Wikipedia talk:Concordia/Archive 6

Archives
13 January 2006 - 21 April 2006 (as CJ) 22 April 2006 - 15 May 2006 (as CJ) 16 May 2006 - 23 May 2006 (as CJ) 23 May 2006 - 26 May 2006 (as CJ) 26 May 2006 - 10 September 2006

Ideas

Instead of what we have not done, let's focus on what we can do right now. I wanted to spread kindess and civility in Wikipedia without interfering with Wikipedia's policies. Here are some ideas that I came up with.

Wikitokens: For kind actions that are not "big" enough to get an barnstar. Like Wikismiles except for specific things. i.e.

 # Token of Hope
 # Token of Kindness
 # Token of Civility

Wikicards: Put these cards on the talk page to cheer someone up. i.e.

  # to cheer someone up
  # to thank a user who recently left Wikipedia
  # to send well wishes to a sick Wikipedian

WikiGrams: Say one thing positive about a Wikipedian and place it on his/her/hir page.

Let me know what you think about these ideas. I was going to do them myself, but I realized that it would be much more successful if more people are involved. Take care. (^'-')^ Covington 15:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Are Wikicards/WikiGrams for CCD, they sound Esperanzial? Computerjoe's talk 16:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it with us. I want every Wikipedian, regardless of edit count, to be able to participate in this. WikiGrams and WikiCards do promote civility, as once the positive-ness is lost, then civility is hard to come by. Let's take steps to prevent incivility by fostering a positive attitude. (^'-')^ Covington 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I thought I would archive the page, it was getting a bit long - • The Giant Puffin • 19:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Tasks

Hi, guys, I've just joined concordia and interested in furthering the concordia agenda. But I was cut short because I can't find further guides from the task section of the page. Its has no links to what it points out to do. So.... Any pointer would be appreciated. ;) Thanks ''F3-R4'' 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

MfD

Well, I was going to instigate a discussion regarding whether we shoudld elete, tag, or revive, but Computerjoe seems to have got there first. Would it be a good idea to discuss this, or delete the accoutrements such as userboxes etc. to discourage new users? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest keeping them, like Concordia itself, for historical reasons. You never know, this may be revived some day, and I want it to have all it needs when it happens - • The Giant Puffin • 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Future?

