Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Gryllida]

>Derric Atzrott writes:
>> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).
> NVC is amazing and I very much encourage anyone to take it up.  It goes
> way beyond a method of thinking, it is a spiritual path.  Like other
> spiritual paths that means it may work if you practise it yourself.

This is a pretty violent name for such a relaxed concept. Related essays:
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Excessive_growth
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Catalytic

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[David Gerard]

On 18 February 2014 20:26, C. Scott Ananian  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Vito  wrote:

>> In my experience >50% of people asking to AGF'em are actually in bad faith
>> :D

> And I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps we should be focusing our
> attention on WP:CIVIL and other rules which are supposed to protect against
> malicious actors, not blaming WP:AGF for something it's not meant to do.


I'm really nice in person, I'm just terrible on line. Pity where I
spend most of my life ...


- d.

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Brian Wolff]

On Feb 18, 2014 4:12 PM, "C. Scott Ananian"  wrote:
>
> There are multiple readings of "Assume Good Faith".   I think pi zero was
> pointing out that it can be used to justify 'violent' communications. "Oh,
> sure, it might seem like I just punched you in the nose, but you must AGF
> and respond as I were just trying to kill a mosquito that happened to have
> landed there."  David Gerard's "stupidity" reading of AGF would be,
> "...respond as if you just clumsily knocked into my nose, since clumsiness
> is more common than malice".   Both variants of the assumption can be
> abused by malicious actors.
>

Well i agree with your point, i think malicious actors are pretty rare in
our community.

Submitting a (useful) patch is hard work. This cuts down on the number of
trolls significantly.

-bawolff
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Vito]

Il 18/02/2014 21:26, C. Scott Ananian ha scritto:

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Vito  wrote:


In my experience >50% of people asking to AGF'em are actually in bad faith
:D


And I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps we should be focusing our
attention on WP:CIVIL and other rules which are supposed to protect against
malicious actors, not blaming WP:AGF for something it's not meant to do.
  --scott

Agree, also, generally speaking I think we should take ourselves less 
seriously since, setting apart from hired devs, that's just one of our 
hobbies.


Vito

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Vito  wrote:

> In my experience >50% of people asking to AGF'em are actually in bad faith
> :D


And I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps we should be focusing our
attention on WP:CIVIL and other rules which are supposed to protect against
malicious actors, not blaming WP:AGF for something it's not meant to do.
 --scott

-- 
(http://cscott.net)
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Vito]

Il 18/02/2014 21:12, C. Scott Ananian ha scritto:

There are multiple readings of "Assume Good Faith".   I think pi zero was
pointing out that it can be used to justify 'violent' communications. "Oh,
sure, it might seem like I just punched you in the nose, but you must AGF
and respond as I were just trying to kill a mosquito that happened to have
landed there."  David Gerard's "stupidity" reading of AGF would be,
"...respond as if you just clumsily knocked into my nose, since clumsiness
is more common than malice".   Both variants of the assumption can be
abused by malicious actors.

The problem in all societies is how to establish mutual trust; part of
which requires protecting the society from malicious actors.  AGF is only
one part; it works to soothe "common clumsiness" while malicious actors
need to be dealt with via other means.  We shouldn't really evaluate it in
isolation from the other mechanisms in our society

It's certainly an interesting point that AGF excuses incivil conversation
and puts the burden on the listener to compensate, which is a rather
Torvalds-ian approach.  But the linux-kernel mailing list seems to be
WP:AGF without WP:CIVIL.  WP:CIVIL puts the burden on the speaker.  Balance!
   --scott

In my experience >50% of people asking to AGF'em are actually in bad 
faith :D


Vito

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[C. Scott Ananian]

There are multiple readings of "Assume Good Faith".   I think pi zero was
pointing out that it can be used to justify 'violent' communications. "Oh,
sure, it might seem like I just punched you in the nose, but you must AGF
and respond as I were just trying to kill a mosquito that happened to have
landed there."  David Gerard's "stupidity" reading of AGF would be,
"...respond as if you just clumsily knocked into my nose, since clumsiness
is more common than malice".   Both variants of the assumption can be
abused by malicious actors.

