User talk:Filll/AGF Challenge Purpose

Regarding item 1

"(1) a way to stimulate discussions with those who believe that wikilove and AGF and CIVIL will solve all problems." I believe this is a straw man statement. I recall running across a few old statements by Jimbo that might suggest this viewpoint, but I have not seen those who currently advocate for civility suggest it solves problems, much less "all problems." The argument being put forward is that a lack of civility creates problems, particularly by escalating conflicts.

This connects to why I believe your AGF Challenge is not titled very well. AGF is much like the classic "I statements". They are useful methods of communication, not necessarily courses of action.

I have noticed that there is a tendency to misrepresent those advocating civility, most often through straw man arguments such as this one or false dichotomies ("civilly allowing disruptive editors vs. getting rid of fringe proponents through incivility"). In the interests of dialog, accurately summarizing opposing viewpoints is an important step. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this is something that can be discussed. Let me be more explicit about what I think:

• I believe that CIVIL is very important and is of growing importance and even crucial as the website becomes more prominent
• I also believe that CIVIL can backfire or be inappropriately applied or can be abused
• I believe that CIVIL, AGF, wikilove, NPA and BITE can only go so far, particularly with editors of certain characteristics and agendas and in certain kinds of topics that are contentious and/or controversial
• I believe we are observing CIVIL creep where what constitutes a violation of CIVIL is decreasing in offensiveness steadily
• I believe that a number of editors have been caught short by these changing standards
• I believe that there are other things that create an unpleasant environment for newbies besides incivility, like a lot of complicated rules, a lousy training environment, an aggressive attitude about deletions, and other things. Just declaring that it is CIVIL because that is politically correct, as some might do, really is silly, and is not based on much evidence.
• I know that complaining about CIVIL and AGF and NPA and BITE is politically correct right now, and is done by a large number of critics internally and externally. However, just because it is politically correct does not mean much. In fact, most of those I have seen complaining about it have almost no experience in the swamps. That is the point of creating this family of exercises. It gives people an opportunity to offer their suggestions. If you do not like it, then that is fine. I think your sentiments reveal a lot about you.--Filll (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Except it isn't sentiment. I speak from logic, training, and personal experience. I find it rather ironic that you would portray advocating civility as the emotional response. In my experience, personal attacks and general rude behavior are indicators of untempered emotion, a general lack of self-control, and sometimes just ignorance.

WP:CIVIL, AGF, NPA, and so on are just tools for those who like specific rules. Please don't confuse those with what I'm talking about. Civility (in the context of Wikipedia) is about not being the one to escalate conflicts, by sticking to discussing articles, concepts, and sometimes behavior, but not editors.

I have never disputed that multiple problems plague Wikipedia. However, the first step is communication, and incivility hampers that.

Finally, before you draw too many conclusions from what I apparently revealed, I would like to point out that past assumptions you have acted upon regarding my personality and beliefs have been wrong. If you really want to know about me, you'd probably be better off simply asking. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)