On 16 April 2013 02:07, Carcharoth <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
