(Removing all content from page)
行 1: 行 1:
[[香港網路大典]]的使命是將世上全部知識用當地語言傳給這個星球的每一個人;而香港網路大典編輯者的唯一目的,就是通力協作,創作這部無償、自由、具備最高品質的百科全書。因著這些使命與目標,編輯者對於港網路大典社群的文明有高度的要求與基準,編輯者需要彼此尊重、坦誠、溝通、友愛,來創設這個多元、自由、寬容、正直的香港網路大典社群與百科全書。
 
 
參見:[[香港網路大典:守則與指導]]、[[香港網路大典:中性的觀點]]、[[香港網路大典:維基百科禮儀]]、[[香港網路大典:不適合維基百科的文章]]、[[香港網路大典:避免常見錯誤]]
 
 
== 客觀的編輯態度 ==
 
 
香港網路大典是供全人類利用的無償、自由的百科全書,秉持客觀、公正、如實的編輯態度。
 
 
香港網路大典不為政治、個別團體或某個個人服務,因而不是政治論壇、亦非個人網誌。香港網路大典只記述事實,這包括:事物的歷史、現狀、以及人們對此的見解、計畫等,但是香港網路大典自身不持有立場,也不支持、暗示、預測、或同情任何的未來可能。香港網路大典編輯者在編寫條目時,要注意不要受限於自己的立場,而應致力於留下客觀、符合事實的描述。
 
 
香港網路大典是所有香港網民共同的百科全書。香港網路大典得以保持目前的完整統一,仰賴諸多前提要件:
 
#簡繁之間,人數居多的簡體用戶不會侵害繁體(正體)用戶的應有權益,繁體用戶也不會僅僅因為人少而覺得受到無形擠壓;
 
#兩岸之間,人數居多的大陸用戶不會侵害台灣用戶的應有權益,台灣用戶也不會僅僅因為人少而覺得受到無形擠壓;
 
#擴展地講,任何人數居多的群體都保證不會侵害其他的個體——香港網路大典編輯者謹慎地避免諸如中國中心、漢族中心、男性中心、異性戀中心等等的各種傾向;同時任何人數佔劣勢的群體都保證不會無故懷有受迫害的心理,也不應該要求額外的權利——中國海外人士、少數民族、女性和同性戀人士等等不會僅僅因為人少而覺得受到排擠和歧視。
 
 
== 民主的討論方式 ==
 
 
所有的團隊協作計畫需要民主的體制才可以成功,香港網路大典絲毫不例外。所有的爭議應當通過討論得到[[香港網路大典:共識|共識]]解決,而不是什麼事情都可以付諸[[香港網路大典:投票|投票]]。少數強勢決議,是顯而易見的錯誤;然而多數決議,卻有迷惑性。在存有相當爭議的情況下,多數人同意並不是真正的民主,而是變相的暴力。「多數暴力民主」非但不能解決問題,反而給人暫時假象、滋生更多的問題、影響香港網路大典編輯者的創作。
 
 
最常見的討論方式,是在條目的對話頁進行。如果需要更為廣泛的參與,則可以在[[香港網路大典:互助客棧|互助客棧]]提出。而如果某個問題需要香港網路大典社群的普便了解、參與,並且需要謹慎、有序的討論過程,可以利用[[香港網路大典:討論|討論]]。具體的規則和程序可以參見上述頁面的說明。
 
 
== 杜絕不文明行為 ==
 
 
香港網路大典編輯者需要彼此尊重、友愛,每個人都有權利要求對方這樣做。
 
 
===示例===
 
不文明的行為包括:
 
* 粗魯與冒犯
 
* [[Help:編輯摘要|編輯摘要]]中的定性式語言,比如:修正亂七八糟的段落,清除沒有條理的垃圾
 
* 嘲弄貢獻者的語文水平
 
* 對某人的過失予以惡意猜測及指控
 
 
相當嚴重的不文明行為包括:
 
* 人身攻擊
 
: 侮辱或汙名[[種族]]、[[族群]]、[[信仰]]、[[性取向]]……
 
: 人身褻瀆、玷汙
 
* 撒謊、欺騙
 
* 篡改他人用戶頁
 
* 號召禁制或抵制
 
 
失禮發生的例子:
 
:你正安靜地創建新頁面的時候,一個用戶來講話:如果你非要寫一篇毫無價值的東西,起碼要注意不要弄的錯字連篇。而衝突的升級發生在,你回答說:關你屁事。
 
 
===後果===
 
這類互動嚇跑其他的貢獻者,分散其他香港網路大典編輯者本來可以去做更重要事情的精力,從而削弱整個的香港網路大典社群。這樣的失禮行為使人平生怨氣,心灰意冷,甚至離開;或者激怒對方,導致衝突升級。同時,大家失去相互的真誠與信任,會更沒有能力去解決現有或者將來的爭執。
 
 
===避免===
 
* 不要進行編輯戰,可以跟該用戶討論,或者設立[[香港網路大典:維基專題|維基專題]]探討群體規則
 
* 保護頁面,這樣大家可以冷靜一會,仔細想想,同時避免衝突進一步升級
 
* 讚揚那些沒有「以惡制惡」的人
 
* 請參與失禮行為的所有當事人暫時或長期離開香港網路大典
 
* 解決爭端的根源——尋找妥協的解決方案
 
* 禁止個別引發爭端或失禮的用戶編輯相關的頁面
 
* 創制並施行一定的規則
 
* 用緩和及建設性的評論回應失禮
 
* 不對失禮做任何答覆,原諒並忘掉他們
 
 
<!--'''Civility''' is a rule here on Wikipedia. Whereas ''incivility'' is defined here as ''behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, [[m:source of conflict|conflict]] and [[m:wikistress|stress]],'' the '''Civility rule''' states that ''people must act with civility toward one another.''
 