The problem in all societies is how to establish mutual trust; part of
which requires protecting the society from malicious actors.  AGF is only
one part; it works to soothe "common clumsiness" while malicious actors
need to be dealt with via other means.  We shouldn't really evaluate it in
isolation from the other mechanisms in our society

It's certainly an interesting point that AGF excuses incivil conversation
and puts the burden on the listener to compensate, which is a rather
Torvalds-ian approach.  But the linux-kernel mailing list seems to be
WP:AGF without WP:CIVIL.  WP:CIVIL puts the burden on the speaker.  Balance!
  --scott

-- 
(http://cscott.net)
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Manuel Schneider]

I'd even condense it further:
If you are really pissed off by a mail, sleep over it before you reply.
The more you are pissed off, the more let it settle for a while.

This is even law in many places like in german, austrian or british
armies: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milit%C3%A4rische_Nacht


/Manuel
-- 
Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Monte Hurd]

+1

Balance is always the trick.


> On Feb 18, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Daniel Zahn  wrote:
> 
> and yes I see the paradox that I also just wrote that in a hurry and was a
> little frustrated because it honestly seemed to me like those things
> weren't new. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. I'm just
> personally like: 'would rather do technical stuff.. too busy..'.. finding a
> balance between hostile environment and an overly regulated one without any
> kind of snark seems appropriate to me.
>> On Feb 18, 2014 9:38 AM, "Daniel Zahn"  wrote:
>> 
>> summary: don't reply in a hurry or when you're pissed. Try not to piss off
>> others and don't assume they just mean bad. Don't waste time. Stay on
>> topic. Humans are still humans. Be nice. Try to do better tomorrow. Kthx.
>> News?
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Daniel Zahn]

and yes I see the paradox that I also just wrote that in a hurry and was a
little frustrated because it honestly seemed to me like those things
weren't new. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. I'm just
personally like: 'would rather do technical stuff.. too busy..'.. finding a
balance between hostile environment and an overly regulated one without any
kind of snark seems appropriate to me.
On Feb 18, 2014 9:38 AM, "Daniel Zahn"  wrote:

> summary: don't reply in a hurry or when you're pissed. Try not to piss off
> others and don't assume they just mean bad. Don't waste time. Stay on
> topic. Humans are still humans. Be nice. Try to do better tomorrow. Kthx.
> News?
>
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Daniel Zahn]

summary: don't reply in a hurry or when you're pissed. Try not to piss off
others and don't assume they just mean bad. Don't waste time. Stay on
topic. Humans are still humans. Be nice. Try to do better tomorrow. Kthx.
News?
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Chad]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:48 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 18 February 2014 16:34, Isarra Yos  wrote:
>
> > That's interesting - my take on AGF always was that it was a way to avoid
> > assumptions - another way of saying to give people the benefit of the
> doubt
> > without being such a cliché (even though it's probably even more of one
> > now).
>
>
> "assume good faith" makes more sense when you realise it's a nicer
> restatement of "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice". It
> certainly doesn't mean "assume correctness".
>
>
Indeed.

-Chad
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[David Gerard]

On 18 February 2014 16:34, Isarra Yos  wrote:

> That's interesting - my take on AGF always was that it was a way to avoid
> assumptions - another way of saying to give people the benefit of the doubt
> without being such a cliché (even though it's probably even more of one
> now).


"assume good faith" makes more sense when you realise it's a nicer
restatement of "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice". It
certainly doesn't mean "assume correctness".


- d.

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Isarra Yos]

That's interesting - my take on AGF always was that it was a way to 
avoid assumptions - another way of saying to give people the benefit of 
the doubt without being such a cliché (even though it's probably even 
more of one now).


But yeah, good points.

On 18/02/14 13:43, pi zero wrote:

I find it fascinating what a successful meme AGF is.  I was so successfully
indoctrinated by it during my first three years or so on en.wp that when I
first encountered en.wn, where they explicitly reject AGF as intrinsically
incompatible with news production, I wondered how they could possibly
operate without it (this is after having wondered, when I first arrived at
en.wp, how they could possibly function *with* it).  For a few years I
tried to satisfy both camps, with the idea that it was appropriate for
Wikipedia but not for Wikinews.  Eventually I've concluded that AGF has
done huge damage to en.wp, creating a highly toxic culture there.  The
en.wn alternative is Never assume (which I'm realizing, more and more, is
not just a code of social interaction, it's a philosophy of life).  AGF, if
taken literally by its name, advocates assuming something, which
contributors to an information provider should never be encouraged to do.
If taken the way it seems to be meant (per WP:ZEN), it teaches people to
say something different than what you mean, also not good.  And, AGF can
be, and is, used successfully by people of bad faith to avoid
responsibility for their own behavior and get their victims in trouble.

I note 
this
.

Pi zero
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Dan Andreescu]

>
> I assume your good faith, and I foresee its consequences. You couldn't
> employ your NVC skills because you were, quote, in a hurry, end quote. That
> means, NVC just doesn't work when it's needed. I don't think everyone here
> has a lot of spare time to mix original thoughts with a dump of meaningless
> requests and pardons. You want to share how you feel? I don't think it's
> the right place to do this. Don't ask to ask, just ask, and so on.
>

I think this and other responses to non-violent communication make a lot of
sense.  They're in line with the old quote "First they ignore you, then
they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."  But this process
takes years and we seem to be at the laugh and fight stage.

I think violence is a particularly efficient way of getting what you want.
 "Assume good faith" is just a way to apologize in advance for employing
violence.  And honestly, I come from a culture where violence is a totally
acceptable form of communication, and I'm a violent communicator.  I creep
myself out when I try to not be violent, but I recognize that much harmony
would result from adopting the principles of NVC.  Anyway I don't have any
opinion on either side of this discussion, just wanted to point out that
the responses are to be expected.  And to say to Derric thank you, your
post was not in vain and it did not turn me off to the subject.  On the
contrary, it made me admire that more people are willing to try it.


>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Derric Atzrott <
> datzr...@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
>
> > >Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using
> > >NVC?
> >
> > I was excited and in a hurry.  In retrospect I really think that I should
> > have.
> >
> > After reading some of the replies I felt rather disappointed and
> > frustrated, and even a little sad as I didn't feel my need for
> > understanding was met.
> >
> > In the future I will try to take a little more time writing emails to the
> > list.  I'm sorry to anyone who felt offended by it or felt that my email
> > was, well, violent.  That was not my intention at all.  I just began
> myself
> > looking into and trying to practice NVC in the past six months or so,
> and I
> > am, as of now, still not terribly great at it.
> >
> > Again, I want to express my apologies, and I really hope that I didn't
> > turn anyone off to the subject.  I guess all I was really trying to say
> in
> > that email is that when conversation on this list gets heated, I feel
> > frustrated because my needs for calm and community are not met.  I end up
> > not wanting to participate because I don’t think that I will be heard or
> > understood.  I would like to request that people onlist look into
> > strategies to help everyone get along, whether that is AGF, or NVC, or
> > something else, does not matter as much to me.  I suggested NVC because
> it
> > has been a very useful tool for me in the past.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Derric Atzrott
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> З павагай,
> Павел Селіцкас/Pavel Selitskas
> Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Paul Selitskas]

Thanks for a nice tasty bikeshed on a technical mailing list.

