Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Civility. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Archiving

This page is hovering at 200k, I'm boldly adding auto-archiving for threads 30+ days old. Banjeboi 08:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Versions

Version 1

Ok, this incorporates suggested changes/retentions so far, except that I retain the "collegial" bit since I don't think anyone has given suggestions yet as to how to improve it (it's better than the negative definition). But I added "thus degrading the collaborative atmosphere that allows Wikipedians to work together in building an encyclopedia," as a suggestion.

Civility is a standard which all Wikipedians are expected to follow. Civility is any behavior which encourages or allows a collegial editing environment. Incivility, (as defined on Wikipedia) is belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that causes conflict and stress, thus degrading the collaborative atmosphere that allows Wikipedians to work together in building an encyclopedia. Such behavior destroys the collegial environment.

It is understood that editors make mistakes, so a few minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a great concern. However a pattern of gross incivility is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, even a single act of incivility can cross the line if it is bad enough. Extreme personal attacks such as threats or extreme profanity are enough to instigate a block even if there is no general pattern of incivility. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere: 1. A particular environment or surrounding influence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet another version based on Martin's, possibly even simpler in language, copy edited for syntax and grammar, because of my changes, adding hostile for belligerent as per SH's comments, and "some other stuff":0) in line with discussion. See how you all feel about it.(olive (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Civility, a standard that all Wikipedians are expected to follow can be defined as behavior that encourages or allows a collegial editing environment. Incivility, (as defined on Wikipedia) can be defined as personally targeted, hostile behavior and persistent rudeness that degrades this positive atmosphere.

Editors make mistakes; so a few minor incidents of incivility are not a great concern. A pattern of gross incivility is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, even a single act of incivility can cross the line if negative enough. Personal attacks such as threats or extreme profanity are enough to instigate a block even if there is no general pattern of incivility."

"Civility ... can be defined as behavior that encourages or allows a collegial editing environment." No, it can't. That is not a definition of civility. That may be one of its effects, but it is not a definition, nor is it at all useful as a guide to behaviour. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest opening up the discussion for broader input? Perhaps a policy-based request for comment would help to clear the air. Durova^Charge! 05:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and there already is an Rfc running, (although its summary may be a little outdated) and wider input is extremely welcome, if offered neutrally, and verifiably, lol. However, that welcome wider input to the debate on civility policy matters should not be directed wholly towards the current workshopping of a few mere words in the lead section. (See talk page section above for that.) /NewbyG (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wider community input would be most welcome and since this is a policy, necessary.(olive (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Version 2

Editors should behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. The maxim "comment on the content, not on the contributor" should be followed whenever possible. Behavior tending to cause unnecessary division or strife within the Wikipedia community is considered harmful. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this, and with the expectation that improvement can and will be made; editors are not expected to be perfect.

Version 3

Civility, a standard that all Wikipedians are expected to follow ~~can be~~ is defined as behavior that encourages or allows a collegial editing environment. Incivility, (as defined on Wikipedia) ~~can be~~ is defined as personally targeted, hostile behavior and persistent rudeness that degrades this positive atmosphere.

Editors make mistakes; so a few minor incidents of incivility are not a great concern. A pattern of gross incivility is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, even a single act of incivility can cross the line if negative enough. Personal attacks such as threats or extreme profanity are enough to instigate a block even if there is no general pattern of incivility.

Version 4

Civility helps to encourage a favorable environment for collaborative editing. Incivility comes about when an editor is persistently rude, or directs hostility at his fellow editors. This causes stress and dissatisfaction, and disrupts the project, removing the focus from editing an encyclopedia. For these reasons, all Wikipedians are expected to be civil to each other.

The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern. If this becomes a pattern of gross incivility, however, then it becomes highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. One single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or extreme profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough to result in a block without further consideration.

Version 5 by Seddon

I have created an amalgamation of version 3 and version 4.