 
Our [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedia Community]] has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of [[m:Wikimedia principles|core principles]] &mdash; the first being [[NPOV|neutral point of view]]. The second is a demand for a reasonable degree of '''civility''' towards others. Even if "[[civility]]" is just an informal rule, it's the only term that can apply, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We can't always expect people to [[wikilove|love]], honor, obey, or even '''respect''' another. But we have every right to demand '''civility'''.
 
 
== The problem ==
 
Wikipedia as a whole is not especially respectful of other contributors. This directly affects the quality of the community experience at Wikipedia. By hurting the community, the quality of articles is affected as well. This creates a cycle of incivility that reinforces itself, and in some cases conflicts between contributors over one article can expand to involve additional people and additional articles.
 
 
== Examples ==
 
'''Petty examples''' that contribute to an uncivil environment:
 
 
* use of rudeness
 
* judgmental tone in edit comments ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")
 
* belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
 
* ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
 
 
More '''serious examples''' include:
 
 
* [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]]
 
** racial, ethnic, and religious slurs
 
** profanity directed at another contributor
 
* lies
 
* defacing user pages
 
* calling for bans and blocks
 
* starting a comment: "Not to make this personal, but..."
 
 
Incivility happens for example when you are quietly creating a new page, and another user tells you, ''If you're going to write a pointless page, could you spell-check it?''.<br>
 
Escalation occurs when you reply, ''Mind your own business''.
 
 
This style of interaction between Wikipedians drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community.
 
 
==When and why does it happen?==
 
*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.
 
*Sometimes, a particularly impolite user joins the project. This can also aggravate other editors into being impolite themselves.
 
 
Most of the time, insults are used in the heat of the moment during a longer conflict. They are essentially a way to end the discussion. Often the person who made the insult regrets having used such words afterwards. This in itself is a good reason to remove (or [[Wikipedia:Refactoring|refactor]]) the offending words.
 
 
In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize.
 
 
It should be noted that some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without committing such a breach themselves.
 
 
==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
 
*Because people lose good faith, resulting in even less ability to resolve the current conflict -- or the next one
 
 
== 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'')
 
*Restrict access to Wikipedia for some classes of people more likely to be offensive (''reducing openness'')
 
*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'')
 
 
*Use positive feedback (''praising those who do not respond to incivility with incivility'')
 
*Use negative feedback (''suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave Wikipedia or simply allowing the editor to leave -- whether or not that person was the offender or the one guilty of the offenses -- in order to reduce the level of conflict'')
 
*Apply peer pressure (''voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility happens'')
 
*Solve the root of the conflict between the offender and the other editor(s) or the community -- or finding a compromise.
 
 
*Block certain users from editing specific pages that often trigger incivility
 
*Create and enforce a new rule -- based on use of certain words -- that will allow temporary blocking or banning an editor using them more than a certain number of times.
 
*Request the use of real names to force editors to take responsibility for their behavior (''although this is generally considered not desirable on Wikipedia'')
 
*Filter emails by the offender, or filter mail based on certain keywords and reject emails to the Wikipedia mailing list with those words
 
 
*Decide that incivility and rudeness can't be avoided in such a project, and accepting their existence.
 
 
===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'')
 
*Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist. Set up a "wall" between the offender and the community.
 
*Revert edits with a veil of invisibility (&bot=1) to reduce the impact of the offensive words used in edit summaries (the comment box)
 
*Decide that incivility and rudeness can't be avoided in such a project, and accept their existence.
 
 
===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'')
 
*Revert an edit with &bot=1, so that the edit made by the offender appears invisible in Recent Changes (''do-able on ip contributions, requires technical help for logged-in user'')
 
*Delete (entirely and permanently) an edit made by the offender (''requires technical help'')
 
*Permanently delete an offensive comment made on the mailing lists (''requires technical help'')
 
*Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (''requires technical help'')
 
 
== 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.
 
 
The offended person may realize that the words were not always meant literally, and could decide to forgive and forget them.
 
 
It can be helpful to point out breaches of civility even when done on purpose to hurt, as it might help the disputant to refocus on the issue (''controversial'').
 
 
===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.
 
 
:For example, if User A and User B are flaming each other by e-mail through a mediator, it might be best if the intermediary turns "''I refuse to allow Neo-Nazi apologetics to infest the Wikipedia''" to "''User A is concerned that you may be giving too much prominence to a certain view.''"
 
 
===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 a page created specifically to abuse or flame the 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.
 
 
Similarly, the disputants might agree to apologize to each other.
 
 
=== 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.
 
 
''See also:'' [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette]]
 
 
==External link==
 
*[[m:incivility|User:Anthere's original article on this topic at meta.wikipedia.org]] (''originally called "uncivility";)''-->
 
 
<!--[[zh:Wikipedia:文明]]-->
 
 
[[Category:香港網路大典]]
 

於 2007年5月15日 (二) 18:47 的修訂

除非另有註明,否則社區內容均使用CC-BY-SA授權條款。