I assume your good faith, and I foresee its consequences. You couldn't
employ your NVC skills because you were, quote, in a hurry, end quote. That
means, NVC just doesn't work when it's needed. I don't think everyone here
has a lot of spare time to mix original thoughts with a dump of meaningless
requests and pardons. You want to share how you feel? I don't think it's
the right place to do this. Don't ask to ask, just ask, and so on.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Derric Atzrott <
datzr...@alizeepathology.com> wrote:

> >Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using
> >NVC?
>
> I was excited and in a hurry.  In retrospect I really think that I should
> have.
>
> After reading some of the replies I felt rather disappointed and
> frustrated, and even a little sad as I didn't feel my need for
> understanding was met.
>
> In the future I will try to take a little more time writing emails to the
> list.  I'm sorry to anyone who felt offended by it or felt that my email
> was, well, violent.  That was not my intention at all.  I just began myself
> looking into and trying to practice NVC in the past six months or so, and I
> am, as of now, still not terribly great at it.
>
> Again, I want to express my apologies, and I really hope that I didn't
> turn anyone off to the subject.  I guess all I was really trying to say in
> that email is that when conversation on this list gets heated, I feel
> frustrated because my needs for calm and community are not met.  I end up
> not wanting to participate because I don’t think that I will be heard or
> understood.  I would like to request that people onlist look into
> strategies to help everyone get along, whether that is AGF, or NVC, or
> something else, does not matter as much to me.  I suggested NVC because it
> has been a very useful tool for me in the past.
>
> Thank you,
> Derric Atzrott
>
>
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>



-- 
З павагай,
Павел Селіцкас/Pavel Selitskas
Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Derric Atzrott]

>Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using
>NVC?

I was excited and in a hurry.  In retrospect I really think that I should have.

After reading some of the replies I felt rather disappointed and frustrated, 
and even a little sad as I didn't feel my need for understanding was met.

In the future I will try to take a little more time writing emails to the list. 
 I'm sorry to anyone who felt offended by it or felt that my email was, well, 
violent.  That was not my intention at all.  I just began myself looking into 
and trying to practice NVC in the past six months or so, and I am, as of now, 
still not terribly great at it.

Again, I want to express my apologies, and I really hope that I didn't turn 
anyone off to the subject.  I guess all I was really trying to say in that 
email is that when conversation on this list gets heated, I feel frustrated 
because my needs for calm and community are not met.  I end up not wanting to 
participate because I don’t think that I will be heard or understood.  I would 
like to request that people onlist look into strategies to help everyone get 
along, whether that is AGF, or NVC, or something else, does not matter as much 
to me.  I suggested NVC because it has been a very useful tool for me in the 
past.

Thank you,
Derric Atzrott


___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[pi zero]

I find it fascinating what a successful meme AGF is.  I was so successfully
indoctrinated by it during my first three years or so on en.wp that when I
first encountered en.wn, where they explicitly reject AGF as intrinsically
incompatible with news production, I wondered how they could possibly
operate without it (this is after having wondered, when I first arrived at
en.wp, how they could possibly function *with* it).  For a few years I
tried to satisfy both camps, with the idea that it was appropriate for
Wikipedia but not for Wikinews.  Eventually I've concluded that AGF has
done huge damage to en.wp, creating a highly toxic culture there.  The
en.wn alternative is Never assume (which I'm realizing, more and more, is
not just a code of social interaction, it's a philosophy of life).  AGF, if
taken literally by its name, advocates assuming something, which
contributors to an information provider should never be encouraged to do.
If taken the way it seems to be meant (per WP:ZEN), it teaches people to
say something different than what you mean, also not good.  And, AGF can
be, and is, used successfully by people of bad faith to avoid
responsibility for their own behavior and get their victims in trouble.

I note 
this
.

Pi zero
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Derric Atzrott writes:

Hi Derric,

> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).

NVC is amazing and I very much encourage anyone to take it up.  It goes
way beyond a method of thinking, it is a spiritual path.  Like other
spiritual paths that means it may work if you practise it yourself.

Also, there is no need whatsoever for others to practice NVC.  If you do
it yourself, benifits will follow.  While you may inspire others,
forcing your spiritual path onto them, or even suggesting they could do
so, may trigger very strong reactions.

