Wikipedia:An uncivil environment is a poor environment
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: Being civil encourages others to be civil. Work towards building a civil environment. |
An uncivil environment is a poor environment to work in. It is not conducive to a useful and positive outcome from an already difficult situation. If editors are not staying within the boundaries of civility then they should be warned accordingly, and if they persist, then blocks should be enforced.
If conversations devolve into uncivil rants at each other, how is that helping anyone? Yes, we all believe our side is the right answer and find it difficult to
Reminding fellow editors of our need for civility is a good thing as it reminds people to stay useful.
Why does an uncivil environment hurt productive editing?
So, why does an uncivil environment hurt productive editing?
Us vs. Them mentality
Let's say I accuse you of "edits bordering on
Destruction of nuance
The truth of a situation is often a subtle, difficult to articulate thing. An uncivil environment tends to result in such loud shouting that it becomes impossible to be heard over said shouting, thus making subtle, nuanced positions almost impossible.
Bad feelings
If you're in a bad mood, you're more likely to make a mistake. Incivility encourages a bad mood, thus encouraging mistakes.
Erosion of critical thinking
Incivility makes it harder for people to think critically, that is, to evaluate conflicting claims solely on their merits. When a discussion deteriorates into an exchange of insults, hyperbole tends to displace facts. When people become emotional, they become more prone to fallacies which appeal to emotion. In most persistent disputes, each side may have some facts to support its position, but with anger comes a hardening of positions and a refusal to consider the other side's case. People may lose sight of the actual disagreement, and instead focus on trying to harm the opponent, creating a cycle of vendetta.
Departure from rules
Wikipedia maintains remarkable coherence despite the vast diversity of its 47,116,955 registered users (and a comparable number of unregistereds). Wikipedia is able to do this by defining a comprehensive set of
The best way to avoid or defuse conflict on Wikipedia is to
When disputes get out of hand, and administrators intervene, they generally favor the side which most closely follows the rules. But when a dispute arises and the rules don't cover it, or when a rule needs updating, editors should work carefully to reach
When two sides devolve into calling each other names, they are not getting closer to finding the consensus which could add another important piece to Wikipedia's structure of rules.
Reinforcement to quit
Every edit which results in a personal attack or a criticism of the editor rather than their content is a consequence which, if the majority of edits over time result in a negative experience, through
See also
- Appeal to emotion
- Appeal to spite
- I-message
- Wikipedia:Civility
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox
- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
- Content disputes– the entry in the Editor's index
- Wikipedia:Society
- Wikipedia:Positivity
- Wikipedia:Turnover
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention