Wikipedia talk:Shunning

Change of links, content modification
I think I have modified the text I added in a manner that satisifies the concerns of the editor who removed it. If not, I am willing to discuss the matter and to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. Please do not remove the content without attempting to arrive at a consensus.

The specific case that impelled me to add this qualification is that of an editor who has again and again interferred with the content of 3 pages on the grounds that the articles allegedly are not neutral. I have repeatedly asked him to clarify what he regards as "neutral," since I believe his claim to be baseless, to say the least. He recently evaded my questions by citing WP:SHUN. I think that this was improper and irrelevant, since the point of WP:SHUN is not to discourage pertinent questions about an editor's actions, standards, or beliefs. Thus, in an attempt to clarify what the essay does and does not intend, I added a caveat.

You may not agree with the caveat, even as modified. If you don't, let's discuss it.

justice-thunders-condemnation 17:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You must be joking. To modify an essay, guideline or policy to fit a purpose of your own is deprecated and frankly not very honest. Texts in Wikipedia space are supposed to address general concerns, not be a weapon in a particular current quarrel. Don't edit war, please. Giano 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is best to assume good faith, in keeping with Wikipedia policy, and not to engage in personal attacks, also in keeping with Wikipedia policy. I agree that the essay is an essay, but please note that the tag which calls it an essay says, "Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page."  I have done both.  In light of my recent experiences, I thought and think I have a useful distinction to add, so I have added it.


 * I remain willing to discuss the content of the addition (but not allegations of depradation, dishonesty, or edit warring). The only substantive points that seem to be at issue are


 * (1) whether asking pertinent questions is bullying. I do not see this.  Can you please explain why you don't see a difference?  (Isn't this question a pertinent one, rather than bullying?)


 * (2) Whether this issue is of general concern. I think it is.  Why do you think it is not?  I have seen many cases over the years in which people shun others improperly, as an evasive tactic.  Surely it isn't the intention of the essay to condone or recommend this?


 * As a sign of good faith, I will not revert at this time, but will await a reasoned response.


 * justice-thunders-condemnation 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I find no objection to the addition of this paragraph in principle, but as written, it does not sufficiently emphasize the fact that an editor may WP:VANISH not just from the Project as a whole, but from involvement with particular areas, as well. Shunning is not only a method of coping with an aggressive interlocutor, it is also a method of stepping away from an area of dispute where you have come to realize your contribution has been, or will inevitably keep being, biased to the point of being nonconstructive.  That is to say, I read the essay to endorse not responding to flamebait from your opponents talking about an edit you made on some contentious page, so long as you are willing to make no further edits to the page in question.  The paragraph, as written, seems to condone WikiStalking a bit too much.  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Jouster (and others),


 * How's the following (based on your and Giano II's concerns, and my points about neutrality in the next entry):


 * Shunning may be an appropriate strategy to use against WikiStalking, and as a way of stepping away from a content dispute in which your involvement has become unconstructive, if you are indeed willing to refrain from making further edits to the page in question.


 * On the other hand, shunning can be an aggressive, hostile action, and even a "form[ ] of abuse. In its most extreme forms, shunning "cross[es] over the line into psychological torture" .  One should not shun other editors as a way of evading pertinent questions about one's editorial actions and standards.  Difficult editors may  need to be asked questions in order to get them to reveal their aims, and to induce them to engage in a  civil, cooperative dialogue with other editors.


 * andrew-the-k 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (Unfortunately, I still can't get "the" to go hot)

On Neutrality and "General Concerns"
I believe that this essay currently has a pro-shunning bias, and that the paragraph I added will help to correct that.

I also think inclusion of material from the Wikipedia article on Shunning, which lists shunning among the "forms of abuse," will help make the essay more balanced. I think this latter article is very strong evidence that misuse of shunning--which is what my paragraph addresses--is indeed a general concern.

Here are excerpts from the article.

"Shunning has a long history as a means of organisational influence and control. Extreme forms of shunning and related practices have rendered the general practice controversial in some circles."

