Wikiversity talk:Civility

policy in a nutshell
I suggest an addition to This policy in a nutshell:


 * Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikiversity from working properly. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. If you did though, apologize.

It is always helpful to have a clear guideline, especially if something went wrong.

Also later on the page, I'd suggest to add: 'If you happend to have offended someone, apologize. Remove the offense, if possible, and keep the apology. Do not expect others to act likewise, though.' Thanks for your consideration. --Purodha 16:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice bullet suggestion Purodha! I boldly added it to the "Reducing the Impact" section with a couple of minor changes.  Please check the bullet and tweak it if you have better wording or structure.  Mirwin 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting on Official Policy Status
The vote for this policy took place here. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition
I propose that the use of straw men be listed as an example of incivility. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If no one is opposed, I'll add it. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Note (removed from main page)
Editorial Note: This draft proposed policy is an attempt to allow heated factions a chance to go separate editing ways within the database during a cooling off period. Unlike an encyclypedia a learning institution can have multiple versions of material diverging as opposing factions get their logical arguments, references, assumed facts, and assumptions lined out. Please explore and express your opinion by voting here of this as a standard practice to help manage and reduce unnecessary strife. This note is not yet part of this policy proposal and should be deleted if the above link goes inactive. Mirwin 06:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Relics?
A few of the suggestions were imported from Wikipedia, and seem to be in the formative/suggestive stage, and more appropriate for discussion than official policy. Examples: I recommend such examples be removed from the policy. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Block certain users from editing specific pages that often trigger incivility
 * Create and enforce a new rule — based on use of certain words — that will allow temporary blocking or banning an editor using them more than a certain number of times.
 * Filter emails by the offender, or filter mail based on certain keywords and reject emails to the Wikiversity mailing list with those words

Name-calling
While current policy already implies this, I recommend we explicitly add "name-calling" as an example under "Personal Attacks" in this policy. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 16:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to agree. --mikeu talk 21:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Privatemusing using a fact on Jimbo Wales' comment
Even though Wikiversity is often considered to be a more mellowed and civil place than Wikipedia, in the spirit of pan-wikimedianism, as far as I can tell, putting a fact on someone else's comment is not "rude" (i.e. un-civil) or "vandalism" in the Wikimedia world unless that person happens to be Jimbo Wales.. I am surprised that my objective documentation of the status quo is described as "unhelpful", nonsense and "a silly attack on Jimbo" by User:Adambro.

It is very difficult to live in a place where the rules are arbitrary.

Adambro, my simple request is that you slow down and check your facts and talk to other Wikiversitians before you make any judgement and take any action. I hope that wouldn't be considered as unhelpful, nonsense or a silly attack on you. Best regards, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 17:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stuff like this has no place in what should be serious policy. There's not a lot more for me to say. Adambro 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but we are here to talk. Let the events tell the story and the community be the judge.  Enough said. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 18:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was inappropriate and Privatemusings knows it was. We are not Wikipedia, nor will we be Wikipedia. Comparisons between the two are not apt. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "It was inappropriate and Privatemusings knows it was." <-- I was tempted to insert into that statement, but I'll ask here: Why was it inappropriate? --JWSchmidt 18:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not edit other people's comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)