View source for Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct

{{User:LincolnBot/archiveconfig
|archive = Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(180d)
|counter = 1
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{talk archive}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 5
}}{{Archives
|link1=m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Archives/2019
|link2=m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Archives/2020
|link3=m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Archives/2021
|link4=m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Archives/2022
}}{{Universal Code of Conduct/Talk}}

== EG? ==

{{ping|GVarnum-WMF|PEarley (WMF)}} shouldn't the [[Policy:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines]] be linked anywhere in this doc? Maybe a "see also" part in the footer? [[User:David Wadie Fisher-Freberg|David Wadie Fisher-Freberg]] ([[User talk:David Wadie Fisher-Freberg|talk]]) 07:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

:I agree. It should've been done already, especially since non-WMF editors aren't allowed to do it themselves. Tagging [[User:GVarnum-WMF]] and [[User:PEarley (WMF)]]. [[User:Adrianmn1110|Adrianmn1110]] ([[User talk:Adrianmn1110|talk]]) 08:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|David Wadie Fisher-Freberg|Adrianmn1110}}, thanks for the note, I've added a template at top linking to the guidelines. [[User:PEarley (WMF)|PEarley (WMF)]] ([[User talk:PEarley (WMF)|talk]]) 14:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

== Typo edit request ==

in <nowiki><!--T:87--></nowiki>
;Cross-wiki: Affecting or occuring on more than one project. See also: Global.
/s/occuring/occurring
:Thank you, --[[User:M7|M7]] ([[User talk:M7|talk]]) 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:M7|M7]]: Fixed it! Thank you for the alert! --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 11:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:GVarnum-WMF|GVarnum-WMF]] - are we able to provide a list of typos in the UCOC for correction? There's quite a few and fixing them to let us focus on the substantive issues when we get to amendment time, that would be great. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 18:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
:::You are certainly welcome to submit them, although I would need to run them past our Legal department before adopting any changes (sometimes what someone sees as a typo is actually an intentional term usage by a lawyer). --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 06:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

== Why are we over in Foundation Wiki? ==

Why have we moved both the dictated policy, the community-backed policy, and the discussions on the two over to Foundation-wiki? 

Foundation-wiki is both harder to find, harder to edit (especially if you don't have an account), and splits from meta where these aspects should logically belong. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 18:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

:As part of that, dozens of links in both the live and archived talk pages have become broken links - does Foundation-wiki have  the bots that would correct such issues on major wikis? If not, they'll need to be corrected manually by whoever moved them. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 18:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
::We will work to update those links once non-archive content is dealt with. --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 06:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
:I am also curious why moving to Foundation Wiki. It would be difficult to maintain translation page and facilitate discussion, since there is only few volunteer admins (exclude Global Sysop as what they can only do is anti-vandalism). Thanks. [[User:SCP-2000|SCP-2000]] ([[User talk:SCP-2000|talk]]) 19:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:SCP-2000|SCP-2000]]: Can you elaborate on how it will be difficult to maintain? Note that there will be a growing number of staff-based admins as this wiki gets used more, but I am curious about ideas related to more volunteer admins. Regarding the reduction of duplication, the pages have always been "officially housed" on this wiki - the duplicates on Meta-Wiki existed because this wiki could not previously facilitate translations or discussions. As those barriers have been removed, the primary reasons for duplication no longer existed. Given the legal reasons behind hosting the "primary versions" on this wiki have not changed, the problems with maintaining duplications appear and potential benefits with addressing them seem to outweigh risks (some of which are inherit with this wiki existing at all). However, I am at this point more interested in trying to address potential problems with this less duplicate oriented setup than debating a return to a setup we already know was not working. --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 06:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
:It just says loud and clear, that the UCoC is no project from the community any more, but something against the community by some usurpers in the ivory tower.
:The WMF is just the janitor of the real bosses, the communities, it must never ever have the last word over the real bosses, that would be a putsch. [[User:Sänger|Sänger]] ([[User talk:Sänger|talk]]) 14:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Sänger}}: I believe that there is a saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune".  Editors contribute by waiving their copyright, but the WMF puts up the cash and also absorbs the knocks if there are legal issues. [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 15:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

== AGF ==

"Assume good faith...All Wikimedians should assume unless evidence otherwise exists that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects, but this should not be used to justify statements with a harmful impact."

