Wikipedia talk:Civility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.
	Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

The initial Wikipedia:Civility policy was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history) before being copied here.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 21 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Contents 1 Wikipedia pages that inherently violate the core principle of civility 2 An absurd policy 3 Comments on category listings below 4 List of incivility categories scrambled in terms of intensity 5 Wikipedia:Civility/Poll 6 Sarcasm is forbidden? 6.1 Sarcasm is encouraged

[edit] Wikipedia pages that inherently violate the core principle of civility

If "civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles", how is it that some pages that inherently violate this principle are allowed to continue? People may differ in their opinions of which pages fall into this category, but I would suggest that if identified with some consensus, deleting such pages (even if it means overcoming the resistance of a group of defenders who think the page is "funny") would be the appropriate course of action.

One candidate has certainly got to be Don't be a dick. Why is it acceptable to use a demeaning and highly offensive sexual reference to characterize someone's overall editing style? A civil response would be to explain to an editor specifically what it is that is bothering you. This has never been used against me, but I can hardly think of anything more offensive or more lacking in civility.

Another page which is routinely used in an offensive way is Wikipedia:TROUT. The page indicates that someone should be hit with a wet trout if they say something regarded as clueless. Personally, I find this significantly more offensive than simply calling someone "clueless" in a more straightforward manner, which would certainly be a violation of WP:Civil. I know of one editor who makes liberal use of WP:TROUT as a way to criticize various editors. He probably thinks it's funny. But it seems thoroughly undignified and childish to me to have a page devoted to the idea that editors can be told "you're so clueless you need to be slapped in the face with a wet fish" with a measure of apparent endorsement by Wikipedia.

My guess is that editors shy away from arguing for the deletion of such pages because they are squeamish about people saying they have no sense of humor or are being too sensitive.

I'm sure there are other pages that may be considered by many editors as inherently offensive and violating the core principle of civility. I'd invite anyone to mention them here and discuss the issues involved. -Exucmember (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and etc. :) The fact that something is (or may be regarded as) undignified and childish is not a civility concern; both essays are only uncivil if used in an uncivil manner. Many Wikipedians openly invite "trout slapping" as a light-hearted way of saying, "You messed up": Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_trout_slapping, Category:Wikipedians_open_to_trout_slapping. Trout slapping them is obviously not in any way going to violate "civil." The "dick" essay self-acknowledges that the label is uncivil: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move - especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and it reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." This is a recent alteration of language which generally seems good to me (although "especially if it's true" makes no sense; it's not less a "dick-move", to borrow their vernacular, to label somebody a "dick" if they aren't one), but even prior to this change caution was advised with the term and the essay explicitly acknowledged that its use could be a personal attack. In my opinion, the heart of this policy is found in these words: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." Neither of those pages inherently violates that. It all comes down to how they're used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that it is not uncivil to "whack someone with a trout" who has already indicated an openness to it. Perhaps something could be added to the page urging editors to be cautious when using it for those who have not done so, since the page says it is equivalent to calling them clueless.

How does one refer to someone with the highly offensive adjective "dick" in a civil manner? -Exucmember (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't. The purpose of that page is for each of us to apply it to ourselves, and to strive not to "be a dick". Applying that page to another editor is certainly not civil. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The page itself implies that "dick" may be applied to an editor in the natural course of events: "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true." This can even be read as an endorsement of telling someone they're a "dick" if they "truly" are. The sentence is certainly complicit in the highly uncivil behavior of calling someone a "dick". It would be less so if the adjective were a lighthearted or even silly one, rather than a highly offensive sexual reference. -Exucmember (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly am not claiming that the page is well-written. I would support editing it to make it clear that it's not a label to apply to others. On the other hand, we can't avoid the reality that people will call each other names, or accuse each other of rudeness, and it seems reasonable to write down some advice about a constructive way to respond to such an accusation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that you might consider contributing to the essay to indicate that it isn't meant to endorse calling someone a "dick" or noting those concerns at the essay's talk. As an aside, though, perhaps the degree to which "dick" is offensive is cultural? From my chair, it seems mostly juvenile: crude and silly—maybe because the word does all sorts of extra duty in referring to detectives and persons named Richard as well as indicating a state of just general indolence ("dicking around"). Except in the "persons named Richard" category and in the popular sports chain store, it's not part of my vocabulary, but I don't find it highly offensive. That said, I'd rather somebody say to me, "I think that was rude," than "Stop being a jerk," no matter what synonym for "jerk" they might choose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] An absurd policy

