Adding "well, actually" back as an example #300
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please don't do this. So many arguments in the past, that I'd summarise as: "this is a highly contentious example that works well for some groups and absolutely not at all for other groups." In other words, it's a poor choice of example to use in a global-facing document.
|
@nigelmegitt when we took this example out we received feedback from several people that it was THE primary lived experience of patronizing behavior that they have dealt with (especially in W3C). @wareid and I were asked repeatedly to put it back in. Can you live with it? |
|
@TzviyaSiegman without discounting their experience, no, I can't deal with it. The problem is that it is highly context-dependent, and there's no explanation of that context: indeed, adding the context would make it overly complicated as an example. In my view it is better not to add this example, or to use it in some lengthier explanatory document. |
|
While I see the concern @nigelmegitt I think the feedback needs to win here. Yes, context matters greatly, but the same is true for a great deal of the CoC, and we need to put faith in the people to deal with these issues as it impacts them. Trust me when I say I know the difference between someone enthusiastically sharing knowledge on a topic in a conversation and using phrasing like "well actually" vs. someone being patronizing towards me. Usage of the examples is meant to be educational, if someone sees the phrase and realizes they use it a lot and it might be taken the wrong way, it's a learning opportunity, we're not sending the SWAT team. |
|
I will also add, as someone who probably used to say "well, actually" with embarrassing frequency - it is better to have this example, and have users of the phrase question it whenever they say it. I agree, @nigelmegitt , that there are contexts that it is not a problematic phrase - but there are far more occurrences where it likely IS causing unintended offense. This is not a blanket prohibition of using the phrase in any context, but it is more problematic than it might seem. (ObApology to everyone I might have unintentionally offended using this phrase in the past here) |
|
I am sure I fall into the same category @cwilso ! Nevertheless, while I understand your point, I disagree on the outcome: it does look like a blanket prohibition. @wareid I am sure that you understand the different tones and uses, but for those who don't, i.e. the target audience, I would contend that it is not even useful as an educational tool, for precisely the reason that the usage context is missing.
Well, W3C works on consensus, and I am clearly blocking consensus on adopting this change in this document. I do think that some longer worked examples in a separate guidance document, including this phrase, could be extremely helpful though. |
|
I can't make any promises regarding an accompanying guidance document, nor do I think one would remotely be helpful. This document is already quite extensive and I don't think we gain anything by adding even more content. What would the guidance document even say? We can't coach people through every potential interaction. We added this back because many people wanted it back, particularly people who had had the phrase used against them. This document is always going to be more attuned to the needs of people on the receiving end of bad behaviour as a resource to guide when something feels wrong. Nigel, we really need a more substantive explanation for the opposition outside of it being context dependent, because half of the CoC is context dependent, that is the nature of documents like these. It would be fantastic if we could write this like a technical specification, that is unfortunately not possible. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great commonly seen example to add explicitly, and especially in the context of a global community that uses English as a default, with many non-native English speakers that may not have familiarity with the nuances or historical abuse of such colloquialisms.
I see including this example as an act of kindness for non-native English speakers, who may otherwise hear such expressions from native English speakers and accidentally pick-up and re-use them without knowing their potential harms (or context sensitivity).
I will admit I have seen "Well, actually" used in sarcasm, satire, and irony, however even those uses don't typically contribute to a "positive environment" so I think it's still ok to include this explicitly, and instead rely on the goodwill of anyone attempting to use the phrase in those ways to accept pushback and kindly handle any conflict management.
|
Wait, this PR contains the wrong language. The language that was agreed on yesterday's call was this, which provides considerably more informative explanation:
|
|
We try to base our work on research. @elenalape shared this CoC with me https://github.com/compsoc-edinburgh/code-of-conduct. Perhaps the definition of well actually here would help explain why we would like to include this. |
Wow, that definition sounds very different than the way our CoC was describing the term. That description sounds much more like disruption of discussion than being patronizing. But regardless, @nigelmegitt , does the verbiage that was agreed by the group and should have been in this PR -- i.e., not the current content of this PR -- address your concerns enough for you to live with it? The agreed verbiage was this:
|
|
The wording in #300 (comment) is much less problematic and I would be able to accept it. |
|
@nigelmegitt @dbooth-boston I've edited this to add that language (some further editing for fit and clarity). Does this satisfy your concerns? |
|
Yes, that looks fine to me. |
By popular request, everyone's favourite example of patronizing language.
Preview | Diff