Mailing List Archive: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en]

FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant>

michaeldavid86 at comcast

Feb 5, 2009, 6:32 AM

Post #1 of 28 (3262 views)

When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, objective
look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The
atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.

And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with
you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have
done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence?
That, alone, speaks volumes.

Marc Riddell

----------
From: bawolff <bawolff+wn@gmail.com>
Reply-To: bawolff+wn@gmail.com, Wikinews mailing list
<wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:34:14 -0700
To: Wikinews mailing list <wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning:
contains rant>

[.I happened to stumble upon what appears to be an aftermath of an edit
war, and am quite disgusted by it. The following is basically a rant
about it, as I'm not really sure how best to bring it up]

I've recently noticed a marked increased in incivility between
contributors on Wikinews. I find this really disturbing as it is often
between admins who one would think know better. For example (And I'm
not trying to pick on anyone, these are just some random ones i came
across):

*"But no, you've gotta be an asshole just like always"
*"A small amount of brain activity would lead to the presumption that
someone in my position knows what they're doing"
*"I suggest you get the fuck off your high horse or get the fuck out of
dodge"
*"they are _MY_ comment sections and _I_ can write what ever the hell _I_
want."

Now, I know I am taking these out of context, but to be blunt I don't
care if the context was responding to poop vandalism - It is
incredibly inappropriate for admins to say these things under any
circumstances. If these were new users making these comments, they
would have been blocked in the neighborhood of 2 weeks to a year,
maybe even indefinitely.

How can we really expect to recruit and retain new contributors, when
this is how the long time contributors are treated?

-Bawolff

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

wknight8111 at gmail

Feb 5, 2009, 6:40 AM

Post #2 of 28 (3192 views)

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net> wrote:
> When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
> wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
> And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, objective
> look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The
> atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.

Not all projects. I'd like to take this opportunity to shamelessly
plug Wikibooks, which is as close to utopia as we get here in wiki
world. We don't fight, there's very little hostility, and a relatively
small number of hardworking users are producing a pretty impressive
group of free textbooks. </shameless plug>.

Projects are self-administering. If you feel the projects are not
functioning properly it is the fault of the project, not the fault of
the foundation. Get your admins to block your trouble users, and if
the admins themselves are causing trouble then petition to have them
removed. Everybody wants the WMF "hand of god" to swing down from the
sky and deliver relief to various community problems. It won't happen
and it can't possibly work anyway. Change and solutions have to come
from within, or they won't come at all.

> And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with
> you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have
> done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence?
> That, alone, speaks volumes.

And what response do you want from him? This isn't his problem to solve.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

charlottethewebb at gmail

Feb 5, 2009, 8:57 AM

Post #3 of 28 (3205 views)

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net> wrote:
> When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
> wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?

One does not know deteriorated discourse unless they've, you know,
lived in the projects.[1]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
> If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having
> these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a
> manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's
> Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you
> can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems
> are likely to be unfixable.

Interesting article. I just realized my Bacon number is higher than my
Dunbar number, thanks Andrew.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86@comcast.net> wrote:
> Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that
> group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between "control"
> and "management". It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group.
> It is my professional business to know such things.

Yes, "management" implies that those subjected to it enjoy some degree
of freedom, so that it still seems fun for them. Treading lightly in
this regard is crucial.

Or in the business world, assuming a supervisory position most often
imply a departure from actual work. Even one's de jure duty of
"supervising" can easily be delegated to a lower person: "Go supervise
these people." ... "B-but you're the boss here, not me." ... "Yes, I
am your boss. Now: go supervise these people." ... "So I'm their boss
now?" ... "Yup."

Conversations like this usually mark the birth of a workplace Ponzi
scheme. I've been in scenarios like this much of my adult life.

â€”C.W.

[1] the "t" is silent.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

cary at wikimedia

Feb 5, 2009, 10:30 AM

Post #4 of 28 (3202 views)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marc Riddell wrote:
> When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
> wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
> And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good,
objective
> look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The
> atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
>
> And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation
with
> you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have
> done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence?
> That, alone, speaks volumes.
First of all, Erik may or may not have received your email, and the
reasons he did or did not respond to you can be immense and varied.
You should not make assumptions based on a lack of communication by
anyone, staff or community member.

