Grants talk:Friendly space expectations

Initial response

Good. Just a couple of things:

• "Assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia movement."—I know it's hard to survey whether all or most or "many" Wikipedias explicity embrace this. Just a pity it has to be framed from en.WP outwards. An easy way around it, which would make a lazy assumption, but one that in the circumstances might be regarded as entirely reasonable, would be to retain the link but write "a core principle of the Wikipedias".
• The overview, which contains advice, is pretty long and involved. I wonder whether the very people it's aimed at will actually read it through. Enough, I suppose, for others to link to this where someone is out of line, but for educative purposes, it's not optimal. Some homespun practical advice that could be highlighted is:
  • In a heated situation, try posting briefly and less frequently. Your message will still get through to people, and the slower pace will contribute a cooling effect. Try writing a post and reviewing after several hours before pressing the "save" button.

I think this instruction is one of the most clear. In our work with emotional intelligence, we recommend each person pay close attention to our own emotional reactions and state of mind, checking ourselves before we react with potentially drama-filled or drama provoking communications. I no longer make big decisions or post risky communications when I'm emotionally overwhelmed, just like I no longer drive if I've been drinking. Here on wiki especially, it's part of our permanent records. Asking people to take a break and cool down before firing a response back makes a lot of sense. We've got lots more details on the methods we use for emotional management education in our offwiki worlds. Anyone can ping me on my Talk page if you'd like to discuss additional considerations and options. DrMel (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think AGF has its origins in MeatBallWiki, and as such a compelling Wikilawyerly case could be made that it is grandfathered in to all Wikimedia movement projects (as a philosophical tenet of wiki, if not a rule of behavior), whether they explicitly name it as a local policy or not. But that's neither here nor there. Fair points otherwise Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Charles' rules of argument may be good to suggest if there is an advice section. Fhocutt (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

We could point people to the AGF page on Meta, so it is less English Wikipedia-focused, but that page is not very clear. So instead, I just wrote "AGF is a core principle of the Wikimedia movement". I've also made some small changes to the overview based on the feedback from Tony. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, Alex. One more thing: "publication of non-harassing private communication", listed among behaviours that constitute harassment, makes it look as though it's fine to publish harassing private communication. Tony (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Tony, that's correct. "Private communication should stay private" is a good community norm. Unfortunately, harassers are often skilled at using community norms like this one to isolate and silence their targets, and we want to make it clear that the norm does not apply in situations where it is already being abused. This is particularly important because a common tactic used in harassment is isolating the target--including moving communication to private spaces and channels where the target won't have witnesses who can back them up. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

People!! It's a good ideia. GABRIEL MUNGONGO (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Now on Wikipedia

I liked this page enough to bring it to English Wikipedia, with adjustments. harej (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sweet! I noticed you have some discussion going on over there about the "do I understand the local rules or am I bringing in outside expectations?" point. I originally suggested that for the list here on Meta because we had previously seen people trying to apply ENWP policies and guidelines (eg. "no canvassing") in Meta spaces where those don't apply. (In the specific case, it was a grants proposal that someone had notified interested parties about. That's fine on Meta and in the IdeaLab!) The intent was to reduce rules-lawyering here in IdeaLab. However, I think taking that point across to ENWP would increase rules-lawyering, which has been shown to be a disincentive for editors. So you might want to consider if that's actually what you want on ENWP. --Skud (WMF) (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Post volume can be unfriendly

One antipattern we've seen in discussion is posting volume can often be unfriendly. Someone who makes heaps and heaps of posts, or posts that are pages and pages long, can easily overwhelm a productive discussion and turn people off from participating in it. Currently the Friendly Space expectations say, in the introductory text, "In a heated situation, try posting briefly and less frequently." Tony1, above, called this out as something we might want to highlight more visibly. I'd like to suggest that we add it to the list of behaviours as follows:

"Is the frequency or length of my comments likely to overwhelm the discussion and discourage others from participating? Am I posting far more often, or far more verbosely, than other participants in the conversation?"

