Grants talk:IdeaLab/Stop "Political Correctness" as gauge!

Comments

I think that we need to define the use of "political correctness" here; this is a political buzzword which is commonly used in certain (largely although not exclusively right-wing and conservative) environments but its precise meaning in this context needs to be clarified. How is Wikipedia pandering to political correctness in its implementation of anti-harassment policies? Show us some evidence of incidents in which this has happened. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I second this. I think to counteract actual harassment, it needs to be defined. It's all nice to say we shouldn't bow to political correctness but what does that mean? If you're getting death threats or being doxed, would you consider an effort to prevent this a politically correct move or an effort to encourage editors to stay on the site? What about edit warring on one article that escalates into writing obscenities and threating rape on your talk page, or targeted attacks on edits you've made on other pages? All of those things are frustrating at the least, and for some people frightening. It makes the target not want to contribute anything. The point of preventing harassment is to retain editors AND ensure that there is a fair point of view. Having only one "type" of editor, the kind that can brush harassment off or that don't get frustrated, means that articles can become biased. Without others, the wiki dies. This isn't just about trying to seem "nice" or "inclusive" to be politically correct, it's an effort to keep Wikipedia alive. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree. An ill-thought-out proposal. Deb (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The proposal does have a point, in that excessive use of anti-harassment processes can themselves become a form of harassment. But stopping the process altogether is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is self-defeating - the sort of behavior that is labelled "political correctness" is not itself politically correct. Trevithj (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Below comments moved from endorsement section

(Note: Disagreements with proposals on IdeaLab are fine, but as a matter of practice, these a better placed on the talk page of Ideas so that idea creators and others are better able to discuss them. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC))

As someone who has suffered thousands (literally) of extremely offensive attacks and death threats on Wikipedia and via Wikipedia mail, I cannot possibly accept this surrender to the right of bullies to bully. RolandR (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. Moderators have to intervene with harrassment cases, not because of political correctness, but because someone is complaining that another person won't leave them alone and is posting threatening things on their talk page. Moderators intervene because a disruptive editor is not participating in good faith with the edits in the page and justifying their edits on the talk page. However, if you don't agree with this, I would ask people to give an example (or make up an example) of when "political correctness" was a determining factor in the actions of a moderator in a harrassment case.DivaNtrainin (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Actual harassment is a problem and is not about political correctness. Harassment over time does cause problems for individuals. Personally, I have never been harassed. However, I am aware of the problems that exist and how they affect others. We can't and shouldn't ignore that. Political Correctness has become a dog-whistle term. Most people want to be treated with civility. If we are talking about civil discourse, that is exactly the same as political correctness. I do not call little people "midgets" for example, because that is what that group of people has asked that civil society stop doing. I can think of many other terms that are similar. If this proposal is about civility, fine. If it's about stopping people from requiring that others act with civility, then this is a failed proposal. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I also disagree. I wrote this on the discussion page, but I think it needs to be seen here. Yes, simply calling people names and other small things shouldn't, necessarily, elicit corrective action. Common sense should always prevail over the letter of the law. At the very least the term politically correct needs to be defined on this page. Otherwise it's nothing more than a vague buzzword that a small minority of people get ironically offended by because, "You shouldn't be upset that I am an asshole, it's my right/who I am". Unfortunately, online harassment does spill into the "real" world and "hurt feelings" do affect the site, namely in contributor retention. It's all nice to say we shouldn't bow to political correctness but what does that mean? If you're getting death threats or being doxed, would you consider an effort to prevent or correct this behavior a politically correct move or an effort to encourage editors to stay on the site? What about edit warring on one article that escalates into writing obscenities and threating rape on your talk page, or targeted attacks on edits you've made on other pages? All of those things are frustrating at the least, and for some people frightening. Not all of those things affect the "real" world but they all make the targeted editor not want to contribute anything. Harassment prevention mitigates contributor frustration created by other contributors. On this site, its goal is to retain users AND ensure that there is a fair (unbiased) point of view. Having only one "type" of editor, the kind that can brush harassment off, that never gets frustrated, or who are harassers themselves, means that articles can become biased. In a toxic environment people find other places to contribute. Site image is also very important, especially if you want your site to be viewed as an objective source of information. Sometimes a toxic online environment discredits any objective or factual information due to the reader's perceived bias. Without others, the wiki dies. This isn't just about trying to seem "nice" or "inclusive" to be politically correct, it's an effort to keep Wikipedia thriving. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Common sense has got a bit of a bad name. Sometimes, it is deformed into a pretension of simplicity and self evident truth. It can be used as cover for a quickly formed irrational hunch.Whitebro (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Virtual Reality

"One should not forget that this is about virtual harassment in virtual contacts, and no personal interaction." As a 'digital native' both my professional career and personal life are deeply entwined with 'virtual' spaces such as wikis, mailing lists, etc. Harassment, on the internet, on the phone, over telegram, or in person is the same - harassment.

Another Wikipedian, and colleague, said it better than I. "We are a community of very real people with deep emotions and human complexities." I politely ask you to reconsider the language in your proposal. Ckoerner (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ckoerner: As a pre-digital-native, with both professional career and personal life deeply entwined with 'virtual' spaces such as wikis, mailing lists, etc. from their respective very beginnings, I humbly object to your claim of virtual harassment being the same as personal one. I do not feel such virtual that I would not experience fundamental differences in being harassed by people I personally know, meet and have contact with, compared to people like you, who politely command me via a talk page to reconsider the language in my proposal.

With at least the same, exquisite politeness, I most humbly ask for more concrete reasons, why, and where specifically, I should consider to reconsider any language I chose. There might be a good reason of course, and I apologize beforehand, therefore, because I am not a native speaker of the English language.

For the time being I feel virtually harassed by your most valuable contribution, but as I recommend, I neither care nor do I mind any further. Purgy Purgatorio (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This idea demoted to general section of idealab

Since the tolerance of the ruling bureaucracy does not suffice to leave my suggestion in the intended place, and demoted it (twice!), rather uncommented, from the top of the leaderboard to oblivion, I am not sufficiently motivated to answer the opposing remarks, not even those which do not contain offensive qualifiers, like "ill". Nevertheless, thanks for all the attention you spent, just let me point to the fact, that my suggestion did not deny the necessity to intervene against substantial and sustained harassment.
I take it for sure that I won't bother WM with further contributions. What a success. Purgy (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)