Wikipedia talk:Civility

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21: 365 days

See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

This page was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This page was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

Civility toward readers?

All the discussion of civility seems to be about remaining civil to other editors or contributors, but nothing, with the possible exception of Wikipedia:Civility#Edit_summary_dos_and_don'ts, which only mentions editors in 2 of its 6 bullet points.

Are there policies or policy sections that cover civility to readers specifically?
If there aren't, should there be?
More narrowly (and the reason why I'm asking), does inexplicable in this edit's summary cross a line by implying no one could possibly find a plausible explanation (as opposed to wording such as "I can't explain/don't understand it", which would acknowledge the editor's subjectiveness on this)?

The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added a small section right at the end of the civility page. Since the page is concerned with users being civil when editing, readers are not the ones generally in danger of being insulted, so I presume not much guidance is required. Maintaining a neutral point of view seems to mandate that civility be kept because otherwise it wouldn't be neutral. ButterCashier (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I've reverted this edit - it needs some workshopping. As written it forbids "reference to vitriol or incivility", but this can in some cases be necessary to write a comprehensive article. (If the intention is to prevent edit summaries like the one objected to by the OP, this can be addressed more directly - although I'm not convinced this is necessary). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would go further and not include the proposed text even if refactored. WP:CIVIL concerns the interactions between editors. If an editor posts bad stuff in an article (being uncivil towards readers, whatever that means), they might be blocked but it would not be for a breach of WP:CIVIL. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my 3rd point and the link in it. It's not about article content. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would readers be reading an edit summary? Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1- some definitely would, after seeing the History tab; one such group would be VCS users. (My case.)

2- since it happens in change comments, I would be very surprised if it didn't also happen in talk pages, which readers definitely use: see all feedback, suggestions, and edit requests. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is also hard to see what issue you are talking about, when and how could we be uncivil to readers? Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By calling reader interpretation "inexplicable". Saying "I can't explain it" would be a statement of fact, and in part at least about the editor's own abilities. OTOH, "inexplicable" is wholly opinion ("no one could explain") and, by its detachment from specific editors' abilities, about the readers only. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that referring to readers or editors? Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If by "that" you mean the comment you're replying to, it's referring to editors failing to be civil to readers, so "both". If you meant something else, please clarify. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what we are talking about, how was that edit summary uncivil to the reader, how do we know they meant the reader? Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this change specifically: note any casual reader in this reply on the talk page, which I understand as leading directly to the change. But asking is better than speculating. Should we ask White_whirlwind whose confusion they called inexplicable?

In general, I would note that all editors are also readers to some extent, and despite over 1500 changes to the articles space I'm primarily a reader. When I first edit an article, it's because I spotted a need for copy editing or proofreading while reading it. I can't tell which proportion of editors fit this profile, but I doubt I'm the only one. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This could be an example: And anybody who distrusts governments because of what the Nazis did must be extremely stupid. I think some readers that may read this and belong in the targeted set would feel offended. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback proposal

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#To create an Editor Communication Feedback noticeboard that may be of your interest. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Wiki behaviour

I am sure this issue has been raised several times and I'd like someone to point me to the relevant guideline, discussion or ArbCom decision.

Short of harassment (WP:OWH), does WP:CIVIL apply also to off-wiki behaviour? Apparently it doesn't, if I'm not mistaken: Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia and so they apply in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians only when they take place on Wikipedia.

A couple of hypothetical examples to clarify the issue:

A) Twitting or posting on a social media something like "Those morons at Wikipedia deleted my article! I'm sure someone is paying them" (without naming editors) - violates WP:AGF - is this sanctionable?

B) "User:Whatever is most blatant rightwing/leftwing POV-pusher I have ever encountered" on a blog or social media (without doxxing) - can this off-wiki personal attacks be sanctioned as such, or can it only be considered an "aggravating factor" in the case of an on-Wiki dispute?

If anyone could link a discussion where this issue came up, I'd be grateful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against this, as (for a start) how do you prove who they are here? Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume this is not controversial, so as to focus on the principle rather than on the practicalities of its enforcement. We know for a fact that User:Somene posted on twitter that User:Gitz6666 is an idiot (this never happened: it's purely hypothetical). I understand that in principle this is none of the admins' business, right? The sentence Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians can be interpreted in two ways, if I'm not wrong:

1) "Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia (including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians)" > a contrario, they don't apply to interactions outside WP.

2) "Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia (including discussions at user and article talk pages), in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians" > they apply to "discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians" taking place outside WP.

I believe that 2 is wrong. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-religious bigotry

There's a huge long discussion at WP:VPP about how editors handle certain types of religious content. (No, please, don't add to it. Really. But pinging the most active participants: @Bon courage, Warrenmck, Horse Eye's Back, SamuelRiv, jps, Hydrangeans, Firefangledfeathers, Loki)

I've run across a talk page comment in which an editor declared "Religion is the domain of confused, old and illogical thinking", and when I pushed back against this inappropriate comment, he doubled down, saying that his belief is "a very good one. The moral very high ground in fact. Also it's not bigotry".

I'm wondering if it might help, in a long-term kind of way, to mention anti-religious comments in this policy as something the community does not need more of. There's a list of "direct rudeness" that begins this way:

rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities

and while I believe this falls into the "insults" category (but not necessarily into "personal attacks", as that is generally interpreted as requiring a comment to be directed at an individual, or "religious slurs", because they're individually polite words), I doubt whether someone who believes himself to be expressing "righteous disapproval" of "evil" would be able to see his actions in that mirror. Consequently, I'm wondering whether it would be appropriate to expand this policy. However, I don't want to see genuine content discussions derailed ("My religion says it's turtles all the way down, and it's a violation of WP:CIVIL to say that the Earth moves through space due to inertia and gravitational attraction"). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard needle to thread. I'm not sure I would describe the comment you saw as inappropriate, but I understand why someone might. Part of the problem I have with our civility policy is that it doesn't really account for differences of opinions as to what is civil and what is not. A better outcome when someone says something like this would be to have a difficult discussion where there was a meeting of minds so that each person could actually come to an understanding of the other's position. Even if opinions did not change about whether and how one's comments might be civil or uncivil; right or wrong, there should at least be an acknowledgement than in a pluralistic environment like Wikipedia you have to work with others who do not share your perspective.

As such, I would not really be thrilled with an expansion of this policy in that direction. But, then again, I never liked this policy in the first place so I'm probably not the right community member to consult on this matter.

jps (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be stretching civility to mean "don't say anything that might offend anyone" which is not possible and not desirable. This is not yet Wokepedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent about the central question, but wouldn't WP:NOTAFORUM cover the comment at the top? And if someone too frequently posts citation-free rants about religion on a talk page, I presume they can be dealt with via WP:DE, et al. Putting that aside, wouldn't "religion is the domain of confused, old an illogical thinking", which is very clearly directed at a religion rather than any specific editors, be the same as strongly criticizing absolutely any subject that someone has made part of their core identity, whether religion, politics, or fandom? I know people who take it very personally when Taylor Swift or Donald Trump or Lord of the Rings are insulted, for example. As long as we're talking about the thing itself and not a specific believer/supporter/fan, it seems like we're in the realm of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:DE rather than WP:CIVILITY... although I'm sure there are some obvious gray areas. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think NOTAFORUM would apply, since it's really off topic.

I don't think this is equivalent to the Swifties. I think this could well be equivalent to saying that Trump supporters are stupid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]