Since "civility" is subjective, this policy serves merely as a weapon in the administrative arsenal for blocking editors who refuse to be intimidated by threats from the cabal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Heck, if that were true then ArbCom would've sitebanned me ages ago. Durova^Charge! 06:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with the last part of the sentence there, but it is subjective and it is pointless. CIV should be marked historical and a focus put on project-wide understanding of WP:NPA. لennavecia 01:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not the communities' consenus on it. Disliking it is fine - but you have to change the community mind to get rid of it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By "Community", we mean the small group of editors who watch and edit WP:Civility. But, yes, you need to change their mind to get rid of it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just treat each other with a bare minimum of respect and you will do just fine by this policy. Chillum 03:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Noo, you've got it all wrong. All you have to do is join the cabal. The trick is to find out which ones even exist. I started a cabal, but I'm getting really tired of dealing with its membership of one. ;) Franamax (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Chillum 03:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No cabal, but there is the continual temptation to frame "civility" and "disruption" for political purposes. Anon, log in or I can't take your posts seriously ... Tony (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that and that anon's last rant is the hallmark of a cussing, whining editor who is not too happy that his rantings are not taken seriously. Do you really need to drop F-bombs to make a point? --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

as I see it, CIV is the best protection that WP has against the sometimes outrageous behavior of WPedians who have been long-established here, behavior that would not be tolerated from others. What the policy needs is a clearer expression that nobody is exempt. DGG (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom and community enforcement actions have been experience-blind of late - people who "got away with it" for years have been slapped pretty hard for continuing after multiple warnings recently.

A year ago, it was unclear if we needed some stronger policy statement to enable that. Now, I think we're where we need to be. Nobody is afraid to call admins on the carpet if they're seriously rude or abusive, and long term users with long term problems are getting focused attention as well.

Your opinion may vary, but I think we're roughly ok now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a true enough statement as far as it goes (and the changes are beneficial), but I'm not so sure that equivalent progress has been made in addressing the other side of the coin, civil but toxic behaviours which sometimes provoke experienced editors into explosions of incivility. Habitual nastiness should always be called out. Constant patrolling to punish the use of "poopoohead", just because it's easy to identify? Not so sure on that. (And yes, it's always wrong to call someone a poopoohead, but is the equivalent effort put into discerning why a long-time editor would use the term? ) Franamax (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some editors have perfected the application of the "civil but toxic" behaviour Franamax refers to: occasionally our experienced editors get wound up by it—it's hard not to be roped into that scenario if you are passionate and dynamic, and operate in contentious areas. The current failure to treat experienced editors differently when they occasionally cross the line is very damaging to the community. The instant block, such as might be appropriate for the vandal or the anon. or the extremely abusive, is often applied in circumstances where an option to apologise and strike through the offending comment promptly would provide—in some cases—the possibility of healing. Blocking rarely changes anyone's behaviour: surely we realise that by now. It often builds resentment and makes repeat offences more likely. Tony (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not in an okay place with this policy now, in my opinion. As long as admins are still handing out stupid CIV blocks to long-established editors for comments they deem uncivil or, in some cases, personal attacks when the comments are not directed at anyone specific, we continue to have a problem. The fact that civility is subjective and too many people on this project confuse offensive remarks with incivility, leaves this policy impossible to fairly enforce unless it becomes mandated that all civility blocks must gain community consensus before they are issued. But really, the whole thing is pointless, because by the time you gain consensus to block, whatever the uncivil party had their panties in a bunch about is most likely over, rendering a block punitive. All civility blocks are essentially cool down blocks anyway, with some exceptions. So as long as we're keeping up with the lie that we don't issue punitive or cool down blocks, we really shouldn't be doing civility blocks. That said, and as I said a couple days ago, a better practice would be to mark this page as historical, everyone suck it up a bit, embrace WP:DGAF, and gather some clue about what constitutes personal attacks. Violations of NPA should surely result in blocks. Blocking long-established content creators because they get angry and upset someone's delicate sensibilities is just ridiculous. لennavecia 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of this problem? I keep hearing people say that admins are doing bad civility blocks, but I never get pointed to any examples. I disagree that civility blocks are cool-down blocks, when I issue then it is to protect the editors who are being abused, not to cool down the person doing the abusing. Wikipedian's have a reasonable expectation to edit here without being subject to abuse, blocking abusive people is how we ensure that. I also think the trivializing the victim by labeling them with "delicate sensibilities" is not productive. We don't want only thick skinned editors, we also want productive editors who just don't like being treated poorly. I would trade 5 abusive editors for 1 thin skinned productive member of the team. Chillum 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on category listings below

Rudeness and insults are more general behaviours, and perhaps should be in the heading: Direct rudeness and Insults, but then in the list following they shouldn't be listed. First, because they are larger generalizations which the other behaviours are more specific examples of, and second, because they are already named in the heading...one thought.

