Wikipedia talk:Civility

Drive by templating

There have been a couple of threads above where people have compared the incivility of some people's language with that of others behaviour, and specifically the drive by taggers who in some cases template articles and even template bomb them with multiple tags but do not improve articles. Personally I see them as two different problems, and though I consider the drift from improving articles to tagging them for others to improve as much the bigger of the two problems, I don't see why we can't work on both. I reckon to remove more tags than I apply, and where I do tag it is usually an admission of uncertainty if not failure. I'm not sure how we encourage taggers to actually fix articles, but several of the maintenance templates such as {{orphan}}, {{deadend}} and {{uncategorised}} could simply be replaced by hidden categories. This would restrict templates in articles to things that we want to warn the readers about. Automatically generated hidden categories would also be more useful to us Wikignomes as they would disappear when resolved, and could be made more specific - 0, 1 or 2 links to other articles for example. Do people agree that the wiki would be a more civil place if we did this? ϢereSpielChequers 06:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It would certainly be a small step in the right direction. Malleus Fatuorum 13:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the general idea -- it's aggravating to go to an article page and see a three year old tag at top -- but I think we should have a small, unobtrusive hint to the reader there's something they can do. As a conceptual example -- I'm not template or graphic savvy:

Aquamarine is a novel by Alice Hoffman, published in April 2001. A film adaptation was released in 2006, although the plot of the film bears little resemblance to that of the book.

Compare that with existing Aquamarine (novel).

What I'm thinking would be a unique icon (not the trout), with a blue linked "Help wanted" or equivalent, that could be expanded to show the blah blah templates, in less than full page width box. Of course some templates, for example "Disputed" need to be explicit. Gerardw (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue has several sides. I agree that old tags are generally unnecessary, and I totally agree that drive-by tagging is often unhelpful and antagonistic. Particularly in articles that are essentially good, and which are maintained at least to some extent by good editors, drive-by tagging is often accompanied with aggressive and extremely unproductive attitudes that can easily drive off good editors. However, there is a case where tags are a helpful weapon: in a new article that is essentially a puff piece promoting some product, tags are useful to highlight problems that really do need to be overcome. There are not enough good editors to engage patiently in many such cases (particularly because the topic is often of very limited interest). I'm not forming an opinion at the moment, merely stating that ugly tags can have value in some situations. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Selectively targeting problem sentences by strategically placing tags such as {{says who}}, {{synth}} etc. can sometimes avert edit-wars by informing editors about the weak spots of their edits and point to the conjunctions where synth is present. They also alert the reader that there is a problem with the tagged paragraph and shows them where exactly it is located. Granted it looks ugly but it is not uglier than some particularly obnoxious synthesis and original research which if left unfragmented by the placement of localised tags would affect the credibility of the encyclopedia. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's not what we're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Your example is quite different. I just wanted to point to an exceptional case. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely support converting {{orphan}}, {{deadend}} and {{uncategorised}} into hidden templates that just add a hidden category. Perhaps someone could start an RfC on this. Kaldari (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for the idea of reducing the size / obtrusiveness of tags. Sometimes all an editor can do, realistically is tag (when they don't know much about the subject but can see there's a problem), but massive pile-on tagging of an article that is clearly pretty good is just "not cricket". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reducing the size and changing the tone would help and I'm sure each template can be argued over and any bloat challenged. But IMHO the most effective way to reduce the size of those templates that we don't need is to make them a hidden category. ϢereSpielChequers 07:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Past attempts to do this have foundered either by going too broad or because some people think the templates work. By going too broad I mean stretching this to the templates that warn the reader that the article is in some way less trustworthy than the norm or is vulnerable to deletion. Folding them all into a "help wanted " bar would reopen that debate, as would broadening this to all templates. The argument that they successfully persuade readers to edit can best be countered by getting some stats done to see if there is a measurable effect from these templates of encouraging newbies to edit articles. I'd expect the answer to be no, at least as far as Orphan was concerned. Happy to have someone file an RFC now, or if people are patient we could try and get that research first. ϢereSpielChequers 07:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If we want any chance of success, such a proposal should be narrowly defined. If it is successful, the scope could be broadened to a larger proposal. Kaldari (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As something of a test case, I've proposed changing the orphan template to be a hidden category rather than a header notice. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

olive branch

I asked at live chat, but I think they referred me to here.

In the following text from the Civility section, a diff is a specific Wikipedia thing, but an olive branch isn't. That is just a peaceful overture, of some sort. Maybe an example could be given of an olive branch that could be offered on Wikipedia.