Civility, a standard that all Wikipedians are expected to follow, is ~~defined as~~ behavior that encourages or allows a favorable environment for collaborative editing. Incivility, (as defined on Wikipedia), is personally targeted, hostile behavior and persistent rudeness that degrades this positive atmosphere. This causes stress and dissatisfaction, disrupts the project, and removes the focus from editing an encyclopedia.

The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern. If this becomes a pattern of gross incivility, however, then it becomes highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or extreme profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough to result in a block without further consideration.

Version 6

copied from post by User:Jmabel so readers can easly see all versions together. Also left the original post in place (hope this OK). (olive (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

Putting my money where my mouth is, and based on version 5:

All Wikipedians are expected to be civil to one another. This means that they are expected to behave in a manner that helps create an environment conducive to collaborative editing. Uncivil conduct such as personally targeted, hostile behavior and persistent rudeness degrades this welcoming atmosphere. Incivility causes stress and dissatisfaction, disrupts the project, and removes the focus from editing an encyclopedia.

I think the second paragraph above is fine.

Support or opposition for versions

Support version 3 with minor tweaks (substitute "is defined" for "can be defined"). It is clear and concise. It makes clear what behavior is sanctioned and how. Sunray (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Support version 1 or 3 since they actually try to inform readers about our civility policy. I oppose any efforts to re-write the civility policy in such a way that it can be cited as an excuse for incivility. Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose versions 1 and 3, Oppose 2, Support version 4 or no change. I also strongly object to the watyt his vote was started - I've been actively suggesting versions, and every single one was ignored by whoeevr compiled this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Versions where complied with the addendum that any versions that had been forgotten should be added. Forgetting any version was not deliberate as far as I can tell. So, please add the versions you feel have been left out.(olive (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Support version 3 as a version complied by multiple editors following discussion.(olive (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Comment I have added a 5th version that consists of elements of both 3 and 4. This may be a suitable solution. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we can lose the word "defined", I could probably live with it. I still think the writing's awful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Support versions 1 or 3 Although the first paragraph of version 4 is good. The rest of that version is wordy, it seems to me, as is version 5. But then I'm biased (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok how about the first paragraph of version 4/5 with second paragraph of version 3? Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 01:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Support no version. Votes like this should be advertised to a tag-team, aka, the Community, via RfC. Shot info (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. As Durova said above a request for community input should be a next step. Doing so doesn't negate the vote of the editors who have been working here.(olive (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

Just as well nobody was suggesting that the vote of editors here would be negated by Community input hey? Shot info (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Just as well.(olive (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

I don't have a problem with the content of these (or of the present version) but could someone please try to write these better? - Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Putting my money where my mouth is, and based on version 5:

All Wikipedians are expected to be civil to one another. This means that they are expected to behave in a manner that helps create an environment conducive to collaborative editing. Uncivil conduct such as personally targeted, hostile behavior and persistent rudeness degrades this welcoming atmosphere. Incivility causes stress and dissatisfaction, disrupts the project, and removes the focus from editing an encyclopedia.

I think the second paragraph above is fine. - Jmabel | Talk 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "second paragraph"? Do you mean the second paragraph of one of the above versions or do you mean Version 2? Sunray (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wider input requested on suggested changes to introduction of Civility Policy

Suggested changes to paragraphs two and three of the introduction to the Civility policy are somewhat controversial resulting in multiple versions. Wider community input may help clarify discussion and determine the most widely accepted version.

