<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
<title type="text">Joseph Reagle</title>
<subtitle type="html"><![CDATA[
Open Communities, Media, Source, and Standards
]]></subtitle>
<id>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/neutrality-civility</id>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog" />
<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/neutrality-civility?flav=atom" />


<author>
<name>Joseph Reagle</name>
<uri>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/neutrality-civility</uri>
<email></email>
</author>
<rights>Copyright 2003-2010 Joseph Reagle</rights>
<generator uri="http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/" version="1.4.3 01/10/2008">
PyBlosxom http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/ 1.4.3 01/10/2008
</generator>

<updated>2006-08-15T14:13:47Z</updated>
<!-- icon?  logo?  -->

<entry>
<title type="html">Civility without neutrality</title>
<category term="" />
<id>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/2006/08/15/neutrality-civility</id>
<updated>2006-08-15T14:13:47Z</updated>
<published>2006-08-15T14:13:47Z</published>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/neutrality-civility.html" />
<content type="html">

&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a
href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&quot;&gt;Neutral
Point of View (NPOV)&lt;/a&gt; policy was much discussed at this month&apos;s &lt;a
href=&quot;http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page&quot;&gt;Wikimania 2006&lt;/a&gt;.
There was, of course, my own &lt;a
href=&quot;http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:JR1&quot;&gt;presentation&lt;/a&gt;
asking &quot;Is Wikipedia neutral?,&quot; but I am not alone in appreciating the
importance and value of this notion. However, two other discussion during the
conference made me think that perhaps neutrality is sometimes overvalued.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The first issue was whether neutrality should be a policy on all Wikis?
Many think not, and my own response was that Ward Cunningham&apos;s Wiki -- the
first -- was not neutral: it advocated for a particular type of software
development practice. Such &quot;perspective making&quot; (Boland
and Tenkasi 1995) within a community is an important function.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The second issue is whether there is something we can learn from
neutrality without having to actually be neutral? Indeed, there is:
&lt;em&gt;civility&lt;/em&gt;. During the conference I remarked to a colleague that
neutrality and civility are often conflated because neutrality roughly
necessitates civility. But that does not mean that absent the neutrality
requirement, we must be rude. Kingwell
(1995:247) makes an interesting argument that in a pluralistic society it
is too much to ask that we have &quot;genuine respect&quot; for everyone. Civility only
asks that we (initially) treat others &lt;em&gt;as if&lt;/em&gt; they were worthy of
respect and understanding. This notion, in the Wikipedia lexicon, is that of
&quot;&lt;a
href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith&quot;&gt;good
faith&lt;/a&gt;&quot; an often connected but distinct and separable notion from the
neutral point of view.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</content>
</entry>
</feed>
