Why civility matters on Wikipedia
Remember when WP:No personal attacks was an actual policy, not merely a guideline to be ignored if you're on a righteous crusade?
There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: ...
- Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.
I made the mistake of assuming this policy was taken seriously on WP. I've also come to see why it exists: writing an encyclopedia is an elevated endeavor, requiring a welcoming intellectual environment. Use of ad hominem, rudeness, and edit warring ruin that environment. They may help get rid of trolls, disruptors and hopelessly clueless people, but they also drive away productive editors. In other words, the disease is cured, but the patient dies.
There is a better way: use normal means of dealing with trolls, stay civil, and use expert oversight to keep articls from drifting off track. Let a group of editors vert a "last good version" that is readily visible to readers, while the editing of provisional versions continues.
So, I've stopped editing because the environment has become toxic, and nothing much is being done to stop it. So, ciao, and best of luck editing happily within the existing, and flawed, rules & lack thereof here.
What else is wrong with Wikipedia? I'm in broad agreement with what User:Gleng says on his user page. Well worth the time to read. --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)