Wikipedia:Civility
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. |
 |
This page in a nutshell:
|
| The Five Pillars |
|---|
| Conduct policies |
| Civility Consensus Edit warring Editing policy No personal attacks Ownership of articles |
Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment.
This policy describes the standards of behavior expected of users when they interact, and appropriate ways of dealing with problems that may arise. It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.
Contents |
[edit] Incivility
Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern.
In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, be understanding (people do say things when they get upset) rather than judgemental, and do not respond in kind. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. Bear in mind that the editor may not have considered it uncivil - Wikipedia is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. Consider too the option of ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue. Only take things to dispute resolution (see below) if there is an ongoing problem you can't resolve.
This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.
[edit] Co-operation and civility
Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences some editors, in trying to be forthright, can seem unnecessarily harsh. Other editors can seem oversensitive when their views are challenged. Silent and faceless words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not transmit fully the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments. An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. Discussion of other editors should be limited to polite discourse about their actions.
Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project. Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users. Welcome other people to edit the articles but do discourage non constructive edits.
[edit] Avoiding incivility
Incivility – or the appearance of incivility – typically arises from heated content disputes.
- Be careful with edit summaries. Edit summaries are relatively short comments (so potentially subject to misinterpretation, or to oversimplification), cannot be changed after pressing Save, and often written in haste, particularly if there is an edit war brewing or in progress. Especially when things are getting heated, remember to explain your edit, avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with, and consider using the talk page to further explain your view of the situation.
- Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed.
- Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or at least in addition to, the templated message.
[edit] No personal attacks or harassment
Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all Wikipedians: It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks.
[edit] Identifying incivility
It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Such a judgement may need to take into account such matters as (i) the intensity of the language/behavior; (ii) whether the behavior has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behavior, and whether that request is recent; (iv) whether the behavior has been provoked; and (v) the extent to which the behavior of others need to be treated at the same time.
The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:
1. Direct rudeness
- (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
- (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
- (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
- (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");
2. Other uncivil behaviors
- (a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves;
- (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings;
- (c) lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information;
- (d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them.
In addition, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong.
[edit] Assume good faith
Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help, not hurt the project. Everyone makes mistakes, and a reminder is sufficient most of the time, but even when difficult disagreements occur, it may well be that no one involved has any ill intent.
Assume good faith as much as possible. The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence; however, do not assume any more intentional wrongdoing than the evidence clearly supports, and given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one. Attempting to believe the best of your fellow Wikipedians, and they of you, helps to eliminate some of the problems that arise when we communicate only in text, and cannot use all the verbal and visual cues used in talking face-to-face.
[edit] Dealing with incivility
[edit] Dispute resolution
In a case of ongoing incivility, first decide if anything needs to be done. Confronting someone over a minor incident – particularly if it turns out that you misinterpreted what they meant – may produce more stress and drama than the incident itself. Consider your own behaviour, and, if you find you have been uncivil, apologize to him or her instead.
In escalating order of seriousness, here are the venues you may use for dispute resolution if the relevant page's talk page is insufficient:
- User talk page. If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page. Be careful not to escalate the situation, and politely explain your objection. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement. If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an olive branch to them instead.
- Wikiquette alerts. This is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, and seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.
- Request for Comment on user conduct. If previous attempts to solve the situation have failed, a user conduct RfC can be opened. RfCs are intended to discuss a specific user who has violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines persistently, or in a major way. During an RfC, scrutiny may be applied to all editors involved. The last step – only when other avenues, including RfC, have been tried and failed – is the Arbitration Committee, who will scrutinise all sides involved in the dispute, and create binding resolutions.
- Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page. For death threats, racist attacks, threats of violence, legal threats, and other cases where immediate action is required, use the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page to contact the site's admins.
[edit] Removing uncivil comments
Where the uncivil comment is yours, any of these options will help to reduce the impact:
- Where someone is taking offense at your comment where none was intended, calmly explain what you meant.
- Strike it out (using <s>
HTML strikeout tags</s>), to show, publicly, that you withdraw the comment. - Quietly remove it, or rewrite the comment to be more civil – Usually only a good idea if you think better of it before anyone took offense to it. If someone has taken offense already, you should acknowledge the change in a quick comment after the changed text, for instance, Comment removed by author.
- Simply apologize. This option never hurts, and can be combined well with any of the others. Even if you feel the thrust of your words is true, or that they are misunderstanding what you meant, you can still apologize for the offense caused.
In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it is usually appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page.
A special case is outing, that is, revealing information about another editor that they have not revealed themselves and probably do not want known, such as their name (if not revealed by the editor in question), phone number, or address. These should be immediately reverted, then an oversighter should be contacted to remove the information from the edit history, so that it cannot be found by anyone else later. This applies whether or not the information is correct, as to confirm the information is incorrect by treating it any differently gives the outer useful information. Wikipedia:Outing has full information.
[edit] Apologizing
Disputes, and even misunderstandings, can lead to situations in which one party feels injured by the other. 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. Demanding an apology is almost never helpful and often inflames the situation further, though a polite, good faith request for an apology may be acceptable. Offering an apology is even better, and can be a key to resolving conflict. An apology provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.
[edit] Blocking for incivility
Editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility. Civility is a goal rather than an objective standard. Wikipedia editors from around the world may have different cultural standards of civility, so a certain amount of tolerance is required. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies.
[edit] See also
[edit] Policies
[edit] Essays and other information
- Ethic of reciprocity
- Template:Civility
- Wikipedia:Honesty
- Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion
- Category:User essays on civility
[edit] Further reading
- Wales, Jimmy; Andrea Weckerle (December 29, 2009). "Keep a Civil Cybertongue: Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence.". The Wall Street Journal (Dow Jones & Company, Inc.). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572101333074122.html.
[edit] Related information
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
