Wikiversity talk:Civility/Extension 0.2

From Wikiversity

Contents 1 Comments 2 Suggestion 3 deleted content 4 Fair and responsible 5 Crediting Reviews and Critics

[edit] Comments

Better than draft one, definitely. I think the "Outing" section actually belongs over at Wikiversity:Privacy policy, however, and potentially severe consequences may be appropriate for it. The appropriate/inappropriate sections are good, though so many exceptions to "inappropriate" make the policy messy and also make me wonder if we've missed other exceptions. I also dislike this: "regardless of consent to drop NPOV" (exception 3). I think users should have the opportunity to explore alternative ways of handling things so long as there is consent. I also think it may be necessary to distinguish between negative discussions/mentions of users and neutral or positive discussions/mentions of users. I am also concerned with the "provisions"; they are appropriate for privacy issues, but I am not certain that they are appropriate here. Finally: I would support the proposed policy as a guideline. I would probably vote "neutral" on it as a policy, though with some changes and some more time, I might support as a policy. The Jade Knight 09:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• "better than draft one" - ??!! But nobody changed anything yet... It's identical. ;-) More comment when more have commented. --McCormack 09:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I must have misread the first section of draft one to read "inappropriate", thinking that your two sections were "inappropriate" and "particularly inappropriate". I'm rather tired. Oh well. I still have objections, as stated. The Jade Knight 09:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I swear I copied and pasted... --McCormack 10:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the privacy policy proposal already covers the issues involved in outing, I don't think this proposal nor that one should mention outing specifically as it has both a negative connotation, isn't self explanatory and doesn't help explain what should be avoided. I agree with Jade Knight though that the privacy policy might need to mention what appropriate actions should be taken when a person's privacy is violated. I also share some of Jade Knight's other concerns with this proposed extension. I am concerned this proposal was too broad and could be used to attack people for criticizing or providing feedback on edits or actions made. I've gone ahead and removed the outing section and rephrased the rest of it, to distinguish more between talking about people and talking about learning resources. I think this does a better job of clarifying what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. Without the changes this very comment could be attacked as violating this proposal for example. --darklama 13:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you have the spirit of it better, but I'd like to see some sort of compromise between your two versions. Not sure what that means quite yet. But we should encourage the good, discouage the bad, and make it clear what is not acceptable. The wikilawyering clause is needed, BTW. Oh, and we need something about name-calling groups of people. "Those [unnamed] users" or even "users who do X are...". The only problem is phrasing it such so appropriate uses are ok, but inappropriate ones are not. The Jade Knight 14:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think discussing the bad should be discouraged, only that discussions should focus on what a person did or didn't do, rather than voicing opinions on a person's character, mental state, etc. that have to do with labeling people. I didn't remove the wikilawyering clause, someone else might have though. --darklama 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't removed. I'm just saying it's needed. Anyway, the problem with saying it's ok to discuss behavior and not people makes it really easy to get around: instead of saying "XYZ is a troll" you just say "XYZ is trolling". Or, in the case of JWSchmidt's recent learning projects, there's this general "deletionists do X" format. The Jade Knight 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean. I've added bits about name-calling and labeling people. I think however at times its appropriate to discuss behavior and it should not be hard or nearly impossible to do. I think saying "XYZ is trolling" might be appropriate way to describe a person's actions on the request custodian action page, if specific actions/behaviors of XYZ are also mentioned for example, but there might be better ways to discuss behaviors as well. --darklama 15:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Could you first create an essay about Outing (first describe what it is, then describe how it happens, then finally describe what kind of harm it does). This would allow the community to have a well crafted opinion piece, and also form a basis for coming up with an actual guideline/policy to adequately meet the problems detailed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deleted content

I think this special exception is needed. I cannot support this policy proposal unless something is done about those who seek to being the "troll" meme and the "I want a pony" meme (I will not talk to you) to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the "special exception" to "..or used to justify or protect against appropriate criticisms of incivility." I meant to say "generalize" in my edit summery rather then "general". The special exception suggested that people are free to be uncivil to people who they feel have been uncivil to them, which I don't think is appropriate nor should it be encouraged, and only mentions specific cases. This sort of back and forth uncivil behavior leads to fights that either never end or forces a third party to block. --darklama 16:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. so since a few select custodians and 'crats have claimed the "high ground" and the right to call other Wikiversity participants "troll" and to refuse to engage with them in discussion, they are free to be uncivil. That is their choice, their "vision" of Wikiversity. My view is that these "special" people should be asked to leave Wikiversity. However, since they have claimed ownership of Wikiversity, those of us who are targets of their incivility need to have some protection from these bullies. The "special exception" provides that protection in the form of free speech that can be used to discuss the bad behavior of the bullies. This will allow Wikiversity to understand the consequences of allowing bullies into Wikiversity and allow the community to take corrective measures. --JWSchmidt 16:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you right, you feel that people should be allowed to respond in kind, an eye for an eye? I disagree. I believe speech aimed at criticizing a person for being a person that someone dislikes should not be protected even when others engage in it. I believe making a distinction between "criticizing a person" and "criticizing what a person does or has done" is important, with the first being inappropriate and the later being ok. I believe such a distinction still allows people discuss issues and help people to learn what the consequences of there actions might be. Concerning "free speech", many countries that have freedom of speech laws include limitations on freedom of speech. See Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for instance. --darklama 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Dark Lama; those being hostile should have appropriate measures taken to discipline them, but those who have received hostility should not get a carte blanche to retaliate. Additionally, I disagree with JWSchmidt's edit because it is too specific—there are a hundred ways to insult a user besides "troll". The Jade Knight 00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this would open up hunting season on Jimbo (diff). The Jade Knight 06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"I believe making a distinction between "criticizing a person" and "criticizing what a person does or has done" is important" <-- I agree. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWSchmidt (talk • contribs) .)

[edit] Fair and responsible

I believe this needs to be more aligned with what Sue Gardener has already stated in her e-mail, 11 may 2008. That e-mail obviously came at a time that was critical of Wikinews members and the Foundation itself. The principles stated by Gardener are have been pragmatically followed. I don't see a need to reinvent the wheel from what she has already outlined about being fair and responsible. Let me know if this helps. Dzonatas 03:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crediting Reviews and Critics

I feel that the following, added by User:Original Spin, should be discussed before being added; I am not sure if it is appropriate here. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While everyone prefers favorable reviews of one's work, the reality is that one will typically find mixed reviews, including the occasional stinging criticism. It's important in an academic culture to acknowledge comments and criticisms which help shape the final product, including the comments and criticisms that might be considered discouraging. It's good policy and good manners to thank your reviewers, even when your inner child would rather not give them any credit for finding subtle or hidden flaws in what you believed to be your finest work.