Wikipedia talk:Civility
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
 | The initial Wikipedia:Civility essay was largely authored by Anthere and others at m:Incivility (history, Jan-Feb. 2004). It was copied here and put into substantive form ("Civility") by Stevertigo (Feb. 2004), who earlier raised the issue on wikien-l.[1] & [2] (Oct. 4, 2003). In codified form, it was thereafter referenced as a statement of principle and soon after considered "policy." Long before the creation of the formal policy, Jimbo Wales wrote his statement of principles, wherein certain points echo the idea of civility. Larry Sanger raised the issue of "making [WP] more civil," [3], [4] & [5] (Nov. 2002) after reading The Cunctator's essay "How to destroy Wikipedia" (Mar. 2002). Jimbo Wales picked up on Larry's point [6] [7], and thereafter Ed Poor and others kept it alive, until the need for a formal policy came about in late 2003. Also, note a poll on editors' thoughts on the policy at the time in 2009. |
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
| This page was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Reverting
Should we encourage reverting edits that are uncivil or perceived as such more? There seems to be already some old discussions about how this policy is poorly or inconsistently enforced, many of which are more polemic than constructive. I guess reverting for incivility can be misused, as much as any Wikipedia policy, but if done right (with a not provocative edit summary) it could lead to a more constructive rephrasing. Discussions prone to incivility seem likely to be scrutinized more often by the involved editors, so abusing this for some kind of censorship seems less likely. The major benefit I see in this kind of approach is that less polite contributions will have a lower visibility and will not be perceived as an acceptable behavior by other contributors (replies which just mention the policy, rightfully or not, can have the opposite effect or be equally incivil, the article looks sometimes as a guide to escalate the problem instead of solving it). Not sure how this should be phrased in the already long article and some similar thoughts can apply to wp:NPA, but comments and suggestions are welcomed. Quaqual (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Which uncivil edits are you referring to? In what way do these edits show us that the policy at WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL is inadequate? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Civility toward readers?
All the discussion of civility seems to be about remaining civil to other editors or contributors, but nothing, with the possible exception of Wikipedia:Civility#Edit_summary_dos_and_don'ts, which only mentions editors in 2 of its 6 bullet points.
- Are there policies or policy sections that cover civility to readers specifically?
- If there aren't, should there be?
- More narrowly (and the reason why I'm asking), does
inexplicable
in this edit's summary cross a line by implying no one could possibly find a plausible explanation (as opposed to wording such as "I can't explain/don't understand it", which would acknowledge the editor's subjectiveness on this)?
The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I added a small section right at the end of the civility page. Since the page is concerned with users being civil when editing, readers are not the ones generally in danger of being insulted, so I presume not much guidance is required. Maintaining a neutral point of view seems to mandate that civility be kept because otherwise it wouldn't be neutral. ButterCashier (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just noting that I've reverted this edit - it needs some workshopping. As written it forbids "reference to vitriol or incivility", but this can in some cases be necessary to write a comprehensive article. (If the intention is to prevent edit summaries like the one objected to by the OP, this can be addressed more directly - although I'm not convinced this is necessary). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I would go further and not include the proposed text even if refactored. WP:CIVIL concerns the interactions between editors. If an editor posts bad stuff in an article (being uncivil towards readers, whatever that means), they might be blocked but it would not be for a breach of WP:CIVIL. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- See my 3rd point and the link in it. It's not about article content. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I would go further and not include the proposed text even if refactored. WP:CIVIL concerns the interactions between editors. If an editor posts bad stuff in an article (being uncivil towards readers, whatever that means), they might be blocked but it would not be for a breach of WP:CIVIL. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- be nice dude be nice dude 24.52.157.106 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just noting that I've reverted this edit - it needs some workshopping. As written it forbids "reference to vitriol or incivility", but this can in some cases be necessary to write a comprehensive article. (If the intention is to prevent edit summaries like the one objected to by the OP, this can be addressed more directly - although I'm not convinced this is necessary). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why would readers be reading an edit summary? Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- 1- some definitely would, after seeing the History tab; one such group would be VCS users. (My case.)
- 2- since it happens in change comments, I would be very surprised if it didn't also happen in talk pages, which readers definitely use: see all feedback, suggestions, and edit requests. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is also hard to see what issue you are talking about, when and how could we be uncivil to readers? Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- By calling reader interpretation "inexplicable". Saying "I can't explain it" would be a statement of fact, and in part at least about the editor's own abilities. OTOH, "inexplicable" is wholly opinion ("no one could explain") and, by its detachment from specific editors' abilities, about the readers only. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Is that referring to readers or editors? Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- If by "that" you mean the comment you're replying to, it's referring to editors failing to be civil to readers, so "both". If you meant something else, please clarify. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- I mean what we are talking about, how was that edit summary uncivil to the reader, how do we know they meant the reader? Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- If by "that" you mean the comment you're replying to, it's referring to editors failing to be civil to readers, so "both". If you meant something else, please clarify. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Is that referring to readers or editors? Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- By calling reader interpretation "inexplicable". Saying "I can't explain it" would be a statement of fact, and in part at least about the editor's own abilities. OTOH, "inexplicable" is wholly opinion ("no one could explain") and, by its detachment from specific editors' abilities, about the readers only. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)