The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.
The initial Wikipedia:Civility essay was largely authored by Anthere and others at m:Incivility (history, Jan-Feb. 2004). It was copied here and put into substantive form ("Civility") by Stevertigo (Feb. 2004), who earlier raised the issue on wikien-l.[1] & [2] (Oct. 4, 2003). In codified form, it was thereafter referenced as a statement of principle and soon after considered "policy."
Long before the creation of the formal policy, Jimbo Wales wrote his statement of principles, wherein certain points echo the idea of civility. Larry Sanger raised the issue of "making [WP] more civil," [3], [4] & [5] (Nov. 2002) after reading The Cunctator's essay "How to destroy Wikipedia" (Mar. 2002). Jimbo Wales picked up on Sanger's point [6][7], and thereafter Ed Poor and others kept it alive, until the need for a formal policy came about in late 2003. Also, note a poll on editors' thoughts on the policy at the time in 2009.
This page was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
This page was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.
All the discussion of civility seems to be about remaining civil to other editors or contributors, but nothing, with the possible exception of Wikipedia:Civility#Edit_summary_dos_and_don'ts, which only mentions editors in 2 of its 6 bullet points.
Are there policies or policy sections that cover civility to readers specifically?
If there aren't, should there be?
More narrowly (and the reason why I'm asking), does inexplicable in this edit's summary cross a line by implying no one could possibly find a plausible explanation (as opposed to wording such as "I can't explain/don't understand it", which would acknowledge the editor's subjectiveness on this)?
Hi, I added a small section right at the end of the civility page. Since the page is concerned with users being civil when editing, readers are not the ones generally in danger of being insulted, so I presume not much guidance is required. Maintaining a neutral point of view seems to mandate that civility be kept because otherwise it wouldn't be neutral. ButterCashier (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I've reverted this edit - it needs some workshopping. As written it forbids "reference to vitriol or incivility", but this can in some cases be necessary to write a comprehensive article. (If the intention is to prevent edit summaries like the one objected to by the OP, this can be addressed more directly - although I'm not convinced this is necessary). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I would go further and not include the proposed text even if refactored. WP:CIVIL concerns the interactions between editors. If an editor posts bad stuff in an article (being uncivil towards readers, whatever that means), they might be blocked but it would not be for a breach of WP:CIVIL. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would readers be reading an edit summary? Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1- some definitely would, after seeing the History tab; one such group would be VCS users. (My case.)
2- since it happens in change comments, I would be very surprised if it didn't also happen in talk pages, which readers definitely use: see all feedback, suggestions, and edit requests. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is also hard to see what issue you are talking about, when and how could we be uncivil to readers? Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By calling reader interpretation "inexplicable". Saying "I can't explain it" would be a statement of fact, and in part at least about the editor's own abilities. OTOH, "inexplicable" is wholly opinion ("no one could explain") and, by its detachment from specific editors' abilities, about the readers only. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that referring to readers or editors? Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If by "that" you mean the comment you're replying to, it's referring to editors failing to be civil to readers, so "both". If you meant something else, please clarify. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean what we are talking about, how was that edit summary uncivil to the reader, how do we know they meant the reader? Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this change specifically: note any casual reader in this reply on the talk page, which I understand as leading directly to the change. But asking is better than speculating. Should we ask White_whirlwind whose confusion they called inexplicable?
In general, I would note that all editors are also readers to some extent, and despite over 1500 changes to the articles space I'm primarily a reader. When I first edit an article, it's because I spotted a need for copy editing or proofreading while reading it. I can't tell which proportion of editors fit this profile, but I doubt I'm the only one. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could be an example: And anybody who distrusts governments because of what the Nazis did must be extremely stupid. I think some readers that may read this and belong in the targeted set would feel offended. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 18:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]