What do people think? --Skud (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

 Support, and very much so. Alleycat80 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

 Support Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

 Support Walls of text, regardless of context, tend to dominate the conversation, and when they are full of microaggressions this tends to set a bad tone for the entire discussion. Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 Support , however allow me te elaborate (oops... this sentence starts on the wrong foot..) further down in Derek's comment. --DerekvG (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Derek's comment

I do support this, however a message can be that "to the point" (i.e. that short) that its also unfriendly, aggressive. On a personal note I'm dyslexic, I think in images, my thoughts race through my head... often what other people call "to-the-point" is imho shallow, superficial, uncourteous, because in such messages too many things are "assumed" as "inherently self evident". This is eaxctly what the other rule is all about don't bring assumptions from outside.
So when I do write, I use substantially more words, this is exacerbated by the fact that iḿ not a native English speaker, I'm a Dutch and French native bi-lingual from Belgium, the northern Dutch speakers from Holland (the Netherlands) themselves suffer from what is felt in the south as exagerated "to-the-point"-ness, thay also use a very direct (some say undiplomatic style) where they feel that the south use a verbal diarrea. According to our neighbours we eat and speak in a burgundian fashion, meaning "too much".
My prime concern however is that all aspects, all the ideas, of what Iḿ trying to say, and their consequences are understood. Having worked for a long time in the Netherlands that "direct style" has stuck on me because in my particular case (frame of mind) it's helpful. That in itself might lead to a complicated flow of words, a mixup of ideas, sentences that are tied into a tight Gordian knot. So I might be posting "far more verbosely, than other participants in the conversation" -for which I apologise- however it's not intended to "overwhelm the discussion or discourage others from participating", it's the need to express my idea's completely --DerekvG (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for such a thoughtful answer! I've got ADHD and am also verbose - and editing down takes a lot of time that's not easy to carve out of a very full schedule.

I do like the spirit of this recommendation and support it - even those of us that are more verbose can learn to avoid over posting in frequency. And anyone could offer to help us summarize our comments with a link to our own page where we can freestyle away.

In the work we are doing in WikiSoCal, we're tackling the challenges of Inclusivity within Wikimedia projects. I would love to interview you about how you've gotten engaged here even while having dyslexia. There are an enormous number of dyslexics and others with reading challenges who still love Wikipedia and want to support its improvements. Drop me a talk page note if you'd be interested in connecting. Thank you! DrMel (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

General comment

I support this idea, this document answers some of my objections in other wiki projects: - post comments - ask questions first in a discussion page - slapping a {{template}} on a page is not an invitation to discussion, its a wet towel in the face of the other contributor(s) - littering an answer with WP:whateverTLA jargon is not having a discussion, its pinning your opponent verbally to wall with a trident on his throat - qualifying anything the opponent says as "personal attack" is the equivalent of a "flying scissor attack" in soccer or as depicted in this rugby picture [1] --DerekvG (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree Mistyjean78 (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Grammar nitpick

I should start by being clear that I think this is a fantastic idea. With that said, apologies for being that nitpicking guy, but question on this sentence: "If you would prefer, contact a member of the Community Resources or Learning and Evaluation teams who can help communicate your concerns." Unless I am mistaken, CR is a department which LE is a team within. Therefore, anytime you contact LE you are contacting CR. If the desire is just to not get that deep and keep it simple, I respect that. ;) But wanted to ask, is this meant to be "...a member of the Community Resources department, or specifically the Learning and Evaluation team, who can help..." Thanks, and again, sorry for nitpicking. :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Good nitpick :) Alex, what's your thinking on this? Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Varnent! Community Resources and Learning & Evaluation are actually teams within the Community Engagement team so the sentence is accurate. CR and L&E are the only teams on CE that use the Grants namespace, where the Friendly space expectations are applied. Too many team names! Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes - that makes sense - sorry - I had a brain fart on the new structure. :) L&E being under Grants namespace, and a lack of a teapot to make coffee right now, is what I blame. ;) I am excited this idea is proceeding. I was involved in the IRC chats that led to the MW policy and extending it to Wikimania. I am particularly pleased the enumerated categories remained. I know those tend to be challenged during these processes. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 22:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Strange theory about where this applies

Siko (WMF) suggested that this "friendly space" guideline applies to the grants namespace but not elsewhere.

What does that mean? Who enforces friendly space expectations? Is there special authority in the grants namespace that does not apply elsewhere? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Title on blue background overflows on mobile

The box better shortened or on mobile the box extends out of body text width. --Omotecho (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Omotecho (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Omotecho, I changed it to use a template which (in my experience) doesn't have problems on mobile. Can you take a look? harej (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

harej, thank you for perfect solution. Regards, --Omotecho (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)