Name calling is quite non specific as well. Name calling might be something as mild as, silly ass... or then again could be much worse. Racial slurs could also be name calling...

I wonder if the heading should be something like: Personally directed rudeness, insults, and name calling...Another thought.(olive (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

[edit] List of incivility categories scrambled in terms of intensity

It's kind of hard to read through and think about clearly when the bullets seem to be disordered, shunting from the seemingly bad to the mild and back to the bad. Some could be conflated for easier understanding. Here it is as now:

These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: Rudeness Insults and name-calling Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen") Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page to mislead one or more editors Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or to malign them Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner Harassment Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" Attempts to publicly volunteer other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform.

Could we have consensus on re-ordering this list so that it (A) moves from the worst to the mildest (or at least does this a little better than it currently does); (B) conflates similar points; and (C) groups the points into their two logical categories—direct rudeness, and strategies—numbering the points for easier reference by admins and other editors, when the policy needs to be referred to? In particular, "Using derogatory language towards other contributors" seemed to be a repetition of the first point, and the racial, religious thing was doubled up. I conflated the "edit summary" and "talk page" examples (a substantive but slight change in meaning that I think will raise no objection). From 2b I removed "from a discussion page", because such lies can occur in edit summaries and editorial comments within article text too.

These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: 1. Direct rudeness (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions, directed at another contributor; (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and references to groups such as social classes or nationalities in a derogatory manner; (c) Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel (d) Judgmental tone in edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen"); (e) Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice. 2. Other behaviours (a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves (b) Harassment; (c) Lying to mislead one or more editors, including deliberately asserting false information; (d) Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them; (e) Publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform; (f) Feigned incomprehension ("playing dumb").

Tony (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The second arrangement certainly seems to be clearer than the first. Chillum 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I too like the revision, more structure and easier to read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

an extremely good step. We should take care though not to suggest that the listing covers all the possibilities, and to emphasize that gross pursuit of lower level incivility can be as damaging as occasional outrages. DGG (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I believe your first concern (not all the possibilities) is covered in the lead ("can all contribute to"), which is non-exclusive. I would support your point about the undesirability of pursuing lower-level incivility (it partly depends on context, yes?), but I feel that should be treated in a separate discussion and a different section in the policy. Olive (section above), I take your point about the potential generality and specificity of terms such as "rudeness", but I think it is probably best that it appear on two levels (heading and first point). I think no editor will cite the whole of Section 1. "Direct rudeness" in support of a request that another editor "cool it" (more likely to nail it with a specific 1a, 1b, etc), but it's a useful structural distinction, contrasting with less direct linguistic behaviours. I'll leave it another few days before implementing this, to see if anyone else comments. Tony (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the reorganization of the list a lot. However, I have a question about one example: "Publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform;". How can this be considered "incivility", even if indirect? It's unethical, no doubt, but to say uncivil... Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here for a moment (though I like the above list), I'm wondering how genuine criticism can be made under the constraints given above. It is possible that genuine criticism can be twisted into being depicted as incivil, and thus criticism would be restricted to those who can dress it up in carefully chosen words (which would disenfranchise those who are more blunt, sometimes by choice, sometimes by not being as wordy in their language skills). Some examples:

• "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" - belittling is not good, but sometimes issues like this can impede discussions, and there needs to be a way to point such things out without being accused of being incivil. Ironically, saying that someone is incivil becase they were blunt and used a particular word, instead of a flowery sentence to say the same thing, is itself incivil under this definition.
• "calling someone a liar" - not nice, but sometimes the alternative (of ignoring what looks like a lie) is worse. The way this should be presented is "If you think someone is lying, what are the right and wrong ways to deal with it?".
• "Publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform" - technically, using {{sofixit}} might breach this, as would grumpily saying "well, do it yourself then!". Or is this referring to humorous comments like "Great idea! Glad to see you are volunteering to do this! :-)". But maybe I'm missing the point and this refers to something else entirely, such as actually listing someone as doing something, but listing them without their knowledge.
• "Feigned incomprehension" - at the risk of being ironic, I don't have a clue what point is being made here. Sometimes people are genuinely puzzled, and a little explanation, while taking time, can help move things forward. Quite where you get from that to "feigned incomprehension", I'm not sure. This "obstructionist strategy" is certainly something I haven't encountered often, but then I generally just explain things when asked.