"Shunning can be broken down into behaviours and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.
 * 1) To  modify the behaviour of a member. [link added]
 * 2) To remove or limit the influence of a member (or former member) over other members in a community.   This approach may seek to isolate, to discredit, or otherwise dis-empower such a member ...."

"more extreme forms of shunning have caused substantial damage to individuals' psychological and relational health."

"anti-shunning ... advocates ... operate supportive organizations or institutions, to help those subjected to shunning to recover from some of the worst effects. These groups will also, sometimes, attack the organizations practicing shunning directly, as a part of their advocacy."

"Shunning ... has acquired a connotation of abuse and relational aggression. This is due to the sometimes extreme damage caused by its disruption to normal relationships between individuals, such as friendships and family relations.  Disruption of established relationships certainly causes pain, which ... may ... be an intended, coercive consequence.  This pain ... can, as with other types of trauma, impair psychological function."

"Shunning often involves implicit or explicit shame for a member who commits acts seen as wrong by the group or its leadership. ... This can be especially damaging if perceptions are attacked or controlled, or various tools of psychological pressure applied. Extremes of this cross over the line into psychological torture and can be permanently scarring."

"Shunning contains aspects of what is known as relational aggression in psychological literature. ... Extreme shunning may cause traumas to the shunned (and to their dependents) similar to what is studied in the psychology of torture."

I am not suggesting that ALL of the above be included. But I would at least like to see some mention of this article, an acknowledgement that shunning can be misused and can even be a form of abuse, and my paragraph, which provides an example of the misuse of shunning, relevant to Wikipedia.

I hope to have a serious, reasoned discussion of this issue in an attempt to arrive at consensus.

justice-thunders-condemnation 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

shunning as a form of totalitarian control on wiki
Some editors on wiki gang in parochial interests groups to censor, silence and slander editors who are 'problematic', politically incorrect or otherwise 'difficult' for the gang to control. This is the kind of conduct one sees in totalitarian tyrannies. Shunning is likely to build the reputation wikipedia already is gaining as a place where Maoist mobs rule.

Difficult disputes are normal on any topic where deep differences in POV occur. To blame the 'difficult' victims rather than to include all difficult pov's is going to create a much less credible encyclopedia. What we need are adminstrators who have some knowledge about the cunning, covert, and ugly tactics totalitarian gangs use on wiki to appear to be acting in good faith while they are actually acting in bad faith against one or more 'difficult' editors.209.129.49.65 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Really?
While I'm clearly aware that some people constantly try to create the pretense of a debate on talk pages, which should only be used to improve articles, this is already a policy violation in itself, which could be handled accordingly (not a forum, neutral point of view, due weight, etc).

In my impression, a suggestion to shun is somewhat extremist; on the other hand, a suggestion to ignore, or to not feed the trolls is much more reasonable. Comming from a background where actual shunning existed (with public announcement), that itself served as a basis to discredit that organization when I was younger (among many other aspects, but it was an important one).

I'm not surprised that it has not been accepted as an official policy yet. It might be better to look forward to a better worded policy about science being used as a consensus where appropriate (I think I've seen the beginning of an SPOV somewhere, that could be a good starting point, for instance).

Among the goals of an encyclopedia is to educate, not to make a point or to vehiculate opinion. That indoctrinated individuals exist, who don't know they are maintained in ignorance, and are lied to, is a fact, but that they don't have credible scientific evidence to back up their claims is also a fact (despite their beliefs).

I realize that the problem is a waste of time and resources of the editors and administrators, but a better policy on the topic could help, and I wouldn't subscribe to outright shunning, on the basis of civility, honesty and ethics.

We must remember that to their erroneous world view, science is but another religion, because dogma is all they know, and that's the "education" they received, which includes grandiose conspiracy theories. I will not cite the implied groups. These people deserve education, not to be cast out of existence.

Those who continue to ignore policy will have to suffer the usual consequences such as blocks, and will automatically be discredited or ignored already by the regulars. Articles will also continue to be semi-protected temporarily, or permanently, as necessary. Not that these aren't annoying means themselves, but necessary and well established ones... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)