User:Giano/On civility & Wikipedia in general
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Having been cast by various Wikipedian Patricians and their friends as Public Enemy Number 1, and as the recipient of numerous emails pertaining to my notoriety, I have decided to set a few thoughts and views down officially on paper. In the hope that many will realise my long term goal is not the destruction of the project or even any major changes to it. Unlike many of those labelled "Trolls" and "problem editors" I did not make my initial "wiki-fame" on any of the public boards, quarreling, or making trouble. I made my name by writing - to date I have had 17 featured articles on the main page and a few other pages, I say that not to boast, but as proof to those that say I have an agenda to damage the project are talking complete rubbish, and I ask all of you not to believe it. While I don't have as much time to write as I would like, I still try to, and hope to write many more half decent pages in the future. I firmly believe that is what we are all here to do - even Jimbo.
These are my views on civility and various other related matters which should concern all who edit Wikipedia, today. These views are formed as I write, and may not be my considered opinion, when the page is finished. Kindly do not edit this page - or feel the need to block me, if my views do not 100% coincide with yours - they probably won't. However, If you are here in the hope of adding your name to the IRC Admin's roll of honour then enjoy the read. It will be long and laborious, but you may learn something.
Until recently, civility was not a subject on which I dwelt for long, or one that interests me at all. One man's civility is another man's fish and chips. However, others seem to spend an enormous amount of their time dwelling on my supposed incivility and civility in general - so I thought I would put a few words down onto "paper" concerning this much debated subject.
I think to understand civility as perceived by Wikipedians one has to understand not only the Wikipedian to whom the subject is of such paramount importance, but also the way in which tendentious "charges of incivility" are increasingly used as weapon by those in authority to keep others under control.
In one way or another all of us are foreigners, i.e we are all foreign to each other - have different customs and cultures and - dare I say it manners - you see, one's perception of manners decrees one's perception of incivility. It will, doubtless, come as an amazing shock to many fellow editors to know I have beautiful manners, I always raise my hat to members of the opposite sex and suspected members of the opposite sex, I always walk on the traffic side of the pavement, hold open doors, genuflect to an altar, stand my round of drinks at a bar, and let ladies into the ski-lift first. I also say Good morning to doormen, murmur a thanks with a slight nod of my head to waiters when each course is served and withdrawn, kiss my children good night and pat the dog on the head - all things a well brought up person is taught in infancy. So where is this leading?
Well, what I was not taught to do was "fawn" over idiots and fools - indeed does one do them any favours by so doing? In fact, should one even consider doing so? - I don't think so - what purpose would it serve? I first fell foul of Wikipedia's admins when I refused to pay sycophantic deference to a secretive chatroom, inhabited by wannabes, idiots, liars and general ne'er-do-wells. A chatroom, at the time, inexplicably defended to the hilt by Wikipedia's ruling body - who steadfastly refuse to address the problems resulting from it. This chatroom was the IRC Admins channel. We don't hear so much about it these days, and I take the credit for that. Of course, it's still there, with certain ex-Arbs claiming to own it, and other has-beens bewailing their misfortune, but it's now rather a discredited place to be sounding one's trumpet and I have no respect for those that do so there.
Oddly, to me, many people on Wikipedia appear to think one should show due deference to one's betters at all time, one's betters being the Admins and Arbcom, and that not to do so is uncivil. Failing to show deference and bluntly telling the truth is not uncivil, it may at times be unpalatable and forthright, but it's not uncivil. We are living in the 21st century, there is no need to form our sentences as though addressing the King of France, at Versailles, in the 18th century.
At Wikipedia, people fail to realise that "charges of incivility" like so much else in life fall into categories. Political, bullying and downright evil. The final two categories being something quite different to that being discussed here, and would be covered by my proposals at the conclusion of this essay.
The accusations against me of incivility fall into the political category. Yet, everywhere in the free world it's accepted that if you don't want the odd dissenting voice, the odd heckler, then it's best to avoid politics as a career. I do not go stomping about the project, turning up on mainspace talkpages, where I am unknown, insulting people's work. I save my "incivility" for those seeking to prop up an increasingly tottering administrative system. A system that is held up only by an army of administrators (whose headquarters is that secretive off-wiki chat-room) overseen by an Arbcom intent on banning all criticism of its members no matter what their faults. To ever untangle this mess and solve the problem, we have first to look at ourselves, Wikipedia's editors, who have allowed, knowingly or unknowingly, this situation to develop. So let's look at Wikipedians and their types, we can even categorise them too.