So AGF will now be enforced on projects without AGF as a guideline? Presumably, there are projects where AGF is just an essay, where guidelines don't provide any guidance on this, or, like [[n:en:|my home project]], [[n:en:Wikinews:Never assume|where there is an explicit prohibition on assumptions of faith, good or bad]]. [[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] ([[User talk:Heavy Water|talk]]) 18:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

: @[[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] I have always had concern about AGF and its many, equally off-putting analogs whereby any expression of disapproval, suspicion, critique or normal human emotions like frustration put the editor into a gray area right off the bat. I'm not sure of the correct venue to raise such concerns, but in my experience this approach typically goes nowhere precisely because anyone can ignore reason, then cite AGF and a slew of other rules you're arguably in violation of when you call them a jackass. If you happen to have an incredible amount of restraint, patience and persistence and can't be cited for anything else, open-ended catchalls like WP:NOTHERE (a blatant contradiction of AGF by any reasonable interpretation) usually get the job done. AGF is enforced exactly when it is convenient for them to do so. Otherwise there are plenty of other expedient rules and essays that provide grounds upon which any given user may be summarily ejected from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Perhaps I'll write an essay of my own on the subject. What do you think? [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])

: @[[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] And since "assume good faith" only enforceable to the extent that we ''say'' what we ''assume'', the rule could be equivalently stated as ''"do not question the motives of others."'' Without euphemistic phrasing that uses adjectives like "good" and "faith", the rule sounds exactly as Orwellian as it is. How ''should'' one make critical statements? If users are obliged to understate criticism and act as though others have no possible ulterior motive then critical discourse is severely debased. The expression of critique, discontent and frustration all go hand-in-hand and they are no less important than the expression of joy or any other "positive" message. When policy demands that users "avoid negativity" they should consider what that really means. What would we have besides a twilight zone of fawning, obsequious consumers and grinning, unchecked psychopathy? [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])

: The rest after part two is fairly straightforward and more or less amounts to "don't harass people or wreck the site". Part two strikes me as unusual because it's presented as advice. One can't interpret it as a set of positive obligations because policy statements like "Be ready to challenge and adapt your own understanding, expectations and behaviour as a Wikimedian" are nonspecific and obviously outside any given project's authority to enforce. It seems worthwhile to make the distinction between enforceable policy and statements like ''"Practice empathy."'' The needle in the haystack here is AGF, which at first appears to fit in with the rest of the ostensibly well-intended (if banal) advice but when re-worded to properly match the scope of a project's authority to enforce, turns out to be ''"do not question the motives of others."'' In compliance with AGF, I assume of course that this is all coincidental. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])

::Indeed. Really, at least at en.wp, AGF is the rule from on high &mdash; when it's convenient. The framework of en.wn's [[n:en:Wikinews:Never assume|never assume]] initially seems like it would turn users into a hostile bunch always suspicious of each other, but I've observed it actually ''lowers the temperature'' of community politics, even where strong interpersonal conflict is present. In fact, the honesty allowed by freedom from AGF and actual enforcement of [[n:en:Wikinews:Etiquette|the ''de jure'' etiquette guideline]] seems to make arguments clearer and allow us to summarily deal with disruptive elements, without politeness and often with what the UCoC defines as "insults". "We expect all Wikimedians to show respect for others" without "exceptions based on standing, skills...in the Wikimedia projects or movement": Even on en.wp, individuals judged not to meet {{w|WP:CIR}} ("skills") or vandals/spammers ("standing") don't get shown "respect". In the eyes of the community, they've lost it. And what would} "respect" entail? Apologizing when blocking them?