Comment In Jacobellis_v._Ohio, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said of obscenity: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it ". Similarly with civility. Although described as difficult to define in a totally objective and all-encompassing manner, those who have successfully navigated kindergarten generally recognize uncivil behavior without any difficulty. I urge the Wikipedia community to reject efforts to excuse uncivil behavior through wikilawyering. The civility policy should be written in such a way as to encourage civil discourse and collaborative editing, and should avoid phraseology that could be used to excuse the behavior it means to prohibit. Dlabtot (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Eloquently put. I think the impossibility of objectively defining incivility or civility in any strict way is something everyone here agrees on. We could define it in a general way as I attempt to to in my version, as "collegial." But strict definitions which would allow an objective formula for determining civility/incivility are not to be had. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to strongly agree. The question isn't how to define civility or incivility in a way that we can "legislate" about it, the question is, how can we encourage editors to respond to challenges by using civility, not as a bludgeon, but as a tool for facilitating the collaborative work process. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps people have to care more about the encyclopedia and its editors than about themselves in order to see that civility is about doing whatever it takes to make the environment one everyone can work in . The problem is, we can't make people care in ways that are not natural to them as individuals. So the next step is to make sure the wording for all of our own good is such that there are no loop holes for any of us. Funny how much more one cares if there's a little incentive involved. The positive incentive is the enjoyment that comes to each of us as we meet and work with other people on this quite magnificent project. The other kind is, if you do this kind of action.... take a break. Perhaps the policy should more clearly outline the positive aspects when things are really going well.(olive (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

What does any of this have to do with any open discussion? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This an open discussion in which a wider community has been invited to comment as it sees fit. Hopefully others will respond. Other than that, I'm afraid I don't understand your question.(olive (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

I'm just not sure why everyone's suddenly talking as if someone's trying to rewrite the policy to lessen the importance of civility. So far as I'm aware, noone wants to do that, so long as common sense is upheld. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there was discussion on the topic of subjectivity. There are or were concerns that including a point about the individual subjectivity of civility in the policy could open the door for abuse of the policy. I don't think it hurts to have all concerns of editors on this most fundamental of policies, aired, and to keep in the forefront of our minds, possible loopholes in the policy. I don't think there were references to any editor in particular, but just mention of the concern in general.(olive (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Huh. I'm not aware that I (who am presumably part of "everyone") was talking "as if someone's tyrying to rewrite the policy to lessen the importance of civility." It certainly wasn't in my mind when I commented above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm also slightly concerned about the idea that a policy here might have "loopholes". Loopholes are things that exist in rule-based systems, and Wikipedia is not one of those. Can we express the policy in a way that makes it clear that loopholes simply do not exist on Wikipedia? Is it possible to state the policy in terms of strategies, rather than in terms of prescriptions and prohibitions?

It's already too easy for people to fall into the (quite natural) assumption that policies here are roughly congruent to "rules" or "laws". Can we use this policy to exemplify that our policies are actually a different kind of beast? Does what I'm saying make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a really excellent point GTB. I wonder if a policy has different levels some more holistic (that dreaded word), and some more specific. The policies perhaps occur in layers, the more general -the overall viewpoint, then strategies, and then more specifics such as specific examples. I would love to see a policy written that way ... in layers . One thing inside another and all looping back to the beginning . For now probably focus on a word like loopholes is not a good idea because it is not in context of the multiple levels but is an isolated word referencing one level. Now I wonder if I'm making any sense.(olive (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

Always before it's been the rule of men or the rule of laws. The rule of men permitted the laws to be more fluid. We live in a laws based society, and that is deeply ingrained in people. They are trained from birth to look for loopholes. There are also quite a few people who are not of good faith, whether general IP trolls or trolls with usernames. Who keeps them in line? On what grounds? Olive, you see if we don't have hard rules, lines you must not step over, then we have the rule of the Admin. We have dictatorship. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I see rules as necessary, given what goes on here in Wikipedia, but in isolation, as not necessarily good. I think a focus on the idea of rules or laws rather than a focus on the way pieces fit one into the other might be quite narrow. If everything fits together from most general to most specific including rules, examples, and so on, like the tightly fitted together pieces of a puzzle, there are less possibilities of cracks in our systems where those who want to manipulate towards their own ends can.(olive (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

Yes...... that's quite a concept. Like trying to put common sense into a computer. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nahhhh... we could write the policy like that easily excluding the discussions that would no doubt occur.:0)(olive (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

I guess I think of it this way: A conflict situation is a type of challenge. There are various ways to respond to such a challenge. Responding by accusing another editor of breaking a civility "rule" tends to prolong the dispute, and to drag it further off-topic. Responding by walking away might end the dispute, but it doesn't turn it into something productive. Responding by using civility as a tool to convert the dispute into a constructive, community-based discussion is more difficult, but ultimately the most helpful response.