Secondly, what gives you the impression that Foundation staff are able
to sweep in and make everyone behave; or furthermore, why should you
not assume that we've not already tried some way to encourage
conviviality and discourage attacks. I have personally found myself
in the predicament of trying to solve issues for people and getting my
head bitten off by the very people I was trying to help! At least one
of those individuals resorted to calling me denigrating names on
lists cc'd to numerous folks, including coworkers, Jimmy Wales, and my
boss; and his fellow complainants did nothing to object.

The Foundation, as successful as the last fundraiser went, remains to
having limited resources. Our volunteering model is next to
impossible to define, given the enormity of our community.

Discussions take place on IRC about the simple idea of removing admin
access to anyone who uses ugly or rude block messages. This idea is
met with huge opposition; by solid contributors. You're asking
people to stop acting like people.

Perhaps we should follow the Wikinews discussion more closely...even
participate in it, rather than expanding it to include all of the
Foundation projects in one fell swoop. Given that the community is
much smaller there, a solution might take place that will result in
people being more proactive about reducing ugliness and being kinder
to one another and promoting an assumption of good faith.

Maybe Wikinews can even come up with a model that can be adopted by
other projects.

Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJizBfyQg4JSymDYkRAt5IAKCKf41wFBKeOZg19zjZsFqLWSLrXACggzlb
at4bw0uJgrFWEMPryewIs8Y=
=K5tT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

erik at wikimedia

Feb 5, 2009, 10:36 AM

Post #5 of 28 (3204 views)

2009/2/5 Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net>:
> And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with
> you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email.

You're right - I apologize. I'll send a response to your original mail
later today.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

michaeldavid86 at comcast

Feb 5, 2009, 11:12 AM

Post #6 of 28 (3200 views)

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>> When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
>> wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
>> And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good,
> objective
>> look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The
>> atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
>>
>> And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation
> with
>> you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have
>> done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence?
>> That, alone, speaks volumes.

on 2/5/09 1:30 PM, Cary Bass at cary@wikimedia.org wrote:

> First of all, Erik may or may not have received your email, and the
> reasons he did or did not respond to you can be immense and varied.
> You should not make assumptions based on a lack of communication by
> anyone, staff or community member.

This is an issue for Erik to respond to (or not); not for you to make
excuses for him.
>
> Secondly, what gives you the impression that Foundation staff are able
> to sweep in and make everyone behave; or furthermore, why should you
> not assume that we've not already tried some way to encourage
> conviviality and discourage attacks.

Where? When?

> I have personally found myself
> in the predicament of trying to solve issues for people and getting my
> head bitten off by the very people I was trying to help!

This is not about solving specific issues for people; it is about teaching
them how to civilly and constructively solve their own. Learn the
difference.

> At least one
> of those individuals resorted to calling me denigrating names on
> lists cc'd to numerous folks, including coworkers, Jimmy Wales, and my
> boss; and his fellow complainants did nothing to object.
>
> The Foundation, as successful as the last fundraiser went, remains to
> having limited resources.

Oh, please, Cary, money has nothing to do with what I am talking about, and
you should know it.

> Our volunteering model is next to
> impossible to define, given the enormity of our community.

This is purely an excuse for your inaction.
>
> Discussions take place on IRC about the simple idea of removing admin
> access to anyone who uses ugly or rude block messages. This idea is
> met with huge opposition; by solid contributors.

"Solid" (whatever that is) contributors are objecting to ruling out "ugly or
rude messages"!?! Time for a new definition of solidity.

> You're asking
> people to stop acting like people.

No, I am asking that people work and communicate civilly and constructively
with one another so that important matters can be resolved.
>
> Perhaps we should follow the Wikinews discussion more closely...even
> participate in it, rather than expanding it to include all of the
> Foundation projects in one fell swoop. Given that the community is
> much smaller there, a solution might take place that will result in
> people being more proactive about reducing ugliness and being kinder
> to one another and promoting an assumption of good faith.
>
> Maybe Wikinews can even come up with a model that can be adopted by
> other projects.

It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model.
The question is: are the other Projects even listening?

Marc Riddell

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

wikipedia at verizon

Feb 5, 2009, 11:21 AM

Post #7 of 28 (3196 views)

Marc Riddell wrote:
> It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model.
> The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
>
What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up
with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem,
rather than the solution.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

philippe.wiki at gmail

Feb 5, 2009, 11:41 AM

Post #8 of 28 (3215 views)

Marc, without denying or confirming there are problems with discourse
at Wikinews (because I have no personal knowledge), I would posit that
your messages about this topic to this list have been a little...
terse. Cary was proposing some perfectly valid thoughts (and money
DOES have to do with this problem... who do you think pays the
Foundation people that you want to swoop in from on high? They don't
work for beads, you know...) and you acted fairly aggressively towards
him.

