編集内容への批判は、一歩間違えるだけで編集した人への無礼になる、という事は忘れられがちです。 だから批判する側の人は不必要にとげとげしく、批判される側の人は不必要に敏感になるのです。 インターネット上の文章による意思疎通では、声による会話のように他人にニュアンスを伝えることができません。だから、たわいもない軽薄な一言は、簡単に誤解されてしまいます。 たった一つの不作法な意見が、同じような言葉のやり取りのきっかけになってしまい、参加者が記事の内容を向上させることではなく、"敵"に"勝利"を収めることに血道を上げるようになるのです。これはウィキバーシティが目指しているところではありません。Wikiversity:ウィキバーシティとは何かも参照してください。
- Pagemove Trollingを通して、ユーザーに軽蔑的な名前を与える。
- During an edit war, when people have different opinions, or when there is a conflict over sharing power.
- When the community grows larger. Each editor does not know all the others and may not perceive the importance of each individual to the project — so they don't worry about maintaining relationships that don't exist. Reputation does not count as much as in a smaller community.
- Sometimes, a particularly impolite user joins the project. This can also aggravate other editors into being impolite themselves.
Most of the time, insults are used in the heat of the moment during a longer conflict. They are essentially a way to end the discussion. Often the person who made the insult regrets having used such words afterwards. This in itself is a good reason to remove (or refactor) the offending words.
In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize.
It should be noted that some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without committing such a breach themselves.
Why is it bad?[編集]
- Because it makes people unhappy, resulting in discouragement and departure
- Because it makes people angry, resulting in non-constructive or even uncivil behavior themselves, further escalating the level of incivility
- Because it puts people on the defensive, closing their minds to other ideas and preventing a consensus from forming
- Because people lose good faith, resulting in even less ability to resolve the current conflict — or the next one
Preventing incivility within Wikiversity[編集]
- Prevent edit wars and conflict between individuals (constraints on editing are set by the project — essentially a community answer)
- Force delays between answers to give time to editors to calm down and recover and to avoid further escalation of a conflict (protecting pages, or temporary blocks of editors in case of conflict)
- Use positive feedback (praising those who do not respond to incivility with incivility)
- Apply peer pressure (voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility happens)
- Solve the root of the conflict between the offender and the other editor(s) or the community — or find a compromise.
- Use negative feedback (suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave a conflict or even temporarily avoid all controversial areas in Wikiversity). It may be worthwhile making such suggestions to both sides of the conflict.
- Block certain users from editing specific pages that often trigger incivility
- Create and enforce a new rule — based on use of certain words — that will allow temporary blocking or banning an editor using them more than a certain number of times.
- Filter emails by the offender, or filter mail based on certain keywords and reject emails to the Wikiversity mailing list with those words
- Accepting that incivility and rudeness can't be entirely avoided in such a project, and not responding in kind.
- Giving awards for good edits.
Editorial Note: This draft proposed policyen:Wikiversity:Productive_Forking_and_Tailoring_is_Encouraged is an attempt to allow heated factions a chance to go separate editing ways within the database during a cooling off period. Unlike an encyclypedia a learning institution can have multiple versions of material diverging as opposing factions get their logical arguments, references, assumed facts, and assumptions lined out. Please explore and express your opinion by voting hereen:Wikiversity:Policies of this as a standard practice to help manage and reduce unnecessary strife. This note is not yet part of this policy proposal and should be deleted if the above link goes inactive. Mirwin 06:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Reducing the impact[編集]
- Balance each uncivil comment by providing a soothing or constructive comment
- Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict. (an individual approach)
- Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist. Set up a "wall" between the offender and the community.
- Revert edits with a veil of invisibility (&bot=1) to reduce the impact of the offensive words used in edit summaries (the comment box)
- Walk away. Just go edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled.
- If you happen to offend someone, apologize. Remove the offense, if possible, and keep the apology. However, please do not expect or attempt to mandate that others act likewise.
Removing uncivil comments[編集]
- Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages (this is often seen as controversial, as is refactoring other people's words)
- Remove offensive comments on talk pages (since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on)
- Revert an edit with &bot=1, so that the edit made by the offender appears invisible in Recent Changes (do-able on ip contributions, requires technical help for logged-in user)
- Delete (entirely and permanently) an edit made by the offender (requires technical help)
- Permanently delete an offensive comment made on the mailing lists (requires technical help)
- Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (requires technical help)
Some editors are badly shaken by uncivil words directed towards them, and can't focus on the source of the conflict itself. It may help to point out to them why unpleasant words were used, and acknowledge that while incivility is wrong, the ideas behind the comment may be valid.
The offended person may realize that the words were not always meant literally, and could decide to forgive and forget them.
It can be helpful to point out breaches of civility even when done on purpose to hurt, as it might help the disputant to refocus on the issue (controversial).
The apology is a form of ritual exchange between both parties, where words are said that allow reconciliation.
For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. For this reason, a sincere apology is often the key to the resolution of a conflict: an apology is a symbol of forgiveness. An apology is very much recommended when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.
- Help:Resource attribution - an optional scheme for promoting civility and cooperation between educators when someone has an interest in a particular resource page and may need it for their classes.