A growing part of the Agile change management movement is adopting NVC,
as it fits very well with techies.  Google on NVC+Agile.

Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using
NVC?

Greetings, Jan

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen  | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar®  http://AvatarAcademy.nl  

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Alex Brollo]

While browsing the web for new trends of human-horse communication & horse
management, I found the website of Marjorie Smith, and I've been deeply
influenced by her; her thoughts about links between man-to-man and
man-to-horse communication - really an example of advantages of NVC - were
extremely interesting and inspiring.

I don't know why she removed her website from the web, but I saved a copy
of it into my own website, with an Italian translation (with Marjorie
permission) but - luckily - with original English front-text. You can find
it here: http://www.alexbrollo.com/people-for-peace/

If yoi like horses and peace, it's a very interesting text. It points
attention on fear, and to how fighting against fear is important for NVC.

Alex


2014-02-18 4:33 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :

> If you're pissed, that's when you use something like NVC, except taking it
> even further, perhaps. Put other people on edge too, but then if they do
> anything about it, wll...
>
> I think this may be the standard approach on a lot of discussion boards on
> enwp.
>
>
> On 18/02/14 03:26, Adam Wight wrote:
>
>> Interesting...
>>
>> I have very little authority to stand on, but in my exposure to so-called
>> NVC, it seems more appropriate for diplomatic negotiations than for any
>> real-life human situation.  IMO this approach boils down to getting your
>> way without looking like a dick.  Creeps me out.
>>
>> That said, yes it's important to always deal generously with others.
>> Unless you're pissed :p
>>
>> love,
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman <
>> d.j.hartman+wmf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd  wrote:
>>>
>>>  +1

 When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good

>>> faith" principle is often forgotten.
>>>
 Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions

>>> about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
>>> mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
>>> perceived consensus?
>>>
 To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters,

>>> but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
>>>
>>> +many
>>>
>>> Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always
>>> particularly careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1]
>>> does indeed go a long way and that should be the default mode for
>>> reading.
>>> The default mode for writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].
>>>
>>> We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English
>>> here, it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to
>>> understand the subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express
>>> theirs, which might lead to frustration for both sides. And some people
>>> are
>>> simply terse where others are blunt and some people have more time than
>>> others to create replies or to wait for someones attempts to explain
>>> something properly.
>>> Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and
>>> is
>>> thus a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is
>>> so
>>> difficult too map directly to community standards, because it is too
>>> tightly coupled with ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.
>>>
>>> I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from
>>> both Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out
>>> errors or have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines
>>> where people will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either
>>> and some of the more abrasive postings have made a positive difference.
>>> It's difficult to strike the right balance but it's good to ask people
>>> once
>>> in a while to pay attention to how we communicate.
>>>
>>> DJ
>>>
>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith
>>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
>>>
>>> PS.
>>>
>>>  Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions

>>> about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
>>> mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
>>> perceived consensus?
>>>
>>> If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what
>>> you think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for
>>> adminship
>>> and en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)
>>>
>>> PPS.
>>> I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :)
>>> For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their
>>> hands: There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more
>>> professional in communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July.
>>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/
>>> 07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/
>>> If you distance yourself a bit and just read

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Isarra Yos]

If you're pissed, that's when you use something like NVC, except taking 
it even further, perhaps. Put other people on edge too, but then if they 
do anything about it, wll...


I think this may be the standard approach on a lot of discussion boards 
on enwp.


On 18/02/14 03:26, Adam Wight wrote:

Interesting...

I have very little authority to stand on, but in my exposure to so-called
NVC, it seems more appropriate for diplomatic negotiations than for any
real-life human situation.  IMO this approach boils down to getting your
way without looking like a dick.  Creeps me out.

That said, yes it's important to always deal generously with others.
Unless you're pissed :p

love,
Adam


On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman <
d.j.hartman+wmf...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd  wrote:


+1

When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good

faith" principle is often forgotten.

Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions

about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
perceived consensus?