A comment on Concordia's MfD has revived a question in my mind I had when this organisation started to wilt. Do we have a future? Well, I still dont know. Do we? Its looking more bleak every day and I dont see us reviving any time soon. Esperanza are far bigger and were seen as safer, and yet they were recently up for MfD and are now, as a result of it, discussing its future and making drastic changes. What do we do? Do we revive ourselves with yet another revamp? Do we leave this as historical for some hopeful in the future to revive and bring back as much of the old as possible all the while flooding in some new ideas and concepts? Or do we simply let this organisation fade away into the minds of those who were members (council or not) or involved in some other way? Do we let it gradually become something only a select few remember doing anything? I just dont know at the moment. I havent seen most of the old council around Wikipedia recently. Maybe thats because I am doing less, or maybe its because they are doing less. There are a lot of unknowns at the moment - • The Giant Puffin • 19:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest complete inactivity. Don't let this organisation turn into a group of vigilantes, like it has been perceived in the past. Computerjoe's talk 20:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't suggest inactivity. If some editors want to revive it, let them. I will be helping them. --ElectricEye (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If people want to revive Concordia, they ought to have some veyr good ideas and enough people to support them. Concordia crashed and burned because it didn't have a big enough market share and not enough innovation. Additionally, as I said on the MfD, Concordia never seems to have got over the deletion of the Civility noticeboard. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth remembering that there was a discussion here about merging Concordia and a few other similar programmes (Esperanza, Kindness Campaign etc). While I'm not saying that this is the direction to take, it might be worth keeping in mind for later perhaps. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your POV Dev920, but is 171 members not enough people? I think Concordia "passed-out" when it's parent's decided to let it die instead of defending the purpose of Concordia. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As you know, I've been quite active in the Esperanza overhaul. Which means I've been checking a lot of userpages and it seems to me that Esperanzans have been adding themselves to both Concordia and the Kindness Campaign as a way of "completing the set", if you know what I mean. I would estimate from the archives that there was 15 members at the most who were active. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some people do join some of these organisation just to look like they are bothered about this sort of thing. But there are/were over 170 members, some of which must have joined for a good reason - • The Giant Puffin • 11:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of all three of these organisations and my personal reason for joining them was to set a personal goal and make a public statement about trying to be kind (Kindness Campaign), civil (Concordia), and supportive (Esperanza). I don't normally rub it it people's faces, though now I do understand that some people are offended by the green letters present in many Esperanzans' signatures. I never had a good grasp of how members of Concordia aimed to encourage civility, other than by being civil in their own actions and reminding others when their civility is lacking. I don't know how many people decided to join these three groups out of a similar belief in certain ideals. --Kyoko 13:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We had certain members who thought CJ was a vigilante organisation, which gave more established Wikipedians the wrong idea about us. Community Justice/Concordia goal was to see the 5 pillars of the Wikipedia being followed, specifically the civility one. Computerjoe's talk 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We should develop Concordia's philisophy to prevent a few from ruining it for everyone, and more established Wikipedians should know better than using the actions of a couple as an excuse to stop Concordia. --ElectricEye (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind maintaining Concordia, since the User who started it left. It seems to be a nice organization, and shouldn't have been left to die. Just my two-bits. Peace. Out. Bushcarrot Talk to me! 03:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Relaunch

I read in the newletter that the council was trying to relaunch Concordia. I'm all for it, but how would this be done? -- THL 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Drawing Table

I think that it's very important that something like Concordia continues to exist, at least because it provides some good literature about civility on Wikipedia. But sadly, there's very little intervention on that matter coming from Concordia. I think that Concordia needs to be merged with other community projects in order to originate a stable flux of users interested in the project and who'll actually do something from/for it. At this moment, Concordia lacks ideas and overall participation. Esperanza is on the verge of stagnation after the overhaul. The Kindness Campaign is a sockpuppet of Esperanza. Even the Village pump is an intricate puzzle of discussions that are not receiving the best input from the community as a whole. I believe that these projects that serve as community gathering are not gathering enough and not proving as beneficial for Wikipedia as they could. I am tempted to suggest a massive drawing table to merge them all into a mother project (with sub-projects) that would deal with almost everything that requires community attention and co-operation. Concentrating the community in an efficiently designed space could be the answer to resurrect these projects and get the proper attention they need.--Húsönd 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a person who has been here a little over a month, I have to say that I feel Concordia is sorely needed. I agree with many of Husond's points, but the thought of merging all community-related pages just plain scares me. Having said that, I do feel that the kindness campaign and the welcoming committee could merge with Esperanza with benefits to all. If anything, it might draw some Esperanzans away for their "inward gaze".

I notice that at times the Esperanzans appear to be only giving "kindness" and full-fledged support to each other. Merging with the kindness campaign and the Welcoming committee could encourage a more "outward" focus. In addition, KC and WC are often joined by brand new members, so they could benefit from more experienced Esperanzans.

Concordia, however, seems special to me. I have yet to experience it, but I enjoy it's premise. As I see it, Concordia promotes civility and kindness with dignity. More importantly, it's more focused towards harmonious editing rather than community building.

I'm not saying that community building is bad, but it's a powerful allure away from the editing itself. Frankly speaking: writing, editing, and otherwise building this encyclopedia can be difficult, boring, and lonely. It's not true all the time, but it's true enough to make people want to do what they naturally do instead, which is congregate. As Dorothy Parker once said, "I hate to write, but I love having written".