Slow down, take a deep breath, and think about detailing the issues
specifically, rather than some broad sweeping statement. Then, we as
a list can start to think through what we - the volunteers who make up
this particular list - can offer in the way of help (if anything).

I know you're frustrated. I bet I would be too. I'm just suggesting
that maybe there's another way to handle this...

__________________
Philippe|Wiki
philippe.wiki@gmail.com

[[en:User:Philippe]]

On Feb 5, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:

>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>> When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something
>>> terribly
>>> wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the
>>> Projects?
>>> And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good,
>> objective
>>> look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The
>>> atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
>>>
>>> And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email
>>> conversation
>> with
>>> you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would
>>> you have
>>> done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in
>>> silence?
>>> That, alone, speaks volumes.
>
> on 2/5/09 1:30 PM, Cary Bass at cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
>
>> First of all, Erik may or may not have received your email, and the
>> reasons he did or did not respond to you can be immense and varied.
>> You should not make assumptions based on a lack of communication by
>> anyone, staff or community member.
>
> This is an issue for Erik to respond to (or not); not for you to make
> excuses for him.
>>
>> Secondly, what gives you the impression that Foundation staff are
>> able
>> to sweep in and make everyone behave; or furthermore, why should you
>> not assume that we've not already tried some way to encourage
>> conviviality and discourage attacks.
>
> Where? When?
>
>> I have personally found myself
>> in the predicament of trying to solve issues for people and getting
>> my
>> head bitten off by the very people I was trying to help!
>
> This is not about solving specific issues for people; it is about
> teaching
> them how to civilly and constructively solve their own. Learn the
> difference.
>
>> At least one
>> of those individuals resorted to calling me denigrating names on
>> lists cc'd to numerous folks, including coworkers, Jimmy Wales, and
>> my
>> boss; and his fellow complainants did nothing to object.
>>
>> The Foundation, as successful as the last fundraiser went, remains to
>> having limited resources.
>
> Oh, please, Cary, money has nothing to do with what I am talking
> about, and
> you should know it.
>
>> Our volunteering model is next to
>> impossible to define, given the enormity of our community.
>
> This is purely an excuse for your inaction.
>>
>> Discussions take place on IRC about the simple idea of removing admin
>> access to anyone who uses ugly or rude block messages. This idea is
>> met with huge opposition; by solid contributors.
>
> "Solid" (whatever that is) contributors are objecting to ruling out
> "ugly or
> rude messages"!?! Time for a new definition of solidity.
>
>> You're asking
>> people to stop acting like people.
>
> No, I am asking that people work and communicate civilly and
> constructively
> with one another so that important matters can be resolved.
>>
>> Perhaps we should follow the Wikinews discussion more closely...even
>> participate in it, rather than expanding it to include all of the
>> Foundation projects in one fell swoop. Given that the community is
>> much smaller there, a solution might take place that will result in
>> people being more proactive about reducing ugliness and being kinder
>> to one another and promoting an assumption of good faith.
>>
>> Maybe Wikinews can even come up with a model that can be adopted by
>> other projects.
>
> It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful
> model.
> The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
>
> Marc Riddell
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

guillom.pom at gmail

Feb 5, 2009, 12:07 PM

Post #9 of 28 (3201 views)

Hello,

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> This is an issue for Erik to respond to (or not); not for you to make
> excuses for him.

<snip>

> This is purely an excuse for your inaction.

<snip>

> No, I am asking that people work and communicate civilly and constructively
> with one another so that important matters can be resolved.

May I suggest that you try to follow this piece of advice of yours? I
am sure you've got plenty of interesting ideas to solve this issue,
unfortunately your anger is hiding them very efficiently.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

andrew.gray at dunelm

Feb 5, 2009, 12:20 PM

Post #10 of 28 (3202 views)

2009/2/5 Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net>:
> When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
> wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?

Marc, this may be a surprise to you, but you're not a lone voice in
the wilderness. Everyone with experience knows that many of our
communities are dysfunctional to a greater or lesser degree; we have
hordes of people who fundamentally don't get along and don't seem to
want to do so.