If you click on the olive branch link, it just takes you to a general definition - interesting, but with no mention of Wikipedia.

But if you click on the diff link, you see a nice example of a diff, although I haven't learned how to do one, yet, much less send one to anyone.

"You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement. If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an olive branch to them instead."

My edit would be to:

      put in an example of an olive branch,
        in a link, so that the two links will be equivalent in informational content,

      or, alternatively, take out the olive branch wording,
        if it's not a technical term, like diff.

Thanks very much for listening,

                  Entwhiz

Entwhiz (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

examples changed, should go back

Please see [8]]. The two examples previously present are qualitatively different and should both remain; removal of the less obnoxious comment implies a change in what is acceptable that has not undergone community discussion. 22:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs)

I agree that they're qualitatively different, but disagree that the removal "implies a change in what is acceptable". The actual rule, as currently written, would allow the removed example but disallow the remaining one. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing it myself. Let's agree to disagree and see if any editors have opinions. Gerardw (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the example should go back in, personally. There's an awful lot of "belittling, demeaning" etc. stuff that gets written into edit summaries; for an editor to see that his work has just been described as "rambling crap" (or similar) might very well put them off wanting to contribute at all. That's not the way to make an editor want to improve his writing. "unencyclopaedic content" instead of "rambling crap" would at least give the original editor a better idea of precisely what the problem was, and point towards what improvement was required.

Describing someone else's input as crap, bullshit, fanwank, drivel, etc. is not going to help them to improve it - all it's going to do is upset them and make them think "Why bother?" What we need to be doing, to encourage better editing by more editors, is be less derogatory of their input. Critical is fine, obviously; suggestions for improvements fine, obviously - but snarkily derogatory will not ultimately help us train, retain, or attract editors. For the real long-term benefit of the project as a whole, what we need to be doing is encouraging our less-able editors to learn, and to be happy to learn - not driving them away. We have to think long-term; we cannot afford not to think long-term. This is the ultimate purpose of the civility policy - making this a project where people want to stay, to improve, to collaborate. Leaving a snarky, derogatory edit summary might relieve one's immediate irritation - but it doesn't help the project. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. As I think this is so important for the long-term wellbeing of the project, I have boldly reinstated it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

How, exactly, is "unencyclopedic content" any better than "rambling crap"? If you tell someone what they wrote is rambling, that's a lot clearer - particularly to a newbie - than saying it's "unencyclopedic". Furthermore, I see no significant difference between removing stuff with the edit summary "rm fanwank" and tagging it with {{fancruft}}, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

People's feelings are affected differently by words like "crap" and "wank" than by words like "content". Human nature.--Kotniski (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Then change the example to "snip crap" and leave it at that. The current example is inappropriate for demonstrative purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it demonstrates that a comment that contains a fair criticism ("rambling") alongside an empty insult ("crap") is still inappropriate. --Kotniski (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not when expressed as a simple example without explanation, it doesn't - you'd have to explicitly explain that distinction. If you'd like to add some verbiage about fair criticism vs insult and how to distinguish, then do so, but as it stands the page is conflating the two. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I can appreciate the challenge here - but we definitely need, in that little section, an example of both a hypothetical user-talk page comment and an edit summary. Perhaps think of a better example of the kind of edit summary which is unhelpful? "Zapped unsourced drivel", or whatever? The "unsourced" demonstrated the problem, but "material" instead of "drivel" is clearly better. Or something. I'll try one. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've gone with "removed useless drivel" as an example - hope it works. (And added, per Nikkimaria's very good point, "In edit summaries, it is important to make the distinction between objective, constructive criticism, and insult.") Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling useless drivel useless drivel is not incivility. "In edit summaries, it is important to make the distinction between objective, constructive criticism, and insult" does not mean what I suspect you think it means. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It may, however, needlessly offend an editor. A less charged / more detached edit summary would be more conductive to collaboration, unless the content was added in bad faith. (Though in this case, using 'rambling crap' as an example would work just as well.) wctaiwan (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

