Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Questions from Cunard: on desysopping and resysopping |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Questions from Boing! said Zebedee: addendum on civility (I had thought there was a later question on this, but it seems not, so returning here) |
||
Line 112:
#What does "Civility" mean to you?
#:A: To me, it defines the approach taken when interacting with someone you have not met or encountered before (which will be most people on Wikipedia if you edit widely). The default starting position is to be polite and respectful, at least until you know someone better. When you meet someone you don't know face-to-face, you take cues from facial expressions and body language. That is not possible here. A lot of the conflict on Wikipedia is caused when people say things to each other they wouldn't normally, because they are typing in a text medium and are largely pseudonymous. Part of the conundrum is figuring out a way to handle that sort of behaviour. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 01:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
'''Addendum on civility''': The above doesn't really do justice to the scope of the issue, so I'm adding some more thoughts here.
*(1) Many people have opinions on civility and what it means. Back in September 2008, I created [[:Category:User essays on civility]]. Reading through at least a few of those essays (including the excellent one by Elen of the Roads, which is not currently listed there) will give an idea of the diversity of opinions on this matter. That is something that needs to be kept in mind in any discussion about civility.
*(2) There is a tendency for matters such as this to become politicised (including in elections such as this). There are many excellent views on how civility issues should be handled, but the underlying basis on which enforcement takes place should be guided by the community-developed policy and common practice. What is needed is less politics and more development of practical and workable policies.
*(3) Discourse and debate about what 'civility' means in an online and collaborative environment such as Wikipedia is good, but when there is dispute and conflict over what civility should be, that can itself become divisive and damaging. It should be possible for the community to look at the bigger picture and come to some workable conclusions without dividing into factions.
Hopefully some of the opinions expressed in these elections can help move the debate forward, but the real debate needs to take place within the community, not at arbitration level. At arbitration level, the debate should be largely centred on how ArbCom should sanction for civility issues that reach the level of arbitration, and what should be done before that level is reached (i.e. how to avoid premature escalation to ArbCom). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 17:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
====Questions from [[User:AlexandrDmitri|AlexandrDmitri]]====
| |||