Wikipedia:Hoffelijkheid: verschil tussen versies

 

<!--

 

There is a case where Wikipedia as a whole is not especially respectful of contributions, since anyone can edit freely. This makes criticism of edits all the more pronounced when it does occur. Many people forget that criticizing an edit is easily conflated with insulting the person who made it — and so they are unnecessarily harsh on the giving end and unnecessarily sensitive on the receiving end. Textual communication on the Internet does not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, so a small, facetious comment can be easily misinterpreted. What starts with one [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] remark becomes an exchange of those same, during which people are no longer interested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing" over the "enemy". This is not what Wikipedia is about.

{{Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things}} ---->

== Voorbeelden ==

'''Kleine voorbeelden''' die bijdragen aan een onhoffelijke omgeving:

* Roepen om bans en blocks

 

Escalatie treedt op als je antwoordt: ''Bemoei je met je eigen zaken''.

 

Deze manier van communicatie jaagt gebruikter weg, leidt anderen af van belangrijker zaken en maakt de hele gemeenschap zwakker.

<!--

 

* During an edit war, when people have different opinions, or when there is a conflict over sharing power.

* When the community grows larger. Each editor does not know all the others and may not perceive the importance of each individual to the project — so they don't worry about maintaining relationships that don't exist. Reputation does not count as much as in a smaller community.

 

== Why is it bad? ==

* Because it makes people unhappy, resulting in discouragement and departure

* Because it makes people angry, resulting in non-constructive or even uncivil behavior themselves, further escalating the level of incivility

 

== General suggestions ==

=== Preventing incivility within Wikipedia ===

* Prevent edit wars and conflict between individuals (''constraints on editing are set by the project — essentially a community answer'')

* Force delays between answers to give time to editors to calm down and recover and to avoid further escalation of a conflict (''protecting pages, or temporary blocks of editors in case of conflict'')

 

=== Reducing the impact ===

* Balance each uncivil comment by providing a soothing or constructive comment

* '''Do not''' answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict. (''an individual approach'')

 

=== Removing uncivil comments ===

* Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages (''this is often seen as controversial, as is refactoring other people's words'')

* Remove offensive comments on talk pages (''since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on'')

 

== Management of incivility during the mediation process ==

Parties sometimes attempt to negotiate an agreement while one party is not ready to negotiate. For example, if the source of the conflict is a specific point in an article, [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution | dispute resolution]] may be impaired if discussion is still clouded by an uncivil exchange between both parties. It is best to clear up that issue as soon as possible, so disputants can regain their balance and clarity when editing.

 

=== Explain incivility ===

Some editors are badly shaken by uncivil words directed towards them, and can't focus on the source of the conflict itself. It may help to point out to them why unpleasant words were used, and acknowledge that while incivility is wrong, the ideas behind the comment may be valid.

 

 

=== Rephrasing disputants' comments ===

During the [[mediation]] process, a third neutral party is in contact with both disputants, ensuring communication between them.

The role of the mediator is to promote reasonable discussion between the two disputants. Therefore it is helpful to remove incivility voiced by User A, in rephrasing comments to User B.

 

=== Rephrasing flames publicly exchanged before or during the mediation process ===

At the end of the mediation process, the mediator may suggest that the disputants agree to remove uncivil comments that have remained on user and article talk pages. The editors might agree to delete pages created specifically to abuse or flame one another, and/or to remove all flaming content not relevant to the article discussion, and/or to refactor a discussion. This may allow disputants to forgive and forget offenses more quickly.

 

 

=== Suggest apologizing ===

[[Mediation]] regularly involves disputes in which one party feels injured by the other. The apology is an act that is neither about problem-solving and negotiation, nor is it about arbitration. Rather, it is a form of ritual exchange between both parties, where words are said that allow reconciliation. In [[transformative mediation]], the apology represents an opportunity for acknowledgement that may transform relations.

 

For some people, it may be crucial to receive an [[meta:apology | apology]] from those who have offended them. For this reason, a sincere apology is often the key to the resolution of a conflict: an apology is a symbol of forgiveness. An apology is very much recommended when one person's perceived incivility has offended another. -->

[[Categorie:Wikipedia:Gedragsrichtlijnen|Hoffelijkheid]]