::UCoC enforcement at projects with policies or guidelines conflicting it like en.wn's will be interesting to watch unfold; I expect, per "1 – Introduction" the WMF plans to take OFFICE action when a project isn't enforcing the UCoC in favor of its own policies or guidelines. 

::I find it unsurprising in the three months since I raised this question no WMF staffer has responded, even when, last month, I left a message on the talk page of a staffer involved in discussions above. But I have to AGF here, don't I? Oh well. I hope someday en.wn will be successful enough for the entire community to fork off (hey, I wonder if I'll get OFFICE-glocked for saying that). [[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] ([[User talk:Heavy Water|talk]]) 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

::: Perhaps the best remedy is exposure, e.g. essays, articles, etc. that concisely and accurately describe how rules like AGF are abused to avoid accountability and worded euphemistically to serve as a debauched stand-in for principle. We have no bearing on this policy except by public critique. Most of us are hardly born critics, least of all myself. We want to cooperate and one's calling, if they feel they have one, is almost always constructive. So many people would rather not exist at all than abandon their purpose. One faces a serious dilemma because messing around with the umpteenth variation of the multi-armed bandit problem or some obscure conjecture about conformal mappings while this demented twilight zone is progressively imposed upon the entirety of western culture starts to seem like grotesque misassignment of priorities. Knowing you're right but being at a lost for words while some two-faced shyster lectures you about social justice, gender prounouns, etc. is well likely to be the most annoying moment of one's life. We are in this position partly for lack of good examples to learn from. Perhaps I should attempt to curate some, or make up a course on the subject for Wikiversity. In any case, I'm not just going to let things go their way, nor should anyone else. Orwell wrote an excellent essay, "On Politics and the English Language". The essay is accurate in that Orwell recognizes the problem and identifies many of it salient components, but it is also an imprecise and somewhat awkward essay. Even Orwell was taxed in attempting to describe and generalize the issue. Anyway, I will probably use some of what I've written here in an essay of my own. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])

::::I wondered if you were going to go there. The rejection of AGF, for en.wn, is simply a variation in its rules as a Wikimedia project, not an endorsement of right-wing politics, or any other political ideologies, for that matter. I say this to defend ''Wikinews''' reputation. [[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] ([[User talk:Heavy Water|talk]]) 23:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

::::: Go where? I do not subscribe to "right wing ideology", nor is anything I've written intended as a dog-whistle to imply that I do. Take my post at face value. Just because I am irritated at the media's rhetorical abuse of the phrase "social justice" does not mean that I resent or do not value social justice. Naturally I don't demand that you AGF, but if you'd like me to clarify my opinion on any given issue, then please just ask rather than make presumptions. 

::::: More importantly, nothing at all was said about wikinews or AGF that could possibly be construed as an endorsement of "right-wing ideology". There's no need to imitate the media's dramatic ritual of "disavowal", though it appears I've unconsciously done so too. It is not obvious that this pavlovian, knee-jerk reaction makes no sense whatsoever in this context here? Suppose I am "right wing", whatever that means to you. Suppose Hitler escaped to Brazil and I am his bastard grandson if you like. We were having a productive discourse. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])

::::: Another instance of euphemism is the third bullet point of part 2.1: "''Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves.''" One assumes it means that we must use someone's preferred name and gender pronouns and the correct name of their race or tribe. That's entirely fine, but then, why doesn't it say exactly that? Since the UCoC already has a strong anti-harassment policy, would that not suffice? Otherwise it is very open to interpretation and therefore easy to abuse. If one uses preferred pronouns and names, but states they disagree that sex reassignment is indicated for gender dysphoria, are they in violation of the policy as it's worded now? If so, then fine, but then the policy should say as much. I would still comply with that rule and use the site, because it's then understood by everyone that the content is not an unbiased reflection of public opinion or consensus. How is vague, sugar-coated policy with carte blanche potential for censorship "left-wing"? How is one "right-wing" for speaking against it? [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])

