|
|
|
| Zobacz też: |
 |
This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible. |
| Wikipedia policy |
|---|
| Global principles |
| What Wikipedia is not Ignore all rules |
| Content standards |
| Neutral point of view Verifiability No original research Biographies of living persons |
| Working with others |
| Civility No personal attacks No legal threats Consensus Dispute resolution |
| More |
| Full list of policies List of guidelines |
Our Wikipedia community has a number of core principles, developed through experience. The most important states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view. After that, we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others.
Civility is a standard which all Wikipedians are expected to follow. It is, perhaps, easier to define its opposite, however: incivility, as defined on Wikipedia, consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere it creates is detrimental to the project, and is therefore to be avoided.
The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern. A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, one single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or extreme profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough to result in a block without any need to consider the pattern.
This policy is not meant to be used as a weapon against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks.
Wikipedia invites editors to improve text. Often there are differences of opinion over whether a change is an improvement. Editors, in trying to be clearly understood, can be unnecessarily harsh. Conversely, editors can also be oversensitive when they see their contribution replaced by an edit that is said to be better, despite a possible difference of opinion as to whether the replacement was truly an improvement. Community members may become interested in "triumphing" over the "enemy" instead of improving articles.
Silent and faceless words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not transmit fully the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments. An uncivil remark can easily cause escalation into a heated discussion that no longer focuses objectively on the editing problem at hand. These exchanges waste our efforts and they undermine and erode a positive, productive working environment. Attempts should always be made to solve possible disagreements through a civil discussion.
Editors are expected to remain civil, refrain from making personal attacks, operate within the scope of policies, and are urged to be responsive to good-faith questions.
These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:
Incivility creates a hot, unfriendly space, and a sense of threat. With civility, respect and a sense of safety and collegiality between all concerned is created, producing ample room for negotiation. Incivility may put editors on the defensive, may create closed-mindedness to multiple, alternative ideas, and can help to prevent a consensus from forming.
A more serious consequence of incivility may be that an editor becomes so unhappy that he or she leaves Wikipedia. Wikipedia is at heart an online community. To maintain the effectiveness of the community, all members must be civil to one another and remember why they have joined the community in the first place. Editors should strive to create an environment that supports other editors and that does not encourage or support breaches of incivility. All contributors are expected to assume good faith towards each other (within reason), in order to try and uphold a reasonably civil atmosphere.
Editors can apply peer pressure by voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility occurs; however, some care is required: If the comment is read as an insult, or seems to belittle another editor; the situation could be inflamed further. Peer pressure works best when it comes from friends or people the editor already trusts or respects.
In a case of ongoing incivility, consider discussion on that user's talk page, not to escalate the situation, but to explain your objection. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement. If the situation is unresolved, an RfC (user conduct Request for Comment) can be requested to discuss specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. During an RfC, scrutiny may be applied to all editors involved.
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.
For death threats, racist attacks, legal threats, threats of violence, and other cases where immediate action is required, use the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page to contact the site's admins.
The Arbitration committee has given this advice to editors: pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption.
Civility is appropriate on all user pages. Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia, and if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption. Observe community policies in user space. Do not make personal attacks in user space or elsewhere.
Do not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Inappropriate content on user pages may be removed. You should not reveal the personal information of other editors without their consent.
Harassment occurs when a particular user is "targeted" by another editor, and may include any untoward attention such as seeking to communicate inappropriately with that user, or contacting other persons (either on- or off-wiki) in order to cause harm to that user. Repeated instances of incivility, if unchecked, can also constitute harassment.
Because of privacy concerns, which apply to the Internet in general, editors (users) are encouraged not to supply superfluous identifying information about themselves, such as home address or telephone number. This minimizes the likelihood of spamming or harassment by outside parties. If personal information becomes available in such a way as to constitute a risk of harm to a user, the information can be deleted or oversighted if necessary.
Outing occurs when a particular editor's personal information is revealed by another editor without their explicit permission.
Editors who harass other users, publicly disclose personal information on another user, or enable the harassment of a user, may be blocked for doing so.
You should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. Wikipedia cannot prevent editors from taking legal action if they feel they must do so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels.
Where the incivil comment is yours, any of these options will help to reduce the impact:
Only in the most serious of circumstances should an editor replace or edit a comment made by another editor. Only in the event of something that can cause actual damage in the real world should this be the first step (i.e., disclosing the name, address or phone number of an opponent). In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of an editor, it is appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Should removing a comment be necessary, or you wish to remove your own uncivil comments, any of the following suggestions may be applied:
Several policies and guidelines seek to lessen the disruption and drama caused by incivility and problems with editors not listening to each other. Policies such as our No Personal Attack policy, and Harassment policy set firm lines. Anyone crossing those lines cannot expect to escape retribution. The three-revert rule seeks to place firm limits on edit-warring. Blocks allow disruptive editors to be prevented from editing, and topic bans allow otherwise productive editors to be prevented from editing the few pages or topics which regularly incite them to disruptive behaviour.
For broader issues, page protection allows admins to stop editing on an article in heated and unproductive dispute (to allow editors time to calm down), and the the mediation cabal and other forms of dispute resolution exist to step in and attempt to solve the root of problems between editors, or suggest compromises.
Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project.
These suggestions may help you maintain civility in the face of difficulties. Use common sense and personal preferences to choose an appropriate option, or create a solution that better suits the specific situation you find yourself in.
Disputes, and even misunderstandings, can lead to situations in which one party feels injured by the other. The apology is a form of ritual exchange between both parties, where words are said that allow reconciliation.
For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. Demanding an apology is almost never helpful and often inflames the situation further, though a polite, good-faith request for an apology may be acceptable. Offering an apology is even better, and can be a key to resolving conflict. An apology provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||