It is often the case that someone whose behavior is seen as prolonging and escalating conflicts is eventually blocked to prevent further disruption, because we have an goal of moving past the dispute, and improving the encyclopedia. It doesn't say "report uncivil editors to the civility cops"; it says de-escalate, with the assistance of others if necessary. That doesn't say that "if you do X, you will be blocked"; it says that there are helpful and unhelpful strategies to adopt, and that an editor who consistently adopts unhelpful strategies will eventually be blocked to prevent damage. The details depend on the situation - constructive work versus damage is the criterion, not some post-modern code of Hammurabi. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. As long as the protection given is not less. The community at this time allows a huge amount of nastiness- if you can write it in such a way as to lessen that while making sure that only the purveyors of negativity get shunted out, that would be great. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The community allowing nastiness is, I think, not a problem to primarily address at the policy level, but at a more cultural level. No matter what the policy says, we need to have a culture of respecting and practicing it, or it's just some words on a page on the Internet. Again, it's much more difficult to develop and maintain a culture of civility, but it's the effective solution. Ideally, this page describes our community's good habits of respect, civility, collegiality... whatever you call it.

This is not to say that this page is entirely posterior to our behavior, but it's not entirely prior to it either. The culture and our descriptions of it have got a sort of chicken/egg thing going on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 110%, GTB. Fundamental to the whole of Wikipedia is that it is collaborative, and that implies all of the things you are saying. Fundamental to a policy that focuses on behaviours has to be a description and understanding of what determines those behaviours, the source of the behaviours, and what that source is and does. We get into very abstract areas there, and there in lies a big problem . I attempted to write on Civility in terms of the holistic paradigm that sees first behaviour and by that I mean the most fundamental behaviour possible , that which comes from the most fundamental parts of us , and it was not well received by many. I think the chicken and egg analogy is apropos except it may be that this most important and basic policy should loop back on itself. If, as you do unto others they will do unto you, and so you will do unto others and then they will .... well you maybe get the point. I am playing around with some ideas on writing something that takes all of this into account.That is knowledge of behaviour is paramount and fundamental, and out of that rises the guides that help us distinguish more easily and more objectively objections to this behaviour which in turn creates an editor that learns how to operate from this fundamental level ... Or something :0)... The fact that we keep coming back to this point seems a clear indication that until we can deal with this idea in writing the policy, the policy can, and will not, ever be complete.(olive (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

The difficult part is not, of course, saying all of this out loud on this page, but actually applying it in the field, because that's where people will be convinced or not. Until more people are convinced that taking a high-ground approach actually works on controversial articles, whatever we say here will be dismissed, by some sector of the community, as smoke rings: pretty perhaps to some, but nothing of substance.

After taking some time off from the Wiki and looking back with slightly older eyes, I am more convinced than ever that what needs to be done is a very difficult but necessary job: proving that civility is an integral part of an effective dispute resolution strategy, and one which does not compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. These ideas need to be tested in the crucible of the actual encyclopedia, on the most intractable of pages. Once that happens... but let's not count those chickens now.

I don't mean to disagree, Littleolive, with what you say about the policy, and how it should better address the causes and consequences of civility and incivility, in a holistic manner. I can't disagree with that, and if I seem to be talking past that point, it's just that...I don't really read policy pages, and I don't suggest that others do, either.

That said, I'm working on something, which will probably grow into my yearly contribution of essay-cruft, and I'll probably post it soon. That said, I'm also interested in getting organized about forming pro-active dispute resolution teams, centered around certain explicit strategies, which we can apply, analyze and evaluate. This is probably not the place to talk about that, no? I don't always stay on-topic too well.

