CZ:Professionalism

The Citizendium differs significantly from other online communities in its commitment to professionalism--that is, professional behavior--and low tolerance for incivility and disruption. For there to be efficient content output and motivated contributors it is crucial that we all treat each other "professionally," and each other's work respectfully. The vast majority of contributors to the Citizendium already know what is understood by "professionalism" and "collegiality"; that understanding is what is articulated here.

The importance of professionalism (again, professional behavior) to the success of this project is such that uncivil and disruptive behavior can quickly result in banning. See Constabulary Blocking Procedures. This page does not, however, lay out the standards and procedures for banning, but acts as a general guide to civil behavior for the use of contributors.

Note: we are discussing, here, only professional standards of civil behavior. You don't have to be a professional to act professionally.

Professionalism--what is it?

from Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: pro•fes•sion

Pronunciation: pr&-'fe-sh&n"

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English professioun, from Old French profession, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin profession-, professio, from Latin, public declaration, from profitEri

1 : the act of taking the vows of a religious community

2 : an act of openly declaring or publicly claiming a belief, faith, or opinion

3 : an avowed religious faith

4 a : a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation b : a principal calling, vocation, or employment c : the whole body of persons engaged in a calling

This dictionary definition is just one brief view of what a profession is, there are whole philosophies of professionalism that come from sociology and the law. One meaning of "professional" is clearly not applicable to the Citizendium: there is no uniform preparation that editors and authors undertake before writing on the wiki. At least, outside of a brief registration and mastering the basic computer skill and codes required to make entries, we are not here by virtue of having completed a long and intensive academic, or any other common "arduous" type of preparation. But the core aspects of professionalism for the service professions and for the profession of information science appear to be fully applicable to our work here.

Among service professionals there are a set of professional ethics and codes of conduct that have a commonality in that the good of the recipient (the law client, the patient, the student, the library user) is held above the immediate interests of the provider (the lawyer, the doctor, the teacher, the librarian). Those professional ethics are often couched in terms of duty--a duty to the client. Whether the word is used or not, the concept of duty is universal and essential.

These professions also share a code of conduct that forbids public denouncement of other members of the profession, and insists that civility and respect be shown in public relations between members of the profession. It is understood that to personally attack the integrity of another member is unprofessional conduct. Name calling and denigration of skills, intelligences, and motives in a public forum is simply not allowed.

On the wiki, our client is the user, which includes not only the unregistered reader, but also each other, the registered readers who also author and edit. Our duty is to provide a compendium of knowledge of the highest quality that we can. Embracing a code of professional conduct is important in allowing that work to transpire.

We Citizens do not share a common profession in the sense of all sharing a common level of expertise or training, but we can behave as professionals nonetheless. In fact, our fundamental principles and the rules of behavior we've arrived at appear to be a professional code of ethics and conduct.

If we are to write an encyclopedia of human knowledge that is not amateurish, it is not just a question of avoiding "mistakes," but of a commitment to a higher cause, if you will. We cannot indulge in personal attacks or stoop to self-service and self-advertisement, we need to strive to be fair and have a neutral point of view, we need to avoid the promoting of specific commercial interests, and we need to put the overall readability and quality of an article, and the Citizendium as a whole, above our own personal stake in authorship and above competition with other authors and editors.

Can we disagree? Yes, we can disagree and work through our opposing views in order to arrive at high quality articles. But here we do not wipe out another's work or denigrate another author personally. Here, when a major revision of what is written is needed, we make our case on the talk page and engage in a courteous interchange.

So far we have not defined our standards of behavior as professional, and yet, that is just what is required here: professional conduct. Most individuals who qualify as editors here are professionals, and most of them expect a professional environment on the Citizendium. But that environment is not simply a comfortable one for experts, it is also--and just as importantly--a comfortable environment for every Citizen who desires to interact without abuse and with respect.

Professional conduct is mandatory here. It differentiates us from many other Web 2.0 communities. Here, we do not accept the typical culture of Internet forums. Here we strive for an entirely different culture, one of professionalism.

Use the talk page

A great many problems could be avoided if people were to use the "talk" pages--i.e., the pages you arrive at by pressing the "discussion" tab--before making any potentially controversial changes. Polite communication is a large part of professionalism.

What behaviors are unprofessional?

So, what behaviors are unprofessional?

There are some obvious cases. Consider some "Offenses which will result in an immediate ban" in our Constabulary Blocking Procedures:

• Extremely offensive insults or personal attacks; direct and harsh attacks on the moral character, or personal or professional credibility, of a project member; or any application of particularly crude and vulgar epithets ("four letter words") to project members. It does not matter whether these attacks are made using Citizendium resources or other resources.
• Threats, either of physical harm or of other egregious aggression, whether against an individual or a group of individuals.