It's not like we've all ignored it forever. Everyone who is committed
to the projects wants a more pleasant working environment. We've
wanted it for years, we've discussed it for years, and we've all tried
to lance the boils in our own way (in some cases more dramatically
than others).

You can see the results we've had: viz, not a lot. It's not like we
can put our foot down and say "play nice, now, guys" and things get
better. If we could solve this problem easily, we'd have done it years
ago.

The reason you keep getting a "there he goes again" response on the
lists is, well, that we keep hearing demands to do more from you, to
somehow change the system. But the fact that we haven't done that yet
isn't because no-one has ever listened to you - it means it's a damn
big problem, and everything we've tried so far doesn't work. Being
told to do it, when we all want to do it *and can't*, just gets
people's backs up.

So, please, if you know how we can make this situation better, *tell
us*. Please explain, clearly and practically, what you think we need
to do. You clearly have some understanding of the issue, but I hope
you can see that you've really not been managing to communicate it to
any of us!

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

saintonge at telus

Feb 5, 2009, 1:36 PM

Post #11 of 28 (3202 views)

Michael Snow wrote:
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>
>> It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model.
>> The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
>>
> What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up
> with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem,
> rather than the solution.
>

I think he misunderstood something. Cary said: "Maybe Wikinews can even
come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects." Marc seems
to have read this as though they already had.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

saintonge at telus

Feb 5, 2009, 1:51 PM

Post #12 of 28 (3214 views)

Philippe|Wiki wrote:
> Marc, without denying or confirming there are problems with discourse
> at Wikinews (because I have no personal knowledge), I would posit that
> your messages about this topic to this list have been a little...
> terse. Cary was proposing some perfectly valid thoughts (and money
> DOES have to do with this problem... who do you think pays the
> Foundation people that you want to swoop in from on high? They don't
> work for beads, you know...) and you acted fairly aggressively towards
> him.
>
>
>
I don't think that it's a problem that can easily be solved by throwing
money at it. The Securities and Exchange Commission likely had more
than enough money to do its job, and the likes of Madoff still managed
to get around it.

Maybe if we could get all the problem makers and problem solvers
together, and locked them in together until they fixed things the
results would be interesting. That would cost a lot for travel and
accommodations, but I'm not prepared to show great optimism that such a
solution will come about.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

wikipedia at verizon

Feb 5, 2009, 1:54 PM

Post #13 of 28 (3202 views)

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>
>>> It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model.
>>> The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
>>>
>> What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up
>> with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem,
>> rather than the solution.
>>
>>
> I think he misunderstood something. Cary said: "Maybe Wikinews can even
> come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects." Marc seems
> to have read this as though they already had.
>
Considering that the emphasis on "has" in all-caps indicates that Marc
thought he was correcting that statement by Cary, I have a hard time
seeing how what Cary said could be the basis for Marc's assertion.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

george.herbert at gmail

Feb 5, 2009, 1:56 PM

Post #14 of 28 (3201 views)

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk>wrote:

> You can see the results we've had: viz, not a lot. It's not like we
> can put our foot down and say "play nice, now, guys" and things get
> better. If we could solve this problem easily, we'd have done it years
> ago.

To be fair - we're playing really nice with offenders, rather than playing
nasty hardball.

We could politely play nasty hardball, and squash a few people under our
polite polished jackboots of propriety.

It wouldn't necessarily be a self-contradiction to use excessive force to
try and impose politeness. That said, the ultimate problem is community
interaction issues that incivility and abuse cause, and abusive admin
responses make *that* worse even if we help the incivility problem, so it's
probably not a wise approach.

That said, making more of the civility blocks stick would be helpful. The
sense of the community that some of the problematic contributors are more
worth having than asking to leave is probably a mistake.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

michaeldavid86 at comcast

Feb 5, 2009, 2:36 PM

Post #15 of 28 (3199 views)

>> Marc Riddell wrote:

>>> It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model.
>>> The question is: are the other Projects even listening?

Michael Snow wrote:

>> What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up
>> with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem,
>> rather than the solution.
>>
> on 2/5/09 4:36 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:

> I think he misunderstood something. Cary said: "Maybe Wikinews can even
> come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects." Marc seems
> to have read this as though they already had.
>
Thank you, Ray, I did misread it a bit. But, on the other hand, a model set
here by Wikinews is the fact that someone from there is actually openly
objecting and calling attention to it. That is the beginning of a successful
model.