To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters,

but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.

+many

Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always
particularly careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1]
does indeed go a long way and that should be the default mode for reading.
The default mode for writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].

We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English
here, it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to
understand the subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express
theirs, which might lead to frustration for both sides. And some people are
simply terse where others are blunt and some people have more time than
others to create replies or to wait for someones attempts to explain
something properly.
Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and is
thus a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is so
difficult too map directly to community standards, because it is too
tightly coupled with ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.

I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from
both Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out
errors or have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines
where people will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either
and some of the more abrasive postings have made a positive difference.
It's difficult to strike the right balance but it's good to ask people once
in a while to pay attention to how we communicate.

DJ

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick

PS.


Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions

about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
perceived consensus?

If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what
you think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for adminship
and en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)

PPS.
I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :)
For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their
hands: There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more
professional in communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/
If you distance yourself a bit and just read everything, you'll find that
there is some basic truth to both sides of the spectrum and it basically
once again sums up to: we often forget how potty trained we are, even more
so that there are different styles of potty around the world and whether or
not a human/animal actually needs training to go potty to begin with. That
doesn't give an answer, but it's an interesting/lively discussion every
single time :D
Slightly related fun:
https://twitter.com/wyshynski/statuses/430734034113536000



On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <

datzr...@alizeepathology.com> wrote:

Hoy all,

I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just

hadn't

gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days,

so I

figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this

thread.

Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a

method of

communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to

reduce and

resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called

Empathetic

Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Adam Wight]

Interesting...

I have very little authority to stand on, but in my exposure to so-called
NVC, it seems more appropriate for diplomatic negotiations than for any
real-life human situation.  IMO this approach boils down to getting your
way without looking like a dick.  Creeps me out.

That said, yes it's important to always deal generously with others.
Unless you're pissed :p

love,
Adam


On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman <
d.j.hartman+wmf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good
> faith" principle is often forgotten.
> >
> > Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
> about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
> mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
> perceived consensus?
> >
> > To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters,
> but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
>
> +many
>
> Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always
> particularly careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1]
> does indeed go a long way and that should be the default mode for reading.
> The default mode for writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].
>
> We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English
> here, it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to
> understand the subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express
> theirs, which might lead to frustration for both sides. And some people are
> simply terse where others are blunt and some people have more time than
> others to create replies or to wait for someones attempts to explain
> something properly.
> Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and is
> thus a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is so
> difficult too map directly to community standards, because it is too
> tightly coupled with ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.
>
> I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from
> both Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out
> errors or have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines
> where people will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either
> and some of the more abrasive postings have made a positive difference.
> It's difficult to strike the right balance but it's good to ask people once
> in a while to pay attention to how we communicate.
>
> DJ
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
>
> PS.
>
> > Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
> about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
> mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
> perceived consensus?
>
> If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what
> you think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for adminship
> and en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)
>
> PPS.
> I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :)
> For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their
> hands: There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more
> professional in communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/
> If you distance yourself a bit and just read everything, you'll find that
> there is some basic truth to both sides of the spectrum and it basically
> once again sums up to: we often forget how potty trained we are, even more
> so that there are different styles of potty around the world and whether or
> not a human/animal actually needs training to go potty to begin with. That
> doesn't give an answer, but it's an interesting/lively discussion every
> single time :D
> Slightly related fun:
> https://twitter.com/wyshynski/statuses/430734034113536000
>
>
> >> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <
> datzr...@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hoy all,
> >>
> >> I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just
> hadn't
> >> gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days,
> so I
> >> figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this
> thread.
> >>
> >> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a
> method of
> >> communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to
> reduce and
> >> resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called
> Empathetic
> >> Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to
> frame the
> >> discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.
>  "Nonviolent
> 

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Derk-Jan Hartman]

On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd  wrote:

> +1
> 
> When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good faith" 
> principle is often forgotten. 
> 
> Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about 
> issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, 
> aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived 
> consensus?
> 
> To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters, but 
> you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.

