CZ:Professionalism

The Citizendium differs significantly from other online communities in its low tolerance for incivility and disruption. It is essential, for there to be efficient content production and motivated contributors, that authors (i.e., everyone playing the author role) treat each other, and each other's work, respectfully. The vast majority of contributors to the Citizendium already know what is understood by "collegiality" and "professionalism"; that understanding is what is articulated here.

The importance of civility 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.

Why civility is so important

Many people are used to Internet forums in which offense is regularly dished out, expected, and returned in kind. It is quite unusual for a fairly open and active Internet community, like this one, to do more than pay lip service to standards of civility.

But civility is particularly important for this project, for several reasons. We can effectively collaborate only if we can regard each other as, more or less, equals. Moreover, we are volunteers, so we simply won't spend a lot of time on a project if it involves taking a lot of abuse. Many of us have a particularly low tolerance for nonsense; we have many better things to do with our time, and if we have to spend the time we have devoted to this project to sorting out disputes, we will not want to participate at all.

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 perhaps 90% most of civility.

What behaviors are rude?

So, what behaviors are rude?

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.

Won't criticism of bad work necessarily sound 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?

Actually, not necessarily. It is possible to explain what is wrong with something that is really appallingly bad in strictly objective terms. 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."

Reversions

To complete. Reversion, even once, is rarely justified. If you're tempted simply to revert what someone else has done, discussion on the talk page is warranted. The Wikipedia "three revert rule" is not in effect here; we have a one-revert rule at best.

Deletion of others' work

To complete. Deleting others' work without explanation is not nice, and deletion of more than 50 words can result in a warning, followed by a ban.

How to respond to uncivil behavior

The victims of ongoing bad treatment, such as 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, uncivil remarks may be replaced 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 collegially. 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 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.