Marc

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

dgerard at gmail

Feb 5, 2009, 3:06 PM

Post #16 of 28 (3198 views)

2009/2/5 George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>:

> Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I
> had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out
> the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are
> persistently abusive and disruptive to other users.

If Jimbo had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers this would happen too. It
hasn't, because he doesn't.

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: A Civil Wiki (was: Increased incivility at wikinews [en] [ In reply to ]

michaeldavid86 at comcast

Feb 5, 2009, 3:27 PM

Post #17 of 28 (3198 views)

>
>>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>
>>>> It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model.
>>>> The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
>
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>>> What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up
>>> with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem,
>>> rather than the solution.
>>>
>> on 2/5/09 4:36 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
>
>> I think he misunderstood something. Cary said: "Maybe Wikinews can even
>> come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects." Marc seems
>> to have read this as though they already had.

on 2/5/09 5:36 PM, Marc Riddell at michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
>>
> Thank you, Ray, I did misread it a bit. But, on the other hand, a model set
> here by Wikinews is the fact that someone from there is actually openly
> objecting and calling attention to it. That is the beginning of a successful
> model.
>
> Marc
>
A lot of good input so far regarding the state of communication in the
wikis. I would like to take some time and construct a dialogue model for
discussing this issue further. I feel this would be better - more productive
- than me just listing a bunch of things that I think ought to be done (and
a hell of a lot more interesting :-) ).

And, you are right George; this is a serious problem. There are many truly
creative people out there, with some truly creative ideas for the Project,
but who are intimidated by the abusive nature of some of the dialogue. The
result: they simply keep their thoughts and ideas to themselves - or take
them elsewhere.

Back soon,

Marc

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

pathoschild at gmail

Feb 5, 2009, 3:44 PM

Post #18 of 28 (3200 views)

George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:
> Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I
> had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out
> the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are
> persistently abusive and disruptive to other users. Even being a long time
> positive contributor cannot overcome the damage done to the community and
> other editors in particular when one problem abusive user persists. The
> damage is both severe in the acute sense and insidious in the long term
> community values sense.

I disagree that divine intervention is a solution, but I agree with
the principle that a productive editor who cannot collaborate is not a
productive editor. Perhaps you and others can take a look at <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaboration_first >, and put
together a convincing essay to that effect. Convincing the silent
majority to take a cohesive stance against such behaviour is one
possible solution.

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

node.ue at gmail

Feb 5, 2009, 5:27 PM

Post #19 of 28 (3198 views)

Perhaps it would help if we disallowed certain words in block summaries?

- Asshole
- Fuck
- Idiot...

I'm no fan of censorship, but there's no reason these words should be
in block summaries at all as far as I can think of.

skype: node.ue

2009/2/5 Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net>:
> When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
> wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
> And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, objective
> look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The
> atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
>
> And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with
> you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have
> done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence?
> That, alone, speaks volumes.
>
> Marc Riddell
>
> ----------
> From: bawolff <bawolff+wn@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: bawolff+wn@gmail.com, Wikinews mailing list
> <wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:34:14 -0700
> To: Wikinews mailing list <wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning:
> contains rant>
>
> [.I happened to stumble upon what appears to be an aftermath of an edit
> war, and am quite disgusted by it. The following is basically a rant
> about it, as I'm not really sure how best to bring it up]
>
>
> I've recently noticed a marked increased in incivility between
> contributors on Wikinews. I find this really disturbing as it is often
> between admins who one would think know better. For example (And I'm
> not trying to pick on anyone, these are just some random ones i came
> across):
>
> *"But no, you've gotta be an asshole just like always"
> *"A small amount of brain activity would lead to the presumption that
> someone in my position knows what they're doing"
> *"I suggest you get the fuck off your high horse or get the fuck out of
> dodge"
> *"they are _MY_ comment sections and _I_ can write what ever the hell _I_
> want."
>
> Now, I know I am taking these out of context, but to be blunt I don't
> care if the context was responding to poop vandalism - It is
> incredibly inappropriate for admins to say these things under any
> circumstances. If these were new users making these comments, they
> would have been blocked in the neighborhood of 2 weeks to a year,
> maybe even indefinitely.
>
> How can we really expect to recruit and retain new contributors, when
> this is how the long time contributors are treated?
>
> -Bawolff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

fredbaud at fairpoint

Feb 5, 2009, 6:01 PM

Post #20 of 28 (3195 views)

I remember one time the arbitration committee sanctioned an editor who
referred to another as an imbecile and then tried to justify it on the
basis that the other editor was obviously stupid. We've come a long way
from there. Now people rise to power and maintain it on the basis of
their nastyness.