+many

Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always particularly 
careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1] does indeed go a 
long way and that should be the default mode for reading. The default mode for 
writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].

We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English here, 
it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to understand the 
subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express theirs, which might lead 
to frustration for both sides. And some people are simply terse where others 
are blunt and some people have more time than others to create replies or to 
wait for someones attempts to explain something properly.
Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and is thus 
a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is so difficult 
too map directly to community standards, because it is too tightly coupled with 
ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.

I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from both 
Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out errors or 
have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines where people 
will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either and some of the 
more abrasive postings have made a positive difference. It's difficult to 
strike the right balance but it's good to ask people once in a while to pay 
attention to how we communicate.

DJ

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick

PS.

> Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about 
> issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, 
> aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived 
> consensus?

If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what you 
think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for adminship and 
en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)

PPS.
I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :)
For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their hands: 
There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more professional in 
communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/
If you distance yourself a bit and just read everything, you'll find that there 
is some basic truth to both sides of the spectrum and it basically once again 
sums up to: we often forget how potty trained we are, even more so that there 
are different styles of potty around the world and whether or not a 
human/animal actually needs training to go potty to begin with. That doesn't 
give an answer, but it's an interesting/lively discussion every single time :D
Slightly related fun: https://twitter.com/wyshynski/statuses/430734034113536000


>> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Hoy all,
>> 
>> I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't
>> gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I
>> figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.
>> 
>> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a 
>> method of
>> communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and
>> resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called 
>> Empathetic
>> Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to frame the
>> discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.  
>> "Nonviolent
>> Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise 
>> from
>> miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative
>> language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes 
>> of
>> communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
>> participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their
>> perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
>> 
>> The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components:
>> Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel...")

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Derric Atzrott" 

> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).

No, but I don't think it's an optimal choice of name.  In my view, it's
accusing of a malevolent motivation people who are not you, who may not 
*hold* such a motivation... and whether they did or not, they won't be
all that thrilled with having you call it that.

One of the alternative names you suggest might end up being a better
long-term strategic choice.

For the record, I rewrote that at least 3 times.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Isarra Yos]

I basically agree with everything Marc said, but you bring up a very 
good point about assuming good faith. That seems like something that 
would probably go the furthest towards addressing the underlying 
problem. Can I tape you two together?


-I

On 17/02/14 20:45, Monte Hurd wrote:

+1

When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good faith" 
principle is often forgotten.

Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about 
issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't 
heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?

To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters, but you 
unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.



On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott"  
wrote:

Hoy all,

I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't
gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I
figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.

Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a method of
communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and
resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called Empathetic
Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to frame the
discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.  "Nonviolent
Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise from
miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative
language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes of
communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their
perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]

The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components:
Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."), Needs
("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing to...?").
Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad generalizations.
Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and
evaluations.  Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others (so one
doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel betrayed, one
feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged).  Finally requests are simply
that requests, but they are not demands.  You have to be willing to hear the
other person say no.

To take a recent example from the mailing list:
"Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not picking
a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that stood out to
me as something that could have been much better expressed within the NVC
framework)

This could have been expressed as:
When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated because
my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being met.  Would
you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?

NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically
listening to those of others.  Two things that really harm this connection are
blaming others and blaming ourselves.

I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading into NVC.
I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along with the
website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication.  The NVC way of thinking
has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express myself to
people.  I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the practice that I
have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others.  I really
think that it could do a lot of good here.

Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
Computer Specialist
Alizee Pathology

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on Wikipedia
[1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication
[2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings Inventory (really
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like myself)
[3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also very
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like myself)


___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Monte Hurd]

+1

When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good faith" 
principle is often forgotten. 

Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about 
issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't 
heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?

To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters, but you 
unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.


> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott"  
> wrote:
> 
> Hoy all,
> 
> I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't
> gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I
> figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.
> 
> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a method 
> of
> communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and
> resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called 
> Empathetic
> Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to frame the
> discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.  
> "Nonviolent
> Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise 
> from
> miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative
> language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes of
> communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
> participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their
> perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
> 
> The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components:
> Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."), Needs
> ("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing to...?").
> Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad generalizations.
> Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and
> evaluations.  Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others (so 
> one
> doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel betrayed, 
> one
> feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged).  Finally requests are simply
> that requests, but they are not demands.  You have to be willing to hear the
> other person say no.
> 
> To take a recent example from the mailing list:
> "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not 
> picking
> a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that stood out 
> to
> me as something that could have been much better expressed within the NVC
> framework)
> 
> This could have been expressed as:
> When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated 
> because
> my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being met.  
> Would
> you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
> 
> NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically
> listening to those of others.  Two things that really harm this connection are
> blaming others and blaming ourselves.
> 
> I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading into 
> NVC.
> I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along with 
> the
> website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication.  The NVC way of thinking
> has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express myself to
> people.  I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the practice 
> that I
> have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others.  I really
> think that it could do a lot of good here. 
> 
> Thank you,
> Derric Atzrott
> Computer Specialist
> Alizee Pathology
> 
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on Wikipedia
> [1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication
> [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings Inventory 
> (really
> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like myself)
> [3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also very
> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like myself)
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Derric Atzrott]

>> NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically
>> listening to those of others.
>
>You know, I'm generally considered to be reasonably skilled at
>communications; and I think that I have had some success in remaining
>cordial and attentive to both my colleagues and the members of the
>community I often interact with.
>
>To be honest, if someone were to address me in the way you describe in
>your examples, I would almost certainly be seriously offended.  You call
>this Non-Violent Communication, but I find it both condescending and
>dismissive, and would certainly perceive it as a deliberate attempt at
>being passive-aggressive.
>
>TL;DR: YVVM.  Not all methods of communication are appropriate for all
>media, or of all audiences.

I'm sorry if I offended you.  That was not my intent.  I was only trying to 
help us all communicate and get along better.

Thank you,
Derric Atzrott


___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 02/17/2014 02:45 PM, Derric Atzrott wrote:
> NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically
> listening to those of others.

You know, I'm generally considered to be reasonably skilled at
communications; and I think that I have had some success in remaining
cordial and attentive to both my colleagues and the members of the
community I often interact with.

To be honest, if someone were to address me in the way you describe in
your examples, I would almost certainly be seriously offended.  You call
this Non-Violent Communication, but I find it both condescending and
dismissive, and would certainly perceive it as a deliberate attempt at
being passive-aggressive.

TL;DR: YVVM.  Not all methods of communication are appropriate for all
media, or of all audiences.

-- Marc


___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[Wikitech-l] Non-Violent Communication

[Derric Atzrott]

Hoy all,

I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't
gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I
figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.

Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a method of
communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and
resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called Empathetic
Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to frame the
discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.  "Nonviolent
Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise from
miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative
language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes of
communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their
perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]

The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components:
Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."), Needs
("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing to...?").
Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad generalizations.
Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and
evaluations.  Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others (so one
doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel betrayed, one
feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged).  Finally requests are simply
that requests, but they are not demands.  You have to be willing to hear the
other person say no.

To take a recent example from the mailing list:
"Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not picking
a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that stood out to
me as something that could have been much better expressed within the NVC
framework)

This could have been expressed as:
When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated because
my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being met.  Would
you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?

NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically
listening to those of others.  Two things that really harm this connection are
blaming others and blaming ourselves.

I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading into NVC.
I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along with the
website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication.  The NVC way of thinking
has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express myself to
people.  I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the practice that I
have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others.  I really
think that it could do a lot of good here. 

Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
Computer Specialist
Alizee Pathology

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on Wikipedia
[1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication
[2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings Inventory (really
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like myself)
[3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also very
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like myself)


___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l