Marc Riddell wrote: > Carcharoth, I believe the problem we as a community are having with the > issue of civility is finding a definition of it that everyone can agree > upon. And, since the very concept of civility is so highly subjective, that > agreeing upon a firm definition is impossible. On the other hand ... it is not the only such issue. And insisting that everything be spelled out in detail is a type of wikilawyering. We have had extensive experience of this kind of issue with policies. We do not accept that the only criterion of a robust policy is a water-tight definition. For example, disruption is not accepted on Wikipedia, but there is no actual policy with a definition.
What works is this: - there is a policy and it is open to revision by those who think they can improve it; - policies apply to everyone who contributes to Wikipedia, not just those who approve of that particular policy and its formulation; - policies have a central point for which there is a real consensus, whatever the details as represented in the wording says today; - this central point is deserving of respect in the context of what we do, daily, as editors, and creates a clear expectation on behaviour of those on Wikipedia; - people show respect for the policy by "staying on the fairway", not gaming it at the margins; - policies are in the end enforced on everyone, even though enforcement of policy is an art not a science and always takes into account factors such as the good of the mission; - the community rules out the creation of special cases and insists on a universal approach. Together these aspects of policy work. Not all policies do work as well as they should, but I think the fault can then be laid at the door of some breakdown in those seven points. Invoking general "cultural factors" is something of a cop-out. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l