For sure. But our civility policy isn't a "best practice" manual. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, Mkativerata; but making a derogatory remark about someone's good-faith effort will only offend them, and not point them towards improvement. "Unsourced material" is just fine, "undue weight" is fine also, perhaps "unnecessarily verbose" with a link to this essay - in short, anything objective, rather than objectionable, is always going to be better. Again, the long-term view is that we want to help potentially-good editors to improve, rather than pissing them off (excuse the bluntness!) and subsequently driving them off. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking the long view, it ultimately pays us to remember that the sixteen-year-old we upset and drive away today could well have turned out to be a truly outstanding content editor in a few years' time - if only we hadn't made them feel so unwelcome and unappreciated here. We have to be careful to educate the next generation, and not to alienate them, wherever possible. This doesn't of course, apply to blatant vandalism and POV-pushing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This policy, often enforced by block, is not the place to achieve that wider objective. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Of course it's (relatively) OK for us to have to occasional one-off snark (though ideally not too often, and not too many of us at one newbie!). Sanctions should only really apply to things that are way beyond the pale, or to "persistent borderline(and beyond) offenders". We do, all of us, need to remember that as editors we have a dual responsibility to this project. The short-term and endless cleaning-up, and the longer term attraction, retention and training of the next generation. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I really can't think of anything more to the point to add here on this particular subject (edit summaries). Those who can see it, will see it, and no amount of repetition is going to help those who don't see it to see it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Mkativerata isn't saying that aiming for a higher standard of civility isn't desirable, but that the civility policy isn't the place to advocate a such a goal, especially since it's enforceable by blocks. To a certain extent I have to agree. This is what we expect of every editor, not the standard we aspire to. wctaiwan (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey wctaiwan! Yes, I think I do see that now. Of course the whole area is shades of grey. Something can be instantly blockable, never blockable, or sanctionable only when constantly repeated.

Last words: We have to be able not only to teach the next generation how to "do" - we have to be able to teach the next generation how to teach the one after that. Otherwise, this project is unsustainable. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion here is converging to the fundamental conundrum; is a policy page an exemplar of desired behavior, or the minimum standard below which blocks will be issued? My observation is that a single "remove rambling crap" is extremely unlikely to result in a block; this is precisely the place to advocate such a goal. provide a "best practice" manual. Gerardw (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Gerardw (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The existing policy explicitly states editors are not blocked for minor incivility. Gerardw (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerardw, what "goal" are you advocating? It's not clear to me whether that comment refers to your question, or the statement that immediately precedes the goal clause, or something else entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Hehe! I get days like that - much of the time! I find when I encounter a noob-edit (or page) where someone could clearly use a bit of assistance, just whizzing over to their talk page and pasting this in:

{{subst:User:ThatPeskyCommoner/ArticleHelp}}

{{subst:User:Chzz/help/refs}}

{{subst:User:ThatPeskyCommoner/Try Reflinks!}}

...is almost effortless, and usually very well received, and means I can be entirely objective in ES's Feel free to steal it! (I keep it on a TextEdit doc on my desktop for ease of access.) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Essay

I would like to add my thoughts at User:Buster7/Incivility to this discussion. How we treat each other and how we allow others to be treated in our presence is vital to consider. Buster Seven Talk 15:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Change to 1a per the perennial discussion of language gags

Per the perennial failure of language gags, I have clarified 1a from:

1. Direct rudeness

• (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;

to:

1. Direct rudeness

• (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity directed at another or indecent suggestions;

based on the most recent failed attempt to form a language gag, to indicate that the problem with profanity is its direction at others. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Insults and gross profanity don't have to be directed at anyone in particular to be uncivil and disruptive. A recent example: someone telling a crude joke about women being raped at Talk:Pregnancy. I can think of much worse hypothetical examples, but I'm sure you get the idea. Kaldari (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure you read the closing statement or contents of the discussion you are citing. It was about banning 'foul language', not about whether or not incivility must be directed at specific people. Plus your edit to 1a basically makes it the same as 1b. Kaldari (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this is the lack of definition of "gross profanity"; one person's "gross profanity" is another's everyday drop-in word. Though how one can deal with lack of adequate definitions is a complex project (albeit a much-needed one). Fifelfoo has a point in that or'n'ry everyday swearing in the course of language is not the same as swearing at someone; and there was definitely an agreement that we shouldn't have a "language gag". Let's think about t his, and other areas where there's a complete lack of adequate definition, and see what we can come up with. We haven't even defined "rudeness" here - that's another one to go! Name-calling could be made to cover a multitude of sins; maybe we just need a few examples there. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a language gag. I can say fuck and shit all day long and no one cares. If, however, I say something like "All these fucking dumbass idiots need to shut the fuck up and learn to write a coherent English sentence or get the hell off of Wikipedia", that's a different story. Context, tone, and intent are what really matter, not the use of dirty words. If you read the policy carefully, it says "The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment." That doesn't necessarily mean that swearing is a violation of the policy. Kaldari (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The dirty words in and of themselves are just letters thrown together. Only a rare few have a real bite when isolated from the millions of other choices. Its the intent that serves them up as a "blue plate special" of incivility...Buster Seven Talk 09:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