To the point then, which is how to write this policy: I think we need to better develop some Best Practices before I'm able to say much about the best way to describe them. If there has been a push to organize for that purpose in the last couple of months, I may have missed it... -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please feel free to disagree with me completely anytime and to tell me so.:o) Its a pleasure to discuss this with you. My feeling is that civility is the most fundamental aspect of this encyclopedia superseding all other concerns simply because it contains within its widest definition all aspects of collaboration.

I think "Best Practices" is great idea. I would love to see it managed where all editors could contribute easily. I wonder about something like a tag on the Civ page that links to a Best Practices page that is strictly for editors to list or enter a strategy that has worked very well for them . Then after a period of time the page could be organized and categories established.

As a new editor, immediately embroiled in the heated environment of a highly contentious article I really needed all of the Policy pages. I had no clue as to what was acceptable in this environment. Whatever I might have considered to be appropriate behaviour was certainly not apparent here. Those pages helped me sort out acceptable from unacceptable behaviours targeted at me.

Within its definitions Civility has multiple aspects. Our problem here is, I think , in trying to create one policy that deals with those aspects in one Policy page without delineating what those aspects are. So we get bits and pieces of these aspects mixed up together and the end product is a jumble of words, ideas, philosophies collected under the one over arching roof of Civility.

I see Civility as:

having a broad philosophical base, that is described in terms of the placement of all aspects and also charted so visually its easy to see and understand in a glance

having a "template" for behaviours, repercussions etc,

having a section that deals with best practices, strategies

and all of these fitting into./ looping back to the chart included under the "philosophical construct"

Guess I'd better get to work, huh? (olive (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

Group incivility

A disruptive opposing group of editors working in concert on an article can each be individually borderline civil and therefore avoid being blocked, but adding together all their borderline behaviors, they can be very uncivil as a group. I suggest that the policy address instances of group incivility. --Fat Cigar 03:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Another oft used way to be uncivil without anyone being able to do anything about it is to address people as a group "Those stupid idiots who say X" without naming a username. This is done knowing full well that a lot of the people who read it will say X if asked, or have been saying X. When called on it, people point to the clause which says it has to be personally-targeted before it's uncivil. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you both are talking about diametrically opposed phenomena, namely "distributed incivility" by a group as opposed to being uncivil towards a group (both with the more or less conscious intention of avoiding sanctions). I believe both things frequently occur and both pose a bit of a problem; they're distinct points both of which could be addressed in a single dedicated section (along the lines of "Incivility and groups of editors" or some such). user:Everyme 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment was referring to incivility by a group. --Fat Cigar 04:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And mine to incivility directed against groups whose representatives happen to be present. user:Everyme has it right, and we could combine them like he says. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. So let's put together a proposal and offer it up for input from others. I personally think distributed incivility (both ways) is definitely an important aspect that should be part of the policy's description of what uncivil behaviour is. user:Everyme 05:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying this isn't a problem, but I wonder whether expanding the technical definitions of incivility is the best use of time and effort. The concept of a group of editors engaging in "cumulative incivility" (per Fat Cigar) is already pretty much covered by baiting and, more importantly, common sense. Are there specific examples where this sort of collective incivility has been an issue? If yes, I'd be interested to look at them. If not, it's probably not worth changing a core behavioral policy.

As to the flipside, which Martinphi is referring to, I have seen cases where that sort of group denigration has been applied, but I'm not sure that changing the langauge of WP:CIVIL is the best way forward when there is fundamental disagreement about how to apply and "enforce" this policy. Until or unless that issue is sorted out and clarified, expanding the technical definition of incivility seems like a waste of resources. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not changing the language, just adding to the aticle a bit. Expanding into obvious areas. What the community chooses to do about it is a different matter. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. user:Everyme 09:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Group incivility occurred in writing about a famous 2005 New Orleans hurricane (guess which one), and the group took turns (in the manner of "double teaming") by reverting additions of one editor, until that editor was blocked via WP:3RR in trying to undo all reverts spread across the group. -209.214.44.165 (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't see the incident you're referring to. Could you point to when in the Hurricane Katrina article history this incident occurred? MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Civility restrictions and other questions

