Wikipedia, our Colosseum

From the editor

Wikipedia, our Colosseum

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Yes! Civility for all in 2013! GoingBatty (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a reason that isn't linked here. The current civility 'policy' is broken; I think everyone can see that. I'm just hoping that even though the policy is broken and no one can agree on a way to fix it (assuming there is a way), editors will take it upon themselves to improve the amount of civil, productive, interaction. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that, brother. Amen. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed! Sorry for being naive, but I'm interested in knowing what you think is broken? The way WP:CIVIL is written? Editors choosing not to follow it? Lack of enforcement? Something else? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sociologically speaking, civility is a fundamental problem with any project like Wikipedia because it is based on a culture of honor (vs. a culture of law). This sounds odd given all the "laws" (rules) we have, but the reason is there is no good structure in place to enforce the rules of civility - there are no police to call, we are mostly left to defend ourselves, which by definition is a culture of honor. This creates the Gladiatorial atmosphere (less romantic: a poor kid from the projects who shoots someone over a pair of sneakers). It might be possible to fix but I suspect a large body of editors would resist a police contingent that enforces civility rules. Cultures of honor, once established, are notoriously difficult to change into cultures of law because many people resist it since don't trust the enforcers whom they see as impinging on their freedoms. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or, stated more bluntly, Wikipedia is like the Confederate States of America. Many of its soldiers actually thought it was about protecting their freedoms, brainwashed by the prevailing culture of honor. Time to replace the outdated model of Wikipedia administration we have now with a new one that's not stuck in the 19th century. Wer900 • talk 17:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear! Hear! --Surturz (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you "Hear Hearing"? Green's statement seems like rather depressing analysis of the current state of affairs. Are you "Hear Hearing" that it should change or stay the same? Kaldari (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm applauding the editorial. Indenting was wrong, which I've now fixed. --Surturz (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems is the culture of anonymity that the Internet has bred on forums, blogs, and collaborative sites. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or it just has become an accepted culture that people haven't felt empowered to challenge. That something is a truth does not make it either relevant or necessary to be spoken. We lifted the quality of the standards of our articles, and we can certainly also lift the standard of behaviour, contributions and respect. Aim high, not low. Don't tolerate it and call it out for what it is, "bullying", rude and unnecessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymity is not at fault. Whenever any Wikimedia "Office Action" is received by any community, these are hardly anonymous, but they are as rude as anything I have encountered in many years of wiki-work. If our "mothership" can do nothing more than sweet PR talk (with loads of bullshit bingo possibilities) or rude orders, there's no wonder the rest of the project is not that different. --FA2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, Ed. Needs to be said, and read. The Interior (Talk) 13:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that civility problems are getting worse needs a big fat {{fact}} tag. It shows a lack of historical perspective, as far as I can see. Jimbo was talking about stamping out incivility in 2007 (yes really), at a time when the community was hardly ready to accept that. My feeling is that it took three or four years for the penny to drop. There were green shoots of community renewal in 2011, in my view. There are certainly some immature attitudes still around to incivility. It seems to me to be less used for disruptive purposes than in the past, but still to be used just to be rude. It was the disruptive use of incivility in the past that made it hard to sanction ("I'm uncivil but I'm a tribune of the people"). With some dishonourable exceptions, I think this argument, at last, is no longer washing. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the main issues with civility in the past year or so is that it's had a chilling effect on certain areas of Wikipedia. For example, I know plenty of editors who no longer participate at RfA or FAC due to incivility issues. Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And to be fair, I did give a nod to the past when I said "This is far from a new trend ..." :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And another "big fat {{fact}} tag" is needed on the statement that this issue is "perhaps most visible in the featured article process". Not so, whatsoever. What has been true is that rampant socking at FAC and FAR has led to a decline in the quality of reviews, and has affected nominations at Todays' featured article requests, but to my knowledge, socking and civility are not necessarily related, and the civility problem is most certainly not worse on the FA pages then it is in the cesspits of Wikipedia such as ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a quote on MetaFilter by someone who was (obviously) not a Wikipedia contributor, "There is nothing more grim and humorless than a hard core Wikipedia editor". Normally I'd defend it but didn't know what to say without looking grim and humorless. BTW Charles I agree things are better now. I also agree Featured ~~Ego~~ Article Candidate seems to create a lot of problems. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This quote being so grim and humorless, you have to be a really hard core one. Oh wait..." :-) Xentyr (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Time to bring in a 'no dickheads' policy IMO. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We've had rules against this forever, see WP:Don't be intentionally obnoxious. It's time for admins and arbs to enforce them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I agree. The problem is that there's a large body of editors who are prepared to excuse away gross incivility and make the lives of admins who try to enforce basic standards miserable (eg, the bizarre argument several editors were putting forward a while ago that there were circumstances in which calling a stranger a 'cunt' during a mild disagreement was perfectly OK). Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you object to the UK use of "cunt" and wish to raise standards, you could block yourself for your "no dickheads" vulgarity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The statements about cancer were made to refute a disruptive editor's claim that men could not grow breasts. Like progesterone, oestrogen is often present in men with testicular cancer, and it is one of the hormones screened in surveillance of survivors of testicular cancer. Without cancer, men do have tits, which can lactate. Transexualism is increasingly common in the US.

