禮貌係維基友間行為準則,維基之內,何時何地大家都要有禮。編寫各人,都要互相尊重,照顧到人哋。咁係爲咗集中改善維基,維持友好編寫氣氛。各編寫人,就拗得幾勁都好,都要有禮貌、平心靜氣同講理。
呢篇文或者呢段要 翻譯(或者由 en:Wikipedia:Civility 加料)。 |
呢頁喺英文維基百科嘅對應頁係一項正式政策,但粵語維基百科重未達成共識。所以內容只供參考。 請參照英文版嘅對應頁或討論頁以進一步完善內容,提議同參與討論佢係唔係可以成為粵語維基百科嘅正式政策同指引。 |
一句講嗮:用互相尊重同埋文明嘅方式參與。唔做得唔理人哋嘅立場同埋結論。試吓去阻止人哋做尐無禮嘅嘢,而且要小心唔好得罪人哋。 |
維基百科嘅政策 |
---|
文章嘅標準 |
同維基友合作 |
守則講明,維基友要點相處,以合理方法應對問題。無論修改或者寫編輯摘要、評論同埋喺討論頁討論。無禮粗略噉定義為「針對個人嘅行為,呢尐行為導致更大嘅衝突同埋壓力嘅氣氛」,我哋嘅有禮守則講得好白,就係尐人一定要互相做尐有禮嘅嘢。
Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is the only principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect one another. But we have every right to demand civility.
我哋邀請訪客去改善維基百科入面嘅文章。但係文章嘅修改到底係唔係「改善」就往往存在意見分歧。When editors weigh the pros and cons of whether a change is an improvement, it may be difficult to criticize text without being subjective about the situation. Editors, in trying to be clear, can be unnecessarily harsh on the giving end. Conversely, on the receiving end, editors can be oversensitive when they see what they wrote replaced by something that claims to be "better", despite it being the opposite of what they wrote.
Silent and faceless words on Talk pages and Edit summaries do not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, leading to small, facetious comments being misinterpreted. One uncivil remark can easily escalate into a heated discussion which may not be focused objectively on the problem at hand. It is during these exchanges that community members may become uninterested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing" over the "enemy".
一啲冇禮嘅:
更嚴重嘅例子包括:
譬如,你靜靜雞開新版嗰陣,有個編輯話「如果你要寫篇廢文,可唔可以睇吓有乜錯漏先啊?」。呢啲就叫冇禮貌。
如果你答佢「關你咩事啊?」,就會火上加油。
呢種互動趕走其他貢獻者,將維基友本來可以用嚟做更重要嘅嘢嘅精力分散,從而削弱成個維基社群。
Most of the time, insults are used in the heat of the moment during a longer conflict. They are essentially a way to end the discussion. Often the person who made the insult regrets having used such words afterwards. This in itself is a good reason to remove (or refactor) the offending words.
In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize.
Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This may constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way to interact.
If it is a clear case of ongoing incivility, consider making a comment on the offender's talk page. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement. In extreme cases (of heavy or repeated incivility), a user conduct Request for Comment may be useful to resolve the matter.
Parties sometimes attempt to negotiate an agreement while one party is not ready to negotiate. For example, if the source of the conflict is a specific point in an article, dispute resolution may be impaired if discussion is still clouded by an uncivil exchange between both parties. It is best to clear up that issue as soon as possible, so disputants can regain their balance and clarity when editing.
Some editors are badly shaken by uncivil words directed towards them, and can't focus on the source of the conflict itself. It may help to point out to them why unpleasant words were used, and acknowledge that while incivility is wrong, the ideas behind the comment may be valid.
The offended person may realize that the words were not always meant literally, and could decide to forgive and forget them.
It can be helpful to point out breaches of civility even when done on purpose to hurt, as it might help the disputant to refocus on the issue (controversial).
During the mediation process, a third neutral party is in contact with both disputants, ensuring communication between them. The role of the mediator is to promote reasonable discussion between the two disputants. Therefore it is helpful to remove incivility voiced by User A, in rephrasing comments to User B.
At the end of the mediation process, the mediator may suggest that the disputants agree to remove uncivil comments that have remained on user and article talk pages. The editors might agree to delete pages created specifically to abuse or flame one another, and/or to remove all flaming content not relevant to the article discussion, and/or to refactor a discussion. This may allow disputants to forgive and forget offenses more quickly.
Similarly, the disputants might agree to apologize to each other.
Mediation regularly involves disputes in which one party feels injured by the other. The apology is an act that is neither about problem-solving and negotiation, nor is it about arbitration. Rather, it is a form of ritual exchange between both parties, where words are said that allow reconciliation. In transformative mediation, the apology represents an opportunity for acknowledgement that may transform relations.
For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. For this reason, a sincere apology is often the key to the resolution of a conflict: an apology is a symbol of forgiveness. An apology is very much recommended when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.
See also: Wikipedia:Wikiquette
This article uses material from the Wikipedia 粵語 article Wiki:有禮, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). 呢度嘅所有文字係根據 CC BY-SA 4.0 牌照嘅條款發佈;可能會有附加嘅條款。 Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki 粵語 (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.