Wikipedia talk:Civility

Incorrect revert

I consider Flyer22’s revert of an edit of mine (my edit 4August11:39, his revert 11:51) incorrect, because he does not give one argument as regards the content of the, motivated, edit. We have the right always to edit or ‘improve’ pages, motivatedly, and that’s what I did. If you disagree to the content, fine, but give arguments. The fact that I am (or was!) in any discussion anywhere does not deprive me of my rights to edit anywhere. There is no obligation to explicitly search consensus before editing, unless you can show me where that is written. Policy pages are no exceptions in that regard, unless you can tell me where that is written.
I wrote in my edit summary that I considered the edit to be in the spirit of ‘consensus’ on talk page, you may disagree to that, but it does not essentially matter, because there’s no rule that an edit should need consensus on beforehand. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I already addressed my revert of you in the #Proposed section: 'Offensive language' section above, and so did others. It wasn't an incorrect revert. Your rationale for adding that material was incorrect. Even though you cited consensus on the talk page for your addition, there was no WP:Consensus for that addition. And the top of this policy page states, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit in question is diff which included text like "Debates are daily practice on Wikipedia". The addition should be in an essay, not in this policy. Reverts, particularly on a policy, are standard and are rarely "incorrect". Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Organising this policy page

I suppose that even a policy page should be organised logically? And that inconsistencies, redundancies and illogicalnesses may be repaired directly, just as they may be repaired directly on any ‘normal’ Wikipedia page?
Seeing that the page is titled ‘Civility’, I’d propose this logical outline:

1. What is civility.

2. What is incivility. (This section then ofcourse includes present §3 “identifying incivility”, because we identify anything, whether it is macaroni or Volvo or James Bond or incivility, by checking whether it fits the definition.)

3. Preventing our own incivility (Which then ofcourse includes what is now in §1.1, 1.2, and also §4.3 but much more condensed.)

4. Reacting on others’ incivility (Will contain the good rest of present §4.)

• Present §3.1 seems out of place on this policy page: ‘assume good faith’ is a separate, independent, Wiki policy. Just place a Wikilink on the term ‘assume good faith’ as soon as that term pops up—don’t try to repeat another policy page here. Keep things simple, concise, surveyable.
• §4.4 seems also out of place: ‘Blocking’ can be the consequence of what is said in §4.1: Dispute resolution→Arbitration Committee. It is enough to just add one line to that paragraph saying that ultimately the arbitrators can decide to a block.
• If ‘offensive language’ does not appear mentioned anywhere in the policy—as is now the case—it can’t appear in the nutshell, because that is then illogical and inconsistent.

Everyone is free, and invited, to react on these ideas. But having started this discussion section by no means deprives me of my right to directly repair gross or clear errors on this policy page, just as I’m entitled to repair obvious errors on any page, unless someone proves me wrong here. I also ofcourse have the right to directly include good ideas given here by others in any ‘improving’ edit of mine on the policy page—I don’t have to first ask their permission to use a good idea, and I also don’t have to first laboriously seek ‘consensus’ just to make an improving edit, on this page or or any Wiki page. If any (motivated) edit appears to be no improvement, anybody can remove it, with a good motivation ofcourse. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You might consider using a sandbox to prepare a draft. As I suggested elsewhere, people do not need precise definitions of civility and incivility—if a contributor does not have a pretty good idea of what those terms mean they should not be editing Wikipedia. Examples are good, but they should not attempt to be exhaustive and should not clutter the main points of the policy. This is not a legal document where terms have to be defined so courts of law can later decide whether to imprison an alleged offender—that's not how Wikipedia works. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone will argue, incorrectly, that a block is equivalent to imprisonment. If I were to say that I didn't know that we didn't imprison people here, on the Internet, no one would know that I was being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Needs some details

Some editors may make disrespectful or rude comments at talk pages. Since a user is forbbiden to remove such comments, what should you do about it? And why not tell so on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.116.118 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am new to this forum. There are some interesting topics here. Nice to meet you guys. Hope everything of your goes ok.God blessed.http://shiragik.jp/cgi/diary03/data/view/sitemap.xml — Preceding unsigned comment added by LomediaLomedia (talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

'Offensive language'

There’s no consensus on “avoid offensive language” in this policy. It is a wish of only two editors: Reenem in 2010 and Johnuniq in 2015.

You can’t forbid, in a (compelling) code of conduct, the use of “offensive language”, if that concept is not clearly defined. Apparently, Johnuniq (9 August) agrees that the concept ‘offensive language’ is not clearly defined.

Yes we must try to avoid hurting others, but that is implicit in “participate in a respectful way”, in our policy (nutshell). Trying nevertheless to forbid, in a code like this, what is not (and can’t be) clearly defined, is totalitarianism, and reminds me of the style of some of the recent legislation in Russia.

You can shrug your shoulders now and think ‘yes, Corriebertus is right, but why should we bother about such silly things?’ But that is exactly how totalitarianism comes to thrive: people on the high ground, who know it is not right, but don’t care to bother, because they take for silliness what is deliberate contrivance.