Perhaps a mea culpa would aid Ed in writing a persuasive article. What has he learned since telling an editor who just called a woman a bitch to not stoop to her level? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment did not in help any discussion in any way, nor would it. Also, it's interesting that you bring that up, given that I was hoping to reduce drama and tension by quickly removing the word. Obviously that did not work. As for the rest of the post, you have ignored the numerous apologies I made after that, including by email to Bishonen. I made many a mea culpa over that post. Have you, over that comment and numerous others? Happy 2013; let's make this as better place to work in this new year. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comment provided correction to a factual error. Negative reinforcement (differential reward) is important for learning and sustaining intelligence, individually and in organizations.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Another example of your acquiesence to another sexist insult---the euphemism "let's go get a ethanol and a Caribbean woman" suffices for this discussion---is of more recent vintage.

Usually prophets start evangelizing by going into the desert and purifying themselves, before they denounce their neighbors for their sins. You might start with stopping misogynistic behavior from your buddies, and stop the chatty New-Year cheer. Action, not hortatory, is needed.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I didn't take, and Wehwalt didn't mean, that euphemism as sexist, and I am not misogynistic, in any sense of the word. You have missed the entire point of this editorial. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are in denial about Wehwalt's message to you on the talk page of SandyGeorgia, "Come on Ed, let's grab a Heineken and an Aruban girl each and get out of here. (....) WOOHOO ARUBA!". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, given this record of behavior and your unsubstantiated allegation that Featured-Article discussions are uncivil, a call for detente is telling: Accepting Russian domination of the people of the Soviet bloc and the subjection of hundreds of millions to Soviet communism (and witnessing an intensification of antisemitism, etc.) was not an honorable policy for the free world. It is better that the Poles dealt with their problems and the world's. It would be better that Wikipedians deal with our problems; it would be better that Wikipedians stopped two-faced behavior, ignoring viciousness from their friends and casting further aspersions on their opponents (in discussions on Wikipedia) by selective quotation, innuendo, and unsubstantiated allegations.