I have started a RFC, available at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC, about the questions the community and the ArbComm has raised with regard to civility restrictions. Comment is appreciated there. Protonk (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia contradiction in allowing edited mercilessly

04-Sep-2008: Because WP:CIVIL is a relatively new policy, older parts of Wikipedia seem to contradict the concept, especially the old slogan:

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it."

I think (IMO) that the term "mercilessly" should be replaced with a term more aligned with the notion of civility as the standard behavior by which articles are modified: perhaps replace "mercilessly" with the word "quickly" or some other intense word that does not promote the notion that ruthless reponses are to be expected when submitting written text. Other slogans in Wikipedia might also be outdated, or contradictory, to the newer concept of acting with civility. Again, many people have quit Wikipedia in disgust about behavior, dreading the alert ("You have new messages") in fear of reading more wiki-puke vomited at them. So yes, there is much evidence that previous "merciless" behavior had a chilling effect on Wikipedia content, and ruined many people's opinion of collaborating on articles while hounded by rude, ruthless editors. -209.214.44.81 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction. Havings one's writing edited mercilessly is not the same as having one's writing criticized, one's motives questioned, or one's intelligence questioned mercilessly. WP:BLP requires articles to be edited mercilessly. WP:CIVIL refers to interactions between editors - primarily edit summaries and talk page communication. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

04-Sep-2008: That is an interesting viewpoint; however, I think that "writing edited mercilessly" is actually incivility: when someone axes or rewrites major portions of that text (without mutual agreement), it is an assault to the content. As an analogy, if someone painted a mural in a publicly allowed area, and another person scraped or repainted most of that mural, that would not be an act of civility. I'm focusing on the overall concept, rather than limiting actions to content of talk-pages or summaries: also consider incivility as wholesale reverting of good-faith, sourced changes without providing evidence of the (hopefully) dire crisis being reverted. -209.214.45.17 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It would not be an act of incivility if the person had agreed, prior to painting the mural, that s/he had no objection to others altering it substantially without warning or permission. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The whole point of the notice about "edited mercilessly" is to explain that this is not like writing a personal webpage or painting a mural. It's human nature to get upset when someone alters or removes your contributions - the notice indicates that this is how things work here, and that it works the same for everyone. This sounds more like you've got a fundamental disagreement with the concept of a publically edited encyclopedia than an issue with WP:CIVIL. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

04-Sep-2008: Thank you for your concern about this issue. Perhaps I was imagining a policy "WP:COOPERATE" rather than what many people think is "WP:HACKAWAY" which allows slashing sourced content from articles. That certainly explains the result as "lowest-common denominator" contents, and such slashing explains why scholarly articles are often hollowed down to juvenile content. I can see why Veropedia authors learned to totally rewrite articles on Wikipedia before transfering content to Veropedia: they knew few people could stop the wholesale hacking of articles, despite years of writing, so they used Wikipedia to slant articles, as needed before copying across. I definitely have a fundamental disagreement with that process. -209.214.44.165 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Writers from ruthless backgrounds

