Wikibooks talk:Etiquette

Adaptation and Resurrection
Initial text adapted from en:Wikipedia:Wikiquette. --mav 10:00 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

...And as such, it is out of date (and not even recommended here as a guideline). I recommend resurrecting this guideline, as I think it is core to working in a cooperative environment like a wiki.

w:Wikipedia:Etiquette is a guideline on Wikipedia, whereas w:Wikipedia:Civility is a policy - I don't exactly know why. My guess is that, in a Wikimedia context, etiquette is about particular instances of niceness or rudeness, whereas civility is about a whole attitude which is based on etiquette, no personal attacks, and so on. Perhaps the distinction is a pragmatic one; we can enforce a policy of civility (ie ban someone if they are generally repeatedly uncivil), but we can suggest a guideline of etiquette. I'm suggesting we do the same here on Wikibooks - enforce a civil environment, but in general, simply suggest getting everyone to cooperate. It's the softest way, but it is strong if needs be (ie if someone is really kicking up a fuss).

This page here is missing a few things, I think. It is generally concerned with refraining from being offensive, and being nice if possible. But fundamentally, as it says right at the top, etiquette is about treating people with respect. There isn't really any explicit mention of this (or certain aspects of this) in the breakdown of what etiquette is. Specifically, I'm referring to things like listening to other people, trying to see where they are coming from, answering questions politely (even answering questions in the first place and not deleting them), and acknowledging and apologising when you're wrong or being unfair. I think these are absolutely basic to working with other people, and I think we need to be clear about this with all participants, especially newcomers.

Sure, i'll "just fix" this policy. But I'd also like to raise its profile in the project in general. What do other people think? Cormaggio 09:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we abandon this page (unless someone volunteers to completely replace it) and instead add a brief paragraph to WB:WIW, indicating that Wikibooks is not for bad behaviour against users. One wiki does this with "WikiFur is not intended to hurt anyone", WikiFur:What_WikiFur_is_not.


 * I dislike having all these extra pages copied from Wikipedia (where I am not familiar with most of the policies). --Kernigh 20:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with abandoning this page - I have already volunteered to do work on it and I've already started. I can't see how this would be usefully integrated into WB:WIW, without destroying all its meaning - you need to spell it out for some people, and even on the example you give, that part of their policy is a red link, meaning they intend on expanding it there. But we have a perfectly good start, at least, of a policy here. Also, it was originally copied from Wikipedia (back in 2003), but that doesn't make it irrelevant to Wikibooks. Of course, it doesn't automatically make it relevant either, but I think it is very relevant, fundamental even - for the very simple reason that this is a collaborative site and in order to get along here, we need to be nice to each other. Cormaggio 21:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, that policy was intended to apply to the people that WikiFur talked about, as well as its users. 68.40.114.223 17:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason that I wanted to abandon the page, was because I thought it was a bad way to establish a policy against aggravating users. I now believe that it can work as a non-policy page, if we do not abandon it. Actually, I did some work on Assume good faith earlier, even though that page is also marked as a proposed policy. --Kernigh 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy or guideline?
I really don't see this as policy material. Proposed policies are or should be intended to become enforced eventually. I can just see the future arbitrations: "He wasn't say something nice when he could have", "No I couldn't, there just wasn't anything nice to say." Yikes! It's not that "Say nice things when you can" is a bad idea or that it shouldn't be included or that it should be changed. Rather, it's that much of good etiquette just can't be made sufficiently precise and objective to enshrine into a policy. I suggest making this a guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMRyan (discuss • contribs) 00:15, 22 March 2006


 * I agree. I think though, we need to make civility a policy (across all projects), and then to specify what that is in "sub" policies or guidelines, like no personal attacks and etiquette. I've also opened this discussion on the foundation-l mailing list. Cormaggio 14:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I remove the draft tag from the page, so it is not proposed as a policy. --Kernigh 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of the Idiom, "bury the hatchet"
Is it appropriate to use the phrase, "bury the hatchet" as it's an idiom that may not be used or understood in every region/culture of English speakers? Hillowrym (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)