Otherwise, one ends up emulating the Judge of William Zanzinger, who "pounded his gavel ... spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance".Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that people on this page take a deep breath and cool off? It's the silly season turning into the nasty season, ironically demonstrating one of the points of the article. This debate is going nowhere. Tony (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatted upon Ed's tweaks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Tony1, perhaps you are unware of the full history or discussions elsewhere, but I doubt that you would support same if you knew.
This is the worst example of the civility problem that I have seen on Wikipedia. It was delivered by a sitting arb, has zero to do with the FA process, and is further discussed here. Kiefer gives above additional examples of civility issues that had nothing to do with the FA process, and even involved the person writing this piece. The person writing this opinion piece is also discussed on my talk page as one of the aggressors on FA-related talk pages.
On the other hand, here is an example of a recent FAC discussion: a nominator refers to a reviewer request as "complete garbage", a FAC delegate reminds the nominator that "we can do better than responding to our reviewers like this", and the nominator strikes the imprudent remark. Pretty bad stuff that, no !?!? Particularly when viewed relative to the arb issue and how it was handled.
After more than a year of assaults by multiple socks and returning users breaching CLEANSTART to visit old grudges on the FA-related pages, and at the very time that so many editors are trying to move on and reinvigorate the FA pages, we have one of the very people involved in the negativity using his position on the Signpost to claim these issues are "perhaps most visible in the featured article process"-- taking a gratuitous dig at a process where he has been one of the aggressors. Surely you can't support an involved aggressor using his position here to once again bring the FA process into unjust ill repute, just as efforts to move on are taking hold everywhere? Yes, it is time for everyone to take a deep breath and move on; that includes this kind of hatchet opinion piece that has come to characterize the Signpost since the loss of Ral315 and SageRoss. MANY folks want the issues that have been visited upon the FA pages to stop now that one sock is blocked, one is banned, and a returning user revisiting old grudges has at least for now moved on. Perhaps the Signpost can do the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Sandy, I doubt any editor of this site has been civil for every edit of their wikilives. I know I haven't! However, that was not the point of this editorial.

The idea was to change that culture and move into the future, leaving the baggage behind.

As for the rest of your post, you should show me more than one archived section where I was an 'aggressor' at a FA talk page before characterizing me as a major player. You also say "After more than a year of assaults by multiple socks and returning users breaching CLEANSTART to visit old grudges on the FA-related pages"—this is what I was referring to. Not the current state of the FA process, but the state of it at a time in the past year. As for the Signpost, there has been exactly one controversial story in the past year, so I'd reject the idea that we're "characterized" by "hatchet" stories.

It's an indictment of the culture here that a high-profile call for peace can lead to drama. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's only an indictment of unclear writing, because this piece does not make any distinction that I can tell between the current state and any past state. The hatchet is involved in that you singled out the FA process instead of another area (as shown in my examples) with hyperbole even considering the socking issues-- the "gladitorial" issues occured on talk pages, while the processes themselves are functioning, albeit in a limited manner because so many quality reviewers were chased off and were replaced by DYK-style reviewers. I applaud your stated attempt to "change the culture and move into the future, leaving the baggage behind", but you would need to be a much clearer writer to do that, and you did in fact just the opposite. In fact, I can't tell where in this piece you believe you did any such thing. You again indicted the FA pages because of sock interference at a time when so many people are trying to put the past behind. YOU drug it up with quite an incorrect indictment, that appears to be focused on the present. Unfairly targeting FA pages, who were victimized by socks, when rampant civility issues occur elsewhere at a more alarming degree. Ya know one thing that past Signpost editors did quite effectively? They asked people who were about to be hatcheted for feedback before publishing. You might take that into consideration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The FA process was not 'hatcheted' in any sense of the word, and I would say that the FA process was 'disrupted' if it resulted in reviewers leaving. Still, I have made some tweaks to the language, so that we can move past these issues. Have a good evening! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent editorial! Great work Ed. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Mark, please. Is that all you can say after apologizing for Wehwalt's behavior already, before I gave clarifying diffs? I had thought you were just unaware. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mark, and to be fair, I interpreted the above-linked comment in the same way. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And since both Wehwalt and I are trying to not revisit old business, I won't point either of you to the numerous diffs that prove you both wrong. It's history, but you're still wrong; in the interest of STOPPING and not revisiting old grudges, I kindly request that Kiefer drop it from now on. The defense is acknowledged and appreciated, but it's ancient history now, and we all would be better off to forget it and move forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good start, Ed; I've asked Kiefer on his talk to drop the Aruba thing from here forward, and perhaps we can all do more of same. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied above; my apologies. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respect, bros! The Wikimedia movement needs policies, but we just have to keep civil with the rest of the community to solve things. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explore Wikipedia history by browsing The Signpost archives.

Home

About