If people feel hurt by language in Wikipedia, they should talk about it with the ‘offender’. If that doesn’t help, ask a third person to look into it. But not coarsely and lazily and condemningly point to a Wikipedia policy page and say (or suggest): you are being uncivil. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A more accurate way of presenting the diffs would be to say that Reenem added "and avoid profane and offensive language" in January 2010 (diff), and that wording was retained in the policy (see WP:SILENCE) with some modification until Corriebertus removed it in August 2015 (diff). Johnuniq reverted that removal, and the text has been retained until now. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

too many antibiotics

What does to many antibiotics do to the body? Clay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.128.67 (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Link to workplace bullying article

I added a link to workplace bullying, following the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Anti-bullying task force. I agree with SageRad's observation that workplace bullying is a more relevant article in the context of Wikipedia than bullying. We already have links to the encyclopedia articles on Harassment and Sexual Harassment, so why not bullying? EEng reverted the change with the comment, "Linked article makes significant implications which I don't believe apply here." What are they? Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, "workplace" for one. But let's turn it around: what in the linked article clarifies WP's civility policy? EEng (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

yep, me too - you seem to be unilaterally declaring Wikipedia to be a "workplace" on the basis of one editor in that VP discussion offering their opinion that Wikipedia is "somewhat like a workplace".  pablo 09:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything remotely controversial about describing Wikipedia as a workplace. This policy promotes a "positive, productive working environment". Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no specific policy definition of "bullying". The link clarifies policy by providing a pointer to an encyclopaedic description. This may help people who wrongly believe that bullying is defined by the feelings of the victim, that confronting it means it wasn't bullying, or other misconceptions. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Wikipedia has some qualities of a workplace, many of which are relevant to the article workplace bullying. An actual Wikipedia essay is WP:BULLY, but i find that essay somewhat lacking and the workplace bullying article to have more nuance and relevant dynamics described. To answer the question asked by EEng above, "what in the linked article clarifies WP's civility policy?":

• "workplace bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of their organization and their society" --> relevant in that it explains that bullying can use the rules of a place, like Wikipedia, and i have seen that so much here.
• "Bullying in the workplace is in the majority of cases reported as having been perpetrated by someone in authority over the target. However, bullies can also be peers, and occasionally can be subordinates." --> I've seen people with "authority" here such as admins wield their power (such as it is) with a bullying stance and attitude.
• "Bullying can be covert or overt. It may be missed by superiors or known by many throughout the organization." --> The point about covert bullying is important because it's a big aspect of much bullying on Wikipedia that it maintains generally plausible deniability such that it's fairly obvious to the recipient, and perhaps noticeable by observers who pay attention, and yet there is typically an easy way to deny it, just because one cannot get into another editor's head. It's a classic aspect of abusive relationships, generally, to maintain a level of deniability or covertness to bullying, except in the most extreme or reckless cases.
• Then there's the section on profiling, which recommends against profiling people as "bullies" thereby pathologizing it and labeling the person rather than the behavior as a "bully" rather than "bullying behavior".
• Then there's the section on organizational culture, which makes the point that "Bullying is seen to be prevalent in organisations where employees and managers feel that they have the support, or at least implicitly the blessing, of senior managers to carry on their abusive and bullying behaviour." --> relevant at Wikipedia to the extent that much bullying behavior seems to have the green light or at least the "look the other way" response from admins and ArbCom, depending on who it is and what the content-related agenda may be and how it falls in relation to those with the power.
• There is the section on culture of fear, which could speak to some people's experience of a chilling effect by veiled threats of others being recognized as part of bullying.
• There's also a typology of bullying behaviors, and a list of tactics, and forms of bullying. All very helpful to someone who is in need of seeing these dynamics named and described, in order to combat the gaslighting and self-blaming aspect that can occur in a recipient of bullying behaviors.

In short, i clearly support its linking to the civility guidelines, and i thank Burninthruthesky for thinking of linking it. It would have helped me, had it been there a while back. SageRad (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are three ways in which Wikipedia is clearly not a workplace:

• there's no contractual relationship between the "worker" and the "employer";
• none of the legal rights, obligations, and restrictions that apply in the workplace apply to Wikipedia;
• (most impotantly) no one's livelihood depends on editing.

I asked what in Workplace bullying help to clarify the Civility policy (from which you want to link it). SageRad's response tells us a lot of interesting stuff about typologies of bullying, but I still don't see anything about how the link makes the Civility policy clearer. If any link at all is needed, I think wiktionary:bullying#Noun says what needs to be said in 1/1000 the words. EEng (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a workplace in the sense that it's a place where people work together.

Specifically:

• There is an expectation of civility very much like most physical workplaces and other situations where people work together.
• There are ongoing relationships among people who rub shoulders and cooperate and sometimes get on each others' nerves.
• There are some power dynamics, as some are admins and some are arbitrators, who have more formal power as well as social status in some regards than "ordinary editors".

These are real way in which Wikipedia is like a more traditional "workplace". Also note that the concept of a "workplace" has never required it to be a single physical location, and this trend has expanded hugely since the age of telecommuting by Internet, so the "workplace" is a virtual concept as much as it is a "building where you go in the morning and leave at night". SageRad (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of a word isn't reliably arrived at by breaking it into pieces and giving uncontextualized definitions to the fragments. Highschool athletes may "work" together on the football field, but that doesn't make a football field a "workplace" (though no doubt bullying does go on there‍—‌just not workplace bullying).The entire Workplace bullying article makes it clear that it's about bullying on the job‍—‌or will you now claim that Wikipedia editing is a job?

And everything in your list applies to, say, a classroom as well. Is a classroom a workplace too? EEng (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)