Other examples are "Offenses which will result in a warning first, then a ban":

• Insults or personal attacks, on talk pages or other open forums, that are relatively mild, but which are still objectionable on grounds that they aggressively impugn the moral character, or personal or professional credibility, of a project member. It does not matter whether these attacks are made using Citizendium resources or other resources.
• Disrespectful characterization of others' work on talk pages or other open forums. Note, mere criticism of a position or a forceful reply does not necessarily qualify as disrespectful; objectionable language has an implication of personal criticism, or can be reasonably taken to have such an implication.

In general, professionalism involves refraining from remarks that are needlessly inflammatory and which are unlikely to lead to any constructive outcome. The Constabulary considers remarks needlessly inflammatory if any reasonable person should know that the remarks might provoke an acrimonious and unhelpful (e.g., off-topic) controversy--in other words, a pointless "flame war."

Reversion and deletion as unprofessional behaviors

To "revert" a page is simply to undo all the edits that someone else has made. Doing so without warning or explanation is unprofessional because it demonstrates contempt for the person whose work was undone. If I spend ten minutes working on a page, and you simply undo my changes, you render my time spent pointless--which is tantamount to the claim that I spend significant time doing pointless things, and that your judgment is so superior to mine that you need not offer an explanation. Therefore, if you're tempted simply to revert what someone else has done, discussion on the talk page is warranted. Indeed, sometimes the polite way is to let the other person undo his or her own work, once a mistake is pointed out.

Of course, vandalism and egregious abuse can be instantly reverted (without explanation) by anyone. Explanation is preferred even in such cases, however.

If you find yourself the "victim" of an unexplained reversion, the best way forward is not to revert back, but to e-mail constables@citizendium.org--and let the constables do it. This will not only solve the problem, it will help ensure that the offending behavior is not repeated.

Wikipedians note: the Wikipedia "three revert rule" is not in effect here.

Similarly, deletion of others' work without explanation is clearly unprofessional, and deletion of more than 50 words can result in a warning, followed by a ban. Again, for you to delete, without a careful explanation, a paragraph--or article--that I have carefully crafted is essentially to assert that my work was wholly worthless, and that your judgment is so much more refined than mine that I am not owed an explanation. Your aggressive act places me into a defensive and hurt posture.

That just isn't professional behavior--something you don't have to be a professional to recognize.

How to respond to unprofessional behavior, and templates the Constabulary uses

The victims of rudeness or personal attacks do not have to tolerate this behavior. This is not behavior we would tolerate from our fellows in a face-to-face situation; we will not tolerate it on the Citizendium, either. We wish to nip incivility in the bud, before it escalates. Therefore, it is essential that, rather than worsening the situation, you report a difficult user, or problematic action, to the constabulary (a mail to constables@citizendium.org will do the trick). Generally, constables may replace uncivil remarks with the {{civil}} template, which reads:

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

---

If you must respond to poor behavior, please do so professionally. Please do not "take the law into your own hands" by criticizing others for their poor behavior. Complaints, even perfectly justifiable complaints, may be replaced by constables with the {{nocomplaints}} template, which reads:

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

---

Additionally, poor behavior can be avoided in the first place if we avoid saying things that are needlessly inflammatory. Such "flame bait," as it has been called elsewhere on the Internet, may be replaced by constables with the {{inflammatory}} template, which reads:

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

---

Finally, conversations that are broadly violative of the professionalism policy may be replaced with {{freshstart}}, which reads:

The Constabulary has removed a conversation here that either in whole or in part did not meet Citizendium's Professionalism policy. Feel free to remove this template and take up the conversation with a fresh start.

How to criticize work without being rude

Some might balk at the guidelines here, saying that it is unreasonable to ask people to treat really bad work respectfully. Won't justifiable criticism of bad work necessarily sound rude?

Not necessarily. It is possible to explain what is wrong with appallingly bad text in strictly objective terms. That is, after all, what professionals do. There is no particular reason to characterize a position as "nonsense" or "ill-informed"--that is disrespectful. It is much preferable to couch criticisms in a way that will not provoke a defensive reaction, such as "I have to disagree" or "I've never heard that claim before" or "With respect, I don't think you will find any X-ologists agreeing with you."

Most important, a rational criticism of the unacceptable work must be made, and an alternative offered--either in finished text or in an outlined plan.