::::::There = taking the way en.wn regards AGF and the WMF's nature as part of a broader notion about how society should operate. With "right-wing politics, or any other political ideologies, for that matter" my intent was to clarify ''Wikinews''ies didn't intend, in adopting Never assume, to promote any broader ideas for society (partly for your information and partly for anyone else who might then take a negative view toward ''Wikinews''; the project has enough opponents already). I apologize for the lot of extrapolation from your comment in interpreting parts of it as repeating right-wing talking points, possibly implying you were just POV-pushing. I guess when one sees a lot of people who ''are'' just POV-pushing and happen to be saying similar things, one thinks the conclusions are obvious. I didn't intend to halt this discussion, though. I would agree the vagueness was likely written into 2.1.3 to allow for selectivity in enforcement. Somewhat related: [[m:User:Tom Morris/WMFers Say The Darndest Things]]. [[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]] ([[User talk:Heavy Water|talk]]) 05:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

::::::: Thank you for saying so, I was worried that you might have decided to terminate the conversation right there. It would have been a bad example, so I'm glad that's not the case. Not that there are many young, impressionable children reading policy discussions on wikimedia's talk pages, but I've had conversations that ended in a similar manner on sites like reddit. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])

::::::: Not that you asked, but you may or may not be interested in an essay I'm writing on the subject of political media in the United States: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Socialism/America%27s_political_idiom It's a work in progress and presently quite a mess but the point is pretty clear. I inserted a couple of comments that I made here too. The left/right dichotomy as it exists in the media (and therefore also to some extent in the public's mind) is essentially just hokum. One long-running TV drama. Pomp and pantomime. I'd go on but I'd just be repeating what I've already written in the essay, and I don't want to get off topic. 

::::::: Suffice to say, that (for example) there's significant possibility Clinton was/is a serial rapist (see Hitchens 1999) and Kissinger a mass murderer (Hitchens 2001) and both go about unmolested while we are here blathering ritual "disavowals" of ideological motive for fear of reprisal is a perfect example of the demented, pavlovian behavior that we seem to feel is expected of us and that we have come to expect from others. It seems trite to complain about "political correctness", but it really is a cancer. Suppose one didn't want to humor gender pronouns or the concept of gender being different from sex. Suppose they club baby seals on the weekends. In moral terms they'd still be well ahead of the people we're expected to endorse for the sake of "political correctness". Anyone who has any genuine ideological perspective at all probably is, because they are willing to stand on principle, however misguided it may or may not be. I won't let it be implied that ideology (that is, to have an ideal) is unacceptable or anti-social. UCoC part 2 and so much other policy in that vein are, in spirit, just fine. It's the way they're worded and enforced that promotes an awful culture, but of course to isolate this problem one must insinuate bad faith, one must be negative, one must be critical. I'll be surprised if our conversation has any immediate bearing on UCoC or other policy, but it's still a worthwhile conversation to have, if for no reason other than to hash it out for readers and for our own skills in critical discourse.  [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])

::::::: Not touching that one, eh? I can understand, with your project being up in the air. But then, I'm a bit confused myself. What's the point of news if you have to walk on eggshells and avoid uncomfortable or inconvenient topics? Hitchens was no crackpot. He was the archetypal far-left pundit. Anyway, my suggestion is to do away with part two of the UCoC entirely, which I feel is strongly supported by this discussion. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])