Fred

> When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
> wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the
> Projects?
> And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good,
> objective
> look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The
> atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
>
> And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation
> with
> you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you
> have
> done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in
> silence?
> That, alone, speaks volumes.
>
> Marc Riddell
>
> ----------
> From: bawolff <bawolff+wn@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: bawolff+wn@gmail.com, Wikinews mailing list
> <wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:34:14 -0700
> To: Wikinews mailing list <wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning:
> contains rant>
>
> [.I happened to stumble upon what appears to be an aftermath of an edit
> war, and am quite disgusted by it. The following is basically a rant
> about it, as I'm not really sure how best to bring it up]
>
>
> I've recently noticed a marked increased in incivility between
> contributors on Wikinews. I find this really disturbing as it is often
> between admins who one would think know better. For example (And I'm
> not trying to pick on anyone, these are just some random ones i came
> across):
>
> *"But no, you've gotta be an asshole just like always"
> *"A small amount of brain activity would lead to the presumption that
> someone in my position knows what they're doing"
> *"I suggest you get the fuck off your high horse or get the fuck out of
> dodge"
> *"they are _MY_ comment sections and _I_ can write what ever the hell _I_
> want."
>
> Now, I know I am taking these out of context, but to be blunt I don't
> care if the context was responding to poop vandalism - It is
> incredibly inappropriate for admins to say these things under any
> circumstances. If these were new users making these comments, they
> would have been blocked in the neighborhood of 2 weeks to a year,
> maybe even indefinitely.
>
> How can we really expect to recruit and retain new contributors, when
> this is how the long time contributors are treated?
>
> -Bawolff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> [ In reply to ]

birgitte_sb at yahoo

Feb 5, 2009, 6:15 PM

Post #21 of 28 (3205 views)

--- On Thu, 2/5/09, George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant>
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 3:56 PM
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Andrew Gray
> <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk>wrote:
>
> > You can see the results we've had: viz, not a lot.
> It's not like we
> > can put our foot down and say "play nice, now,
> guys" and things get
> > better. If we could solve this problem easily,
> we'd have done it years
> > ago.
>
>
> To be fair - we're playing really nice with offenders,
> rather than playing
> nasty hardball.
>
> We could politely play nasty hardball, and squash a few
> people under our
> polite polished jackboots of propriety.
>
> It wouldn't necessarily be a self-contradiction to use
> excessive force to
> try and impose politeness. That said, the ultimate problem
> is community
> interaction issues that incivility and abuse cause, and
> abusive admin
> responses make *that* worse even if we help the incivility
> problem, so it's
> probably not a wise approach.
>
> That said, making more of the civility blocks stick would
> be helpful. The
> sense of the community that some of the problematic
> contributors are more
> worth having than asking to leave is probably a mistake.

Personally I think that is the wrong approach. It would be most effective to move the center. There are always going to be people who feel the need to be shocking. If we can get the people who are only occasionally rude or who are just crossing the line of civility to follow consistently higher standards, then I think that extreme cases will improve also. That sort of approach should be more successful than making blocks stick for the extreme cases.

Birgitte SB

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: A Civil Wiki (was: Increased incivility at wikinews [en] [ In reply to ]

michaeldavid86 at comcast

Feb 6, 2009, 7:58 AM

Post #22 of 28 (3175 views)

on 2/5/09 6:27 PM, Marc Riddell at michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:

> A lot of good input so far regarding the state of communication in the
> wikis. I would like to take some time and construct a dialogue model for
> discussing this issue further. I feel this would be better - more productive
> - than me just listing a bunch of things that I think ought to be done (and
> a hell of a lot more interesting :-) ).

> Back soon,

I'm back.

A society is the "who's who in the zoo". A culture represents the values and
mores of that society. And this is most clearly reflected in the manner in
which the members of that culture interact.

The wiki society is made up of persons with a wide variety of educational
backgrounds, experiences and learning. To communicate effectively this
means, for example, that the computer experts and nuclear physicists among
you are going to have to simplify the lingo for me if we are going to
communicate in any effective and constructive way. Otherwise I will be
totally intimidated by your language and will most likely choose not to
participate in a discussion with you.

