[PREV - JPOP_SUMMIT] [TOP]
July 28, 2009
There are two different ways you can
set-up discussion groups. There's one
style where direct, honest speech is
welcomed, and the burden is on the Usenet is typically
listener to try to rise above any in the first camp.
perceived insult ("grow some skin"). In
the other style the burden is placed on USENET
the speaker to make an effort to be
polite, to avoid insult, and so on. MONKEYS_BUTT
FREE_SPEECH_DETOX
Wikipedia, for example, is
clearly in the second camp,
it's guidlines include:
"Civility",
"No Personal Attacks",
"Do Not Bite the Newcomers"
The first thing to observe
about these two approaches is NOTHING_WORKS
that neither of them work.
It's certainly not hard for
me to think of examples of
forums where a spirit of
camraderie reigned until one
or two jerks managed to drag
the tone of the group down.
But also, it's not hard for
me to think of examples of
groups where the mandated Dicussions on wikipedia can
civility has been a cover for get positively creepy, with
incivility. Politeness rules everyone pretending to be
have a way of being enforced all neutral and polite with
inconsistently... few cues as to what someone
is *really* thinking.
THE_TOY_WEB
THE_ROVERS
(Jan 6, 2011)
Once you start considering the
*possibility* that the speaker
is, shall we say, not being
entirely upfront, you can get
into a paranoid mode, always
scanning for the true belief
behind the delivered message.
Politeness
poisons
discourse.
--------
[NEXT - WELL_USED]