Apologies if the above points have been covered before. Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is one - Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27, as far as the last one goes - a link'd be good too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Civility/Poll

Right, let's see where the community stands on civility - mainly on how it is applied and enforced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcasm is forbidden?

Re this edit - could you please show where there is consensus that sarcasm is now forbidden? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The passage you removed did not say sarcasm was forbidden. It said the use of sarcasm to belittle the opinions of other editors is uncivil. I think we can agree to that. Chillum 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like wikilawyering, presumably anything other than fulsome agreement belittles the opinions of other editors. . dave souza, talk 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really true. People do in fact belittle others around here. Pretty much anything can be lawyered, that does not mean the underlying problem does not exist. Chillum 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Sarcasm" and "irony" are specifically mentioned. Specific mention of these two suggests that there is something especially wrong with their use. Any sarcasm can be interpreted as "belittling" if you choose to take it that way. So re-wording the policy in this way amounts to a ban on irony and sarcasm - not because it's intended, but because people will wikilawyer it into a ban on sarcasm.

We are under no obligation to "make serious criticisms" of every idea that's put forward by the proponent of some fringe theory. When someone says that the moon landing was "lies to fool black people" we can't be expected to "make serious criticisms" of their beliefs. We're free to say "no, you're wrong, and there's a wealth of evidence to explain why you're wrong". It's belittling to have some "teenager on the internet" tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. But it isn't uncivil. Raul's laws can be terribly belittling, especially to someone shouting about censorship. But they aren't necessarily uncivil.

As I said, specific examples are mentioned. All I'm asking for is some evidence that the changes to this policy document reflect consensus. Guettarda (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some definitions of sarcasm from Google:

• "witty language used to convey insults or scorn"
• "A form of verbal irony, expressing sneering, personal disapproval in the guise of praise."
• "a type of irony in which a person appears to be praising something but is actually insulting it. Its purpose is to injure or to hurt."

Saying ""no, you're wrong, and there's a wealth of evidence to explain why you're wrong," has nothing to do with sarcasm, and seems entirely appropriate. I don't know of any situation on the wiki that can be improved by means of "insults", "scorn", "sneering", or language whose "purpose is to injure or hurt." -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page seen as being about "forbidden" things? Have we all agreed to throw away IAR and to submit to a rules-based system? When did this happen? Where was the poll on this?

Belittling others is obviously a bad idea. Anyone doing that is not helping the project. Our only policy is: "Help the project". If you're wasting your time with sarcastic remarks instead, then please stop. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Aww, man! There goes the most effective utility in my toolkit. Amerique^dialectics 06:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm should be included. I've been looking at a talk page where an editor is continually saying 'thanks for...' various things when he is clearly being uncivil towards other editors. An intelligent editor (or probably even our average editor) can use sarcasm and irony in ways that are clearly personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with listing forms of incivility is that those lists are inevitably interpreted as statutory law by a lot of editors, and we end up with endless accusations of sarcasm distracting everyone, all the time. It's a problem... -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A big problem with identifying sarcasm at all, is that it generally requires tone, facial expression, and sometimes other body language to be interpreted.We don't have those markers here so, interpretation is even more subjective than other forms of incivility.(olive (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Sarcasm is encouraged

I'm tired of seeing the main section name in my contributions list. I would say that, if you know how to use sarcasm to more effectively edit the encyclopedia than you could without it, then we encourage you to do so. Having done that, please document how it works, for the benefit of others. That's how we get new guidelines.

Recently, there have been a lot of questions raised about the extent to which civility or incivility affects the project. There are people trying to establish that incivility doesn't work. That's different from forbidding it. Forbidding things is very foolish, in my opinion. We should rewrite the policy so that its central thesis is "Incivility doesn't work" - assuming that's true.

For those who have some kind of insight about how incivility is useful and good, this is a great time to start explaining that, or else the silly civility police will lock everyone down, and rob us of important and effective tools such as sarcasm.

I know this post probably comes across as ironic, and I hear and enjoy that, but I also mean what I'm saying. If incivility is useful, then I'm all for it. No joke. I've used cursing in real-world contexts where it worked very well. I just don't think that Wikipedia is one of those contexts. I'm open to being shown otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)