removed addition

Removed [9] due 1. WP:CREEP, and 2. lack of consensus / discussion. Nobody Ent 10:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's something which was mentioned at ArbCom - that user talk pages would be sensibly expected to have a different standard from article talk pages. Two Arbs voiced approval of the concept, and what discussion there was on it was approving (with the obvious exclusion of personal attacks). Could we put that one back in, as it seems to have support over at ArbCom pages? I think it's an inherently sensible distinction to make; a user's own talk page is a bit like his kitchen  – nobody has to go and read it, and if it's not to some people's tastes they can just avoid it, but the user themselves, and those who are happy on the page, can continue to use relaxed-style (pub style?) language if they're happy with it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom workshop is not a forum for discussing changes to the civility policy. ArbCom does not create policy. Nobody Ent 13:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that :o) Do you have any major objections to that going in, though? I think it's sensible for people to know that user talk pages are likely (and kinda expected) to be a bit more colloquial / informal etc. than article talk pages. I don;t think it's necessary to get consensus before each and every change; just if something's likely to be contentious, etc. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a necessary addition; less is more. Nobody Ent 22:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In some cases less is more, but I think there's a need for editors (particularly newbies) not to be led to expect the same type of interaction on user talk pages as is (supposed to be) on article talk pages, or they may get upset when they step into a more informal area; this leads to unnecessary dramahz just because they didn't understand that user talk pages are a bit different, and expected and permitted to be different. A couple of lines just stating that this is the case could save a lot of misunderstanding and hassle. We seem to have got into a you vs. me situation here (unusual): can other weigh in, please? This is what I added (and think should be here):

Standards of civility are expected to be higher on article talk pages, which are more open to public view, than on users' own talk pages, where the discussion is generally less formal; however gross insults and personal attacks are not permitted anywhere.

Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on the change. It seems to reflect common understanding, but I'm not sure it's important enough a distinction to add another paragraph to the policy. Kaldari (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I still thing the whole darned policy needs a focussed effort to clean it up (by a small team of really good writers, from all areas of the spectrum) and get the messages across in an unambiguous way! There is a big difference in the ambience of different types of pages, and it's a long-standing tradition that user talk pages have more leeway. Trouble is, newbies don't know what the long-standing traditions are, by definition. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[Pesky indulges in crone-like cackling] Tell you what, why don't we have an RfC on it ;P Maybe we'll get 444 editors commenting and be unable to reach a consensus with loads of people, instead of just one or two! One of two things will happen: we'll either get an answer, one way or the other, or it will illustrate beautifully to ArbCom the total impossibility of attempting to change or clarify the civility policy one weary sentence at a time :D Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I imagine it would be a repeat of the WP:V fiasco—endless debates with virtually no useful effect on the project. From my own attempts, I've found it virtually impossible to generate consensus to make any substantive changes to the core policies, but who knows? Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually succeeded in making changes to two nutshells  – wow! Now that was an achievement! And when we've failed to reach consensus after a month or so's RfC on this one sentence, then maybe in six weeks or so we could do it all over again, with another sentence! That would be such fun, don't you think? ;P As far as getting anything significant done in making our core policies absolutely clear, and dead easy to read and understand, goes, we first need to get away from the lock-in problem. As far as "the community, the whole community, and nothing but the whole community can write the policies" ethos is concerned, up to a point it was all well and good. But, to quote directly from the lock-in page, "The process of escalating commitment is also known as "entrapment", the "sunk-cost effect" , the "knee-deep in the big muddy" effect, and the “too-much-invested-to-quit” effect." There comes a point at which "the community" can't effectively do this any more. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 23:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

At the moment we have one for, one against, and one neutral ... shall we give it a week to see if anyone else feels either brave enough to join in, under the current circumstances, or isn't already so disheartened by the impossibility of making any clarifications that they might consider sticking their heads above the parapet and getting flamed? I don't feel that we yet have a statistically significant sample of the community to draw any conclusions from ;P Then we can draw straws for who feels brave / insane enough to open an RfC ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The page is fine as it, trying to address all situations is policy fallacy. Nobody Ent 10:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(>**)> Hugz! hehehe! OK, so you know where I'm coming from, I know where you're coming from, Kaldari knows where we're both coming from, and we both know wherre Kaldari's coming from :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)