Likewise, this society is made up of persons with a wide variety of
personalities and emotional tolerances. To communicate effectively in this
case means that the more aggressive among you are going to have to tone down
your language. Otherwise some in the discussion will be totally intimidated
by your language and will most likely choose not to participate in a
discussion with you. With the result that much valuable input will be lost,
and the resulting Project's work will not reflect the total of its
membership's potential.

Every discussion, aside from the "how ya hangin'", "how's the weather"
chatter has a purpose; whether it's to solve a problem or to determine
policy.

With that in mind, I am proposing the following:

A guideline (or "rule" if you want) stating, Do not make any statement in a
discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement
of that discussion. And that, any statement found in a discussion by another
reader of that discussion that does not contribute constructively towards
the advancement of that discussion be challenged immediately, openly and
directly.

This will take time, patience, and probably involve a bit of controversy.
But with this very clear, direct approach a culture will be created. A
culture of fairness and civility that will be the signature culture of the
Wikipedia Project.

Thoughts?

Marc Riddell

--
Give them the climate and they will give you the culture.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: A Civil Wiki (was: Increased incivility at wikinews [en] [ In reply to ]

innocentkiller at gmail

Feb 6, 2009, 8:33 AM

Post #23 of 28 (3179 views)

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net>wrote:

> [snip]
> With that in mind, I am proposing the following:
>
> A guideline (or "rule" if you want) stating, Do not make any statement in a
> discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement
> of that discussion. And that, any statement found in a discussion by
> another
> reader of that discussion that does not contribute constructively towards
> the advancement of that discussion be challenged immediately, openly and
> directly.
>
> This will take time, patience, and probably involve a bit of controversy.
> But with this very clear, direct approach a culture will be created. A
> culture of fairness and civility that will be the signature culture of the
> Wikipedia Project.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Marc Riddell
>

It will never work. What's constructive? Who decides what's constructive?
Is calling someone a troll constructive? What if they really are trolling?
Is it constructive when I repeat a point I've already made? What if you just
disagree with me, could you then challenge my points as being non-
constructive since they aren't right?

Such a system requires common sense. We wouldn't be in this mess if
people had common sense to begin with.

-Chad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: A Civil Wiki (was: Increased incivility at wikinews [en] [ In reply to ]

michaeldavid86 at comcast

Feb 7, 2009, 5:57 AM

Post #24 of 28 (3149 views)

> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Marc Riddell
> <michaeldavid86@comcast.net>wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> With that in mind, I am proposing the following:
>>
>> A guideline (or "rule" if you want) stating, Do not make any statement in a
>> discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement
>> of that discussion. And that, any statement found in a discussion by
>> another
>> reader of that discussion that does not contribute constructively towards
>> the advancement of that discussion be challenged immediately, openly and
>> directly.
>>
>> This will take time, patience, and probably involve a bit of controversy.
>> But with this very clear, direct approach a culture will be created. A
>> culture of fairness and civility that will be the signature culture of the
>> Wikipedia Project.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Marc Riddell
>>
on 2/6/09 11:33 AM, Chad at innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
>
> It will never work. What's constructive? Who decides what's constructive?
> Is calling someone a troll constructive? What if they really are trolling?
> Is it constructive when I repeat a point I've already made? What if you just
> disagree with me, could you then challenge my points as being non-
> constructive since they aren't right?
>
> Such a system requires common sense. We wouldn't be in this mess if
> people had common sense to begin with.
>
"It will never work." ? That's a pretty solid wall you've put up, Chad.

The key phrase in your message is "common sense". And I don't believe the
term "constructive" needs to be endlessly defined here. This is a
collaboration and not a court of law. I believe the majority of editors in
the Project possess enough of a sense to be able to determine whether a
statement is constructive, i.e., helps build upon what's been said toward a
reasonable conclusion and one that serves only to be an obstacle, a
distraction to that construction. I am asking reasonable, intelligent
persons to make reasonably intelligent judgments here. I believe we are
capable of that.

As for "calling someone a troll"; we shouldn't be calling anyone anything.

Marc

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: A Civil Wiki (was: Increased incivility at wikinews [en] [ In reply to ]

dgerard at gmail

Feb 8, 2009, 11:41 AM

Post #25 of 28 (3118 views)

I've proposed something that may help in this matter on en:wp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#How_to_raise_the_tone_of_the_wiki

Comments and suggestions there are likely to be read by the en:wp arbcom.

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l