Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

The link intended to go to core principles on the main page actually links to the Copyright Protection page (theye are both 'CP's), which I don't think was intended. However, I've been unable to find any reference to core principles as such, so I'm not quite sure what to change this link to. Matt Stan 08:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I am sure that will appear extremely stupid.

But...this is so...

I spent a lot of time on that page. Other people participated to it, that made me happy, but still, I was the main contributor of it.

I have a dual feeling. I am real glad to see it here. But I feel sad that I am stripped entirely of my authorship over it. It is certainly stupid of me to feel this way, but I prefer to be honest about my feelings. I feel unconfortable to see I am no more the author of it in any way.

User:Anthere

I don't understand your comment, Anthere....was this moved from somewhere? Meta? Just curious. Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
m:incivility yes.
Anthere, was your original article really called "uncivility", or was it "incivility" as the meta link suggests? PaulHammond 16:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Uncivility, yup. Actually, some editors were often very "uncivil" (sic) with my spelling :-). SweetLittleFluffyThing 01:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It worries me that this very important subject matter is spread across at least 3 articles. Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I don't see this as situation as necessarily bad or redundant in a functional sense. That is, I think it's valuable to have 3 kinds of pages: 1) a succinct cheat-sheet that we can point people to from the Welcome page or in our personal greetings to new users, which I think is the purpose the Wikiquette page serves now. 2) A good cheat sheet that mediators could provide a link to when a talk page discussion heats up, which I think the "Staying cool" page is meant to be. 3) A deeper and more substantiated discussion of civility to which we might direct the philosophically or ideologically uncivil ("Duh, I know how to be polite, but this place is a jungle and so it's jungle rules that I'm going to go by") or anybody who's interested. I think that's what's going on with the "Civility" page. My worry is that with 3 places for people to contribute ideas on Civility, some pages are liable to miss out on some valuable ideas, and our lean-mean cheat sheets about how to be nice will become bloated tomes that just turn away the cranky and make them crankier. To guard against this, I suggest we formally declare these pages a "series" or group of pages, which each acknowledge each other in some prominent and official-looking way. That way, if someone stumbles on what is not quite the right page for their idea or their need, they will know immediately where to go, and likewise would-be mediators will learn that they have a choice of where to point their hypothetical mediatees, and so be able pick the most suitable one. Also if these pages are more prominently connected to one another, someone with a good idea for one of them will be led to consider whether it's a good one for any of the others, and add it, either beefing it up or trimming it down, as appropriate to the page for which the idea is destined. What do people think? 168... 17:35, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, let me throw in Wikipedia: NPOV tutorial, which I think is also very much related.168... 17:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And I think these links might be good as part of a "Welcome to administration" message for new administrators. Essentially these links would give administrator boiler plate advice they could adminster in just a few keystrokes to the needy. It might lead to the dispensing of more and perhaps better advice.168... 17:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea how we can go smoothly from what we currently have to what 168 suggests, but I think it a wise suggestion. Should we use this talk page to discuss how something like this would happen? Jwrosenzweig 17:49, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just an idea or two regarding names for this hypothetical collection. I suggest "Wikicivics". Or to make it look more administrative, I suggest calling each article a "Division" of the "Miniseries of Wikicivics," because it looks a little like "Ministries of Finance and Commerce." Maybe this play on words would be a nice way to collect other thematically related Meta articles? As I said, just some ideas.168... 01:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and done it: Wikipedia:Miniseries of Wikicivics168...|...Talk 19:52, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No offence intended, but I am far from convinced that longer articles on this kind of subjects are to be preferred over for several shorter articles. My concern is whether the text on the page get read by them who would need to read it. One distinct topic per page is my ideal.

I think it's the best to realize that contributors will contribute first and then, possibly, read advices later. Similarly, we tend to find ourselves promted to search for wikipedia pages on edit wars first when we have engaged in some.

The move of "Stay cool when editing gets hot" is what promted me to write here at all.
--Ruhrjung 18:27, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think what you're talking about is the Miniseries of Wikicivics Tutorials Department168...|...Talk 19:54, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)