: After considering the problem a bit more, I'm convinced even AGF would be relatively benign if not for the following sentence: ''Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner.'' This encourages people to take criticism personally. Honest and straightforward criticism of an author's work must not be taken as criticism of its author or treated as incivility, regardless of the extent to which the work is contradicted. Obviously a critique should not be barbaric, but nor should its value and acceptability as a contribution be subject to additional and ill-defined qualifiers such as "constructive" or worse yet "sensitive". Nor should it be debased by euphemism and other attempts at sparing the ego of the author, who would almost certainly prefer a plain-language critique to being patronized if they themselves are participating in good faith. I can humor gender pronouns and other such things, but it seems to undermine the stated mission of many projects if criticism and critics themselves are dispensed with simply by feigning indignation and treating their contribution as a personal attack rather than another form of collaboration, no less valuable than the next. One need not make any statement about the author so AGF is easy enough to comply with so long as a distinction is made between an author and their work. The editor is entitled to humanity, decency and other such niceties. However in publishing their work, are they not obliged to accept criticism of that work? One can hardly even call that a vestige of accountability, but merely acknowledgement that no contribution should be immune to criticism and that criticism shouldn't be subject to the possibility of arbitrary sanction by needlessly vague policy. I hope but do not expect that someone will offer a counterargument if not seriously consider removing this part of the policy, which is far-reaching in its effect. Wikipedia alone is frequently a first-page result on most search engines for any given query. If one asks the amazon echo a question, it often quotes Wikipedia. It seems there ought to be some degree of accountability at least for policy. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 01:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

: I can't help feeling a bit dense for not isolating this sentence earlier. I probably would have if it were not set within the other, equally wishy-washy prose of part two, all of which makes a vaguely irritating impression and strikes me as unnecessary. But it's this sentence that singles out and places constraints upon criticism while subtly conflating an author with their work that I feel is the most harmful and which I should probably have picked up on sooner. In any case, I feel the above paragraph is a strong prima facie argument for the removal of at least ''that'' sentence from UCoC, and perhaps also for a guideline to the effect of what I've written above. While I'm not sure it will be acknowledged by those whom it may concern, I'm pretty damned sure it won't be refuted. As always, comments, concerns, suggestions, hate mail and so forth are all welcome. Personally I'm delighted by any sort of feedback. While I don't presume that I myself am worthy of anyone's attention, I find the apparent disinterest in conversation on wikipedia and its sister projects wholly bizarre and unnatural, and much of the conversation that does occur is administrative, so to speak, rather than actual discourse. I don't know how anyone could stand to be so cagey and standoffish all the time, but that's my impression of the typical editor, and this is also true of other social media sites and often in real life as well. Sometimes I feel that most people hardly even act like humans. Strange times. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 03:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

: Besides AGF and the vague qualifications on critique, the remainder of UCoC part two mostly just amounts to public relations fluff. The entire section could and probably should be replaced with '''Observe common decency and show respect to other users.''' This is a broad yet clear directive that concisely sums up the whole of part two, or at least the parts that are worthwhile. Incidentally, if privileged users are not behaving in accordance with the UCoC and the issue isn't resolved on that project, what recourse do other users have? I realize that the WMF does not want to hear about each and every dispute that occurs, but it often appears that privileged users are not accountable to these rules in the slightest so long as there's a consensus among themselves. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 23:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:Heavy Water|Heavy Water]],
:I have wiki-met you on the  [https://en.wikinews.org English Wikinews] site where I have been sporadically contributing since I was indefinitely blocked on enwp in 2017. I wanted to tell you that I never understood why the enwn opposes AGF. BTW this is only one of the several reasons why I do not participate on enwn very often. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 17:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
::@Heavy Water: I forgot to mention that I have contributed to several discussions about the UCOC at WD and COMMONS IIRC, but  until I followed you here I had no idea this is where members of the community can participate openly in discussion. I had assumed that discussions were taking place on META where I am infinitely blocked, so cannot participate [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

== "without expectations based on age ... Nor will we make exceptions" ==

Is this a typo? 
{{tqb|This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, <u>without expectations based on</u> [''without exceptions based on''] age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field. <u>Nor will we make exceptions based on</u> standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement}}. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz6666]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) 01:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Gitz6666}}, thank you for catching that. Text has been updated. [[User:PEarley (WMF)|PEarley (WMF)]] ([[User talk:PEarley (WMF)|talk]]) 16:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