.NinaEliza 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said Nina, -- THL 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the more organizations out there that are promoting good values and spread a positive influence; the better. I agree with Bibliomaniac when the Coffee Lounge bit it, we're all people, not mindless editing robots. Human values and interaction have to have a place, or this can't work. But enough with my inclusionist rant, it's true the projects only get a brief look in, with appalling numbers that actually participate (have you seen the statistics?) a focus and "community attention and co-operation" seems to be sliding away alarmingly quickly. It seems a shame that the potential of these programs are hardly being recognized, and I would participate in any proposed way to address this. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 05:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, perhaps we should narrow the focus down to Concordia and discuss ways in which it would be different. If it's going to be resurrected, it needs to be relevant to the current needs of Wikipedia. I also believe that a good, organized interface (i.e. the main page of the group) would help tremendously with setting goals and meeting them.

Take for example some of the WikiProjects - some of them have everything they need on one page to monitor the progress of various projects and interact with one another in a goal-oriented way. Personally, I feel that "borrowing" a good template would be useful here.NinaEliza 09:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We do not need to merge any of the organisations. It would cause too much havoc for one thing. What we need to do is either make each organisation different, or make similar organisations cooperate with each other - • The Giant Puffin • 12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Puffin. Even proposing a merger would cause too much disruption, and not enough editing. The risk/reward ratio would be slender at best. We need to build on what we have, not tear structures down. I'm glad to be corrected. NinaEliza 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Concordia should not focus on the community, but more the encyclopedia. While being civil does improve the community, it more importantly makes the encyclopedia run better (for example, AMAs and mediators could build the encyclopedia instead of resolving arguements). Focus on civility's effect on the encyclopedia; do not focus on the community. Computerjoe's talk 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said.NinaEliza 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that I was totally misinterpreted. I also don't think it's plausible to cram all these projects in a messy conception, I was thinking more of a page where links to all community areas could be found altogether. As Esperanza's main page has a section with icons for each ESP program, so could a mother project organize all the community-related projects very neatly. My objective is to have all the projects united under the same umbrella so that they won't lay forsaken.--Húsönd 18:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are some WikiProjects that have fantastic interfaces. We could "borrow" one.NinaEliza 01:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, easily, but I prefer the term "requisition" to borrow. Which Project? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest Esperanza's icon board. It's visually attractive and simple.--Húsönd 15:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. It's aesthetically pleasing and highly functional. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What organisations are there?

There has been a lot of talk about merging all the organisations. Some people want to, some dont. What I think might help is a list of all these types of organisations and their basic aims. Many people think that organisations such as Esperanza, the Welcoming Committee and Concordia are effectively the same. Hopefully a list of some sort will help distinguish whether these organisations are the same, which we can then use to decide on who to cooperate or maybe merge with? - • The Giant Puffin • 15:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The see also section is very useful! Computerjoe's talk 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Lets keep change on the Grassroots level where it works best, rather than create more disruption to the editing process. NinaEliza 16:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

ESP, CCD and KIND are those that aim to improving the community somewhat (and thus the encyclopedia itself). They are all quite different though, so having them seperate rather enables people to help focus on one aspect. Ian¹³/t 18:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the way you put community before encyclopedia for CCD. Computerjoe's talk 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If people aren't comfortable as a part of the community, then they won't edit the encyclopedia. -- THL 22:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

People should edit the Wikipedia for the encyclopedia, not the community. The community is the result of the encyclopedia: not vice-versa. Computerjoe's talk 22:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

True, the community is built around the encyclopedia. However, how many people have quit because they felt that the community screwed them over? The community controls the encyclopedia, and if you aren't a part of the community, you aren't going to be able to work to your full potential. If you don't feel comfortable as a part of it, then you may not edit at all. -- THL 22:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