04-Sep-2008: Another issue that hinders the effectiveness of WP:CIVIL is the intensely ruthless background of writers not living among "polite society" and those psychologically not ready to function with civility. For those who were reared in fascist areas, or suffered prolonged mental abuse, perhaps this policy needs to be expanded in ways to cope with mentally stressed people, such as through connecting to an educational process by which others can be "deprogrammed" and begin recovery from prior vicious behavior. Some writers, beyond wanting to instantly revert changes by other people, seem to want to slit throats as a more permanent solution. So, even beyond the educational process, writers should be warned that cold-blooded incivility is often linked to deeply disturbed, unbalanced mental problems, and Wikipedia is a "glass house" ("should not throw stones"): confronting a psycho can easily result in talk-page stalking (or contribution-list stalking) where someone actively distorts edited pages or hounds talk-page related friends. The whole WP system empowers wiki-psychos by not providing semi-private talk-pages and not fostering multiple-aliases that allow registered users to have widespread contributions without leaving a single stalkable trail of targeted article updates, which become irresistable for poisoning by wiki-trolls. -209.214.44.81 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place to advocate for the changes you want to see. This talk page is intended for discussion of specific improvements to the text of the civility policy. MastCell ^Talk 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We have WP:BITE to guide us on how to treat newbies. As for people who are unable, for whatever reason, to behave civilly, Wikipedia is not the place for them. We have no responsibility to rehabilitate people, or to put up with people who can't or won't abide by our norms and policies. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Well Cited Material Uncivil?

I believe this policy should include a note that it is uncivil to delete a good faith edit contributing material with a proper citation to a reliable source....especially without at least a few days effort to discuss and develop a consensus.

Much edit warring, and hard feelings, are caused by trigger finger deletion of material even thought the contributor has met his or her obligation to provide a citation to a verifiable source. Good faith and respect for others suggests that even if one questions the accuracy of the material, it is the obligation of the one questioning to ask for more details (quotes from the source) or to have personally verified that the source does not support the statement, before deleting it.

Another reason to attempt to curb this behavior is that so much POV pushing/protection is fostered under the guise "fast deletes" and demands "you can't put that in without consensus, which I won't give you", which disrespects both the contributor and the process. --SaraNoon (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There can of course be good reason for deleting such material, such as relevance, weight, or original research. However when removing it, it's generally better to post it on the talk page to open discussions rather than simply deleting it. Alternately, particularly if there are BLP issues, open discussion explaining the deletion. . dave souza, talk 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? I've seen "you can't put that in without consensus, which I won't give you", but I haven't see much well sourced material removed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't there used to be something in WP:CIVIL that said that it was uncivil to revert without discussion? In WP:V it says that removing information without giving someone a chance to provide sources may cause editors to object. I'd support an addition (or possibly re-addition) to WP:CIVIL that says that it's uncivil to revert good faith edits. Better is to change text, especially well-sourced text, towards finding a compromise. --El on ka 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Content disagreements can be civil or uncivil depending on how people carry them out. The availability or quality of citations should have no bearing on the level of civility used. Chillum 01:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka, that the best way to move toward consensus is to change text rather than just delete the text and source. Regarding Dave's remarks, I agree that it is okay to delete something that is clearly irrelevant. If the objection to the material revolves around weight or original research, the objector should slow down however and post objections and give time for response and input from others first. The fact that the material is cited at least puts forward the prima facia claim that it is not original research but a fair reflection of the sourced material. Objectors should ask for quotes from the source substantiating the material used is not OR.

Similarly, citing the material puts forward the prima facia claim that the source is deserving of inclusion because it deserves some weight. If an editor feels the new material give too much weight to the source, with an overly long discussion, for example, the solution as Elonka notes is to edit and abridge the material. What I most strongly object to is complete deletion of the entry, including the source. This kind of deleting of sources occurs frequently in the most contentious articles, including deletion of peer reviewed articles from significant journals because some editors simply don't want the material included.

Also, regarding weight, if other sources already are included that already adequately cover the material, at the very least the source should be retained and included as a secondary citation to already cited material so as to provide readers/researchers with an additional "lead" for additional research. In my view the minimum level of respect for the efforts of other editors should include a willingness to retaining new sources, at least as cites, unless the contributing editor, on reflection and review of other sources, agrees it is redundant. In most cases, additional sources are not entirely redundant, and in the sense that longer references lists almost always add to the value of creating a more comprehensive bibliography which may be useful to anyone researching a topic, retaining relevant citations is in general the best policy for maximizing the usefulness of the Project.--SaraNoon (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)