User:Suomi Finland 2009/Wikipedia Improvement Conference 2010

Wikipedia is a good project. There is an information exchange. If someone does not know anything about Turku, Finland or Mayor Beth Johnson, one can read about it on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia has problems and is not perfect. It is unrealistic to think that all of the problems can be solved in one setting. However, this is an attempt to discuss a subset of problems.

The theme of this conference is civility.

The conference is to take place between 29 May 2010 and 5 June 2010 but late comments are accepted.

The problems to be addressed in this conference is:
 * 1) How to improve the incivility problem? Jimbo Wales noted in a newspaper editorial that incivility is an internet-wide problem.
 * 2) How to reduce drama in Wikipedia?

The forum of this conference is that all comments are to be addressed to the conference. Editors are to maintain the highest level of civility. Their comments should not address other editors but may comment on other editors' comments. Comments can be made before the start of the conference.

Comment by Suomi Finland 2009
Civility is cultural. In some cultures, one must not raise their voice. In others, it is normal to talk loudly. Yet, there are some basic ideals of civility. Consider never calling someone a name. Do not call them a Nazi. If there are blocks to prevent disruption, such blocks should be scientifically calculated. Although not put to rigorous testing, Wikipedia culture is not to have cool down blocks either in name or of very short duration (such as 5 minutes). 12 hour blocks have occurred.

Perhaps, a subset of incivility could be defined making an accusation without proof meeting the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Comment by Jimbo Wales
I believe that the ideas contained in traditional notions of Unparliamentary language may be useful to us as we consider these issues. Since the idea has been put forward, at times, that concern with civility is an excessively or perhaps even exclusively American concern, I rather like that the notions involved in Unparliamentary language are from the Westminster system.

I should add that it is the spirit of civility that I think is crucial, rather than any particular form. Hard and fast rules only invite difficult people to work to skirt the rules. (See: WP:BEANS for some traditional wiki wisdom about the difficulties inherent in trying to write down and forbid every sort of bad thing that people might do.) Still, for those unwilling to adhere to a spirit of friendliness, a set of traditions and rules can at least make the world slightly more tolerable for their would-be victims.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Suomi Finland 2009
There is already a drama out campaign twice a year. Perhaps those who bring up issues in ANI should bear responsiblity for bringing them up. If you bring it up without prior attempts to peacefully resolve it, you increase drama and are being potentially disruptive. If you accuse someone, you have to have the burden of proof. If you increase drama, perhaps a new form of yellow card, short of block, is needed to remind people to stop. Perhaps a yellow card, much like a negative barnstar, with an expiration of 1 week could be given. Awarding someone a yellow card when there is no reason is reason for awarder to get a yellow card. A yellow card could be politely worded and should be.

If you help reduce drama, perhaps a new kind of barnstar is in order.

Again, drama may be partly cultural because in some cultures, discussion is fairly quiet and in some cultures, the normal tone of voice is loud.

Comments by PCHS-NJROTC
The excessive drama is a problem affecting contributers' article building and everyday vandal fighting. However the "yellow card" idea could probably serve to escalate drama, and the notion of "short blocks" remind me "cool-down blocks," which are never to be used per the blocking policy. The drama out campaign seems to be an excellent idea, and I personally intend to participate in the next drama out event. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 16:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by TFOWR
The Great Wiki Drama Out is a great idea, one I've missed in past-years for various reasons, but intend to participate in in the future.

Another voluntary approach I'd like to suggest is a "re-purposing" of Postel's Law (be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept). Much drama can be avoided if we voluntarily avoid saying things that might offend other editors - even if what we say is permitted by policy. Much more drama can be avoided if we voluntarily avoid taking offence at what others say to us even if what they say is offensive.

I'd prefer not to have hard-and-fast rules about civility. My signature now incorporates unparliamentary language. If another editor were to take offence I'd naturally change it - but I'd prefer to think that I wouldn't be prevented by policy from having such a signature. In my experience Wikipedia works best when the community discuss and decide; not when individuals rigidly apply policy.

Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)