactions, whether or >> not it's consciously acknowledged. Another analogy...a good friend of mine >> is a judge, and also a big fan of rock music. I have always been impressed >> with her courage in resisting the unwritten expectation that she would >> steer clear of dive bars and house parties. But as I got to know her, I >> realized that she put a great deal of thought into how she conducted >> herself in such venues. You might find her at a table of people >> pontificating about a local news story, but you wouldn't find her weighing >> in. You might see her with a drink in her hand, but you wouldn't see her >> drunk. And you might hear her expressing strong opinions (unrelated to what >> she would hear in court), but you wouldn't hear her swearing. It's not that >> she felt that strong opinions, getting drunk, or swearing were awful things >> -- but given her position, they were things that could compromise her >> relationship with the people she served. My takeaway -- I think there are >> many good reasons for people (and perhaps publications) in a position of >> trust observing rules of decorum that *exceed* expectations of civility >> that they might apply to others, in order to earn and retain the respect of >> their peers. >> >> Rob, I very much appreciate your perspective on this as an experiment >> that yields worthwhile lessons. I am glad that a diverse set of opinions >> have emerged, and that you are engaging with them. I believe that in the >> long run, the heightened emotions around this one will seem >> unnecessary...but of course, the emotional responses are real, and I don't >> want to discount what drives them. At any rate, I appreciate the candor >> everybody is bringing to this conversation, and continue to read with >> interest. >> Pete >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Robert Fernandez <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