== Grammar ==

Section 2.1, bullet point 3, sub-bullet point 3: "using" should be changed to "may use" for consistency with the other three sub-bullet points. As currently written, this sub-bullet point is just a noun phrase while the other three are full sentences. [[User:Einsof|Einsof]] ([[User talk:Einsof|talk]]) 14:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

== This includes imposing schemes on content intended to marginalize or ostracize ==

Not the first person to ask, and not the first time I'm asking. What does the last UCoC sentence mean? Is this "imposing schemes" + on + "content intended to marginalize", or is it "imposing schemes on content" (which are) "intendend to marginalize". Marginalize or ostracize whom? Any real-world examples of such behavior? Translators had a hard time understanding this sentence. [[User:PEarley (WMF)|PEarley (WMF)]]?

<small>''"I could have done it in a much more complicated way," said the Red Queen, immensely proud.''</small> [[User:Ponor|Ponor]] ([[User talk:Ponor|talk]]) 17:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

:In context, the entire sentence seems redundant. Removing it would make the code less complicated still. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 04:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I imagine translators have a hard time with the UCoC for the same reason they'd probably not be able to translate "smoke free" into "smoking is prohibited" unless they already understood the idiom. Much of the UCoC seems to be constructed in the vacuous dialect of contemporary [[w:Public relations|PR]], rather than by aiming for a clear and easily-interpreted set of rules. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 04:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

== Proposed revisions - values both civility and scholarly inquiry ==

Excerpted from [[:meta:User:Jaredscribe/UCoC]], where I will be proposing more revisions for the annual review.

==={{slink|Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#2_–_Expected_behaviour}}===
<blockquote>"In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour <strike>will be</strike> <strong>should be</strong> founded in civility, <strong>scholarly inquiry, logical discourse</strong>, collegiality, respect <strong>for verifiable truth and for eachother</strong>. <strike>solidarity and good citizenship.</strike>" </blockquote>

These changes are proposed for the reasons stated by [[w:Aristotle|Aristotle]] in the [[w:Nicomachean Ethics|Nicomachean Ethics]] to justify his abandonment of the Platonic [[w:theory of forms]]: '''While both are dear, piety requires us to honor truth above our friends.''' --[[s:Nicomachean_Ethics_(Ross)/Book_One#Part_6|Book I chapter 6, 1096a.16]].   But the phrase as currently formulated in the official UCoC neglects to mention scholarly discourse, inquiry, or logic as valuable behaviors.  It offers instead 5 synonyms for civility, which taken together may be used to imply and enforce "compliance" with a group consensus, which would be a recipe for [[w:groupthink]]. [[User:Jaredscribe|Jaredscribe]] ([[User talk:Jaredscribe|talk]]) 01:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping | Jaredscribe}} While I agree with the spirit of this, I think that all of these things are predicated upon critique. "Civility" is often used somewhat euphemistically to mean agreeableness, itself favorable to assent. If anything, the UCoC needs a statement that protects critique and critical contributions. It also has far too many redundancies. Generally it contains too much redundant or meaningless PR language. Christopher Hitchens put the point rather well when he wrote "'' In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" Of course he wasn't talking about Wikimedia, but the point is no less relevant here. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 08:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

: I should say though that I'd be quite surprised if they obliged my request in the near term. It's not as though the people who make these decisions are oblivious to these points. On the contrary. Hitchens also had something to say about this, (or rather Chomsky did, but I don't have Chomsky's original quote) "''Noam Chomsky, a most distinguished intellectual and moral dissident, once wrote that the old motto about “speaking truth to power” is overrated. Power, as he points out, quite probably knows the truth already, and is mainly interested in suppressing or limiting or distorting it. We would therefore do better to try to instruct the powerless. ''" It's irritating how often I have to cite Hitchens. It makes me look like a fanatic (which I'm not), but I suppose I should be glad to have at least one 'authority' to cite. Anyway, the points should still be made, and one should not presume they're lost upon the decision makers. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 08:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)