On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would agree with this completely. I fully support
that we should
ask people, kindly (of course!), if their priorities are straight in
coming to the website. And that we should exert careful social
pressure on people who are being problematic.
This doesn't mean yelling at them or shaming them, since those are the
techniques of Usenet, appropriate (perhaps) to that medium, but less
than helpful in a medium of collaboration.
Yelling, certainly, doesn't help. Shaming, in an atmosphere where there
is strong general support for certain principles that are *egregiously*
violated, *can* help and *has* helped upon occasion.
It is *precisely* in a medium of collaboration where shaming can help!
I'm not going to stop doing it, myself, and I continue to advocate its
tasteful, usually tongue-in-cheek, winking, use. Treating others with
respect is important as well; but I wouldn't attempt to shame someone that
I didn't have at least enough respect to think that they'd react
appropriately.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, of course. I expect
that, if I do something egregiously wrong, I'll be shamed; and lord knows
that on this list, people do their level best to do just that (albeit with
uneven success).
Now, don't get me wrong. I really do wish we all were a *lot* nicer to
each other than we have been. I *don't* actually relish taking people to
task for their violations of protocol. If I can do it in a gentle way,
I'll can. But where gentleness is met with no result, shaming can help.
Sometimes, violations are *so* egregious, *so* outrageous, and
*consciously so* (rubbing our nose in it as it were), that shaming the
violators is the polite way of saying, "You've really gone over the line
this time, buddy."
If someone is actually shamed *for shaming* someone in such a situation,
that's an indication that the community doesn't take its "lines"
seriously
enough. In such situations, again, shaming can be useful, and should at
the very least be tolerated.
I wish I knew an easy answer to these questions. But
I think there is
none. We can only be thoughtful and tolerant for awhile, and apply
pressure for awhile, and then eventually and *with the feeling that
we've failed*, we should ban as a last resort. And even then, the
door to redemption should almost always remain open.
I agree with this personally, but I'd like us to discuss it in a little
more depth and with a little more precision if we can. Maybe not *right
now*, but eventually.
I believe
that: 1) It should not be necessary to tell people to leave.
The community expectation should be so great that we are here to
build an encyclopedia that trolls and vandals are immediately and
thoroughly discouraged. 2)I'd rather not feel compelled to tell
people to leave because they're interfering. Most people realize it,
and so most people don't dabble where they don't belong. 3) If
someone proves a stubborn & insistent impediment, we should tell him
or her to leave. 4) When we do tell someone to leave, we should be
able to enforce it if necessary.
I think that's all basically correct.
So do I, well said.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell