On Jan 30, 2007, at 14:27, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I bring this
up because, when I first came to WP, the one policy I
found
most disturbing was the one concerning ³incivility². Most
especially the
practice of banning (punishing) members of the WP community for
using words
and phrases considered by whoever made up the policy to be
³offensive².
This, to me, made WP free in every thing but speech.
You misunderstand the policy. It's not about words, it's about
behaviour. Using a particular word is not, in itself, incivil. It's
what use you put the word to that is important, not what word it is.
You can be incivil without cursing, and you can curse without being
incivil - they are completely independent.
In the context of the news story he supplied, I think the point is
not to go, "OMG WIKIPEDIA IS NOT LIKE THAT," but instead to consider
the inherently "offensive" nature of certain words and whether the
mindset of "some words are so offensive that nobody should be allowed
to say them" has permeated our culture. Also, where does one draw the
line? "Nigger" has been rendered inoffensive in limited contexts, but
what of other racial epithets? Where and why does one draw the line?
I think that Wikipedians have enough common sense to recognize that
words are independent of their intentions. However, some are more
sensitive about racial epithets or even references to race. While we
strive to be collegial, slang certainly creeps into talk page and
user talk pages. If one were of the mindset that some words are just
so divisive that they shouldn't be used, how would one factor in
slang use? Or would one just chalk it up to "they think it's slang,
but they're actually racist"?
While WP:CIVIL does not say that the use of certain words merits a
ban, I do see accusations flying left and right due to certain words
in mediation and arbitration cases from time to time. So where is
community feeling? Certain words shouldn't be used, but it's far too
subjective for policy and better for a lot of people to object first?
Do the loudest objectors win? (Well, they will, but do we want them to?)
I think it's an interesting topic, certainly not something which
should be dismissed as a misunderstanding of policy.
--keitei