One can contribute to the encyclopedia and completely remain away from the community. Computerjoe's talk 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But they don't, usually. -- THL 22:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but they DO, many times. Some editors are busy daily but ignore any messages they receive. Some of those such editors I have found to be excellent contributors with NPOV. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Community is a natural human process. Of course there is going to be a sense of community on essentially a community project. Wikipedia is just like a "real life" project, only change can happen more quickly because the interaction is on multiple levels. It's true that someone can edit "away from the community", but that doesn't mean they can't feel a part of it. Frankly, I dislike all the "attempts" at community simply because it creates another faction, when community can so easily be developed by spending five to ten minutes on one's watchlist. On the other hand, if some people need a banner or two, then so be it.NinaEliza 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

PS check out this article I've copy-edited a little: interpersonal ties.

Slogan/quote

How about changing the organisation's quote to a slogan: a civil encyclopedia is a more productive encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computerjoe (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

It's a good idea, you sneaky devil you:).NinaEliza 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it, its catchy and relavent - • The Giant Puffin • 11:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't hate me but frankly I don't find it very catchy. I like the slogan idea though.--Húsönd 15:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate you not. How about Civil is good? NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a little bit too simplistic. I was going to suggest perhaps a Latin slogan that would include the name "Concordia". My Latin stinks though.--Húsönd 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My Latin sucks. I mostly use it for spelling and new words. We can go to the reference desk and get a good translation of anything we want, however.

Concordia is Latin itself, so we could say something like Concordia Harmonium est, but that would be redundant (and the best I can do).

Since Concordia is Latin, and this is the English Wikipedia, why not simply define Concordia?. We could say "Concordia means editing in harmony", or Concordians edit "with one heart". I like the latter, because it might attract those inclined towards Esperanza.

NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 17:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I like Concordia/harmony/heart, maybe we could work on those. Also maybe "Concordia among Wikipedians, for Wikipedians" (or "for Wikipedia"). Thanks to the Latin case system, I think that might result in a 3-word slogan in Latin. More suggestions?--Húsönd 17:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to place emphasis on the encyclopedia. Computerjoe's talk 18:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Harmonia is the word. Harmonium is a reed instrument. Heart - I've got no clue. It's Indo-European.

Joe is right...I'm thinking...NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. How about "Concordia for harmony"? By the way, I believe "heart" is "cor" in Latin and it's probably already embedded in "Concordia".--Húsönd 19:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The original puts emphasis on the encyclopedia. Maybe we can just tweak that one? - • The Giant Puffin • 22:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A civil encyclopedia is a better (or good?) encyclopedia? (cringe) That was horrible, but I agree with puffin we need to put emphasis on the encyclopedia. --Banana04131 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No one likes Concordians edit with one heart? Dag. Please consider the word Concordia. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a straw poll somewhere with a concrete list of suggestions.--Húsönd 03:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll support anything that has even a modicum of consensus. I don't know anything about straw polls as they pertain to Wikipedia.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Created Straw poll at Wikipedia:Concordia slogan poll. I've moved two suggestions from here over there to get it started. --Banana04131 18:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrators

Maybe we should work for admins being fair. Geo. 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Complaints about administrators not being fair/misbehavior are usually reported to WP:ANI.--Húsönd 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As they should be, but it's best to work it out with the admin themselves if you can.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First Project

I propose that our first project be the promotion of Wikimedia links in all articles. Specifically, Wikibooks, Wicktionary, and Wikiquotes. They help the encyclopedia, and promote harmonious editing by providing positive additional work and more sources for potentially controversial material.

This project can include:

1. Lobbying for Wikimedia integrated links to become a set parameter in all peer review, including FA and GA
2. Having a banner or userbox that editors can use (something like Integrate your article!, or a less controversial word
3. Creating or promoting a bot that helps create these links
4. Creating a "FAQ" on our page that explains the benefits of integration (or promoting an existing one}
   1. Simplifying the existing FAQ
5. Creating or promoting a tutorial for the creation of integrated links
   1. Simpifying the existing tutorial if there is one
6. Using these links ourselves in our own articles
   1. Teach other users

I further propose that this project be our sole project until the completion of set goals, or a reasonable time period (3-6 months) is reached.

If this is rejected by consensus, then I still submit that we pick one project at a time. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: This proposal is for the addition of wikimedia links throughout an article, not just at the end or what have you. The aim is to make it part of the editing process. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NinaEliza (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

• Out of interest - how does this link to our main aim of civility? I am not being rude, I just think I might have missed something here. Ian¹³/t 20:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  Tut tut Ian: It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! :P Computerjoe's talk 20:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  Could you expand on what you thought I have done that wasn't civil? I hardly think my reply was uncivil, and I was only trying to ask a question as to how it furthers our aims objectively. Ian¹³/t 21:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  And for that matter, I think it has changed from when I first replied. Ian¹³/t 21:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I don't see what you're reacting against Ian for, so I can only guess it's on another page somewhere in the vast Wikipuniverse. My own two cents: I joined Concordia for the very explicit mission statement on the page: "...an organization of editors on Wikipedia that strive to encourage civility and fair treatment among all editors in the Wikipedian community...." I don't see what this first project does to further this goal.

I vote: shrug. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that shrug. What has this got to do with civility, fair treatment to other users, and other such business? - • The Giant Puffin • 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's not. Concordia is the closest thing I've got to an organization that has the potential to do this, because it's starting over from the ground up. I believe that a shared sense of mission will naturally promote civility. This is something that is currently lacking right now. Beyond the "real world" factionalization that has infected Wikipedia, Wikipedia is factionalizing within itself further.

I strongly suggest that we can support civility within Wikipedia and encourage editing in the mainspace at the same time. In other words, they're mutually inclusive, or at least strongly linked. Indeed, they must be, which is where (I feel) other organizations fail.

Directly encouraging civility implies that everyone else besides us is uncivil, or a least more than a little like WP:BEANS. However, having one "overall" project doesn't mean we can't create programs alongside of it. We could:

1. Set up a "civility mentorship" program
2. Set up a "civility watch" where we use our watchlist and intervene as an objective third party on the talk pages of articles that tend towards controversy.
3. Create a civility FAQ
   1. streamline an existing FAQ and promote it on our user pages and main page
4. Be civil at all times ourselves
5. Lobby to make civil editing part of all review processes (an article doesn't get doesn't get an A if the editing has been fraught with incivility by more than one person).

These are just some ideas. But the main point I'm making (which so far has been the theme of this page) is that we're writing an encyclopedia. If we don't use that as our foundation, then we might as well be another...group.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 01:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You've sold it to me. I think those 5 points are the way to go, and you're right about us building an encyclopedia. This organisation failed last time partly due to people seeing us as too similar to existing groups. Hopefully we can distinguish ourselves enough this time round - • The Giant Puffin • 11:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was joking with the civility warning! :P Computerjoe's talk 17:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I dislike point 2: we are not mediators nor advocates. Computerjoe's talk 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good point Joe. Actually, what I try to do to mediate conflict (or potential conflict) is in my editing, rather than direct comments. I try to improve the controversial article with a small edit (usually wikifying and copy-editing) and along the way remove a bit of POV (it's usually there) on both sides. I give a reason for my edits on the talk page, and move on.

If you look at my recent edit summaries and user contributions, I think they speak for themselves. Once again, we can do "double duty". It's fun, positive, I've learned a lot about a variety of topics (including technical aspects of Wikipedia), and people seem to appreciate it so far. The best part is that people can "find their level" with it, and simply patrol new articles for potential conflict. I submit that this can actually nip "evil" in the bud.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 18:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:

2: We have tired this before, and it failed. I don't think we need a watch as such, but more of a way to assist those who wish to be assisted, and choose to try and improve themselves.

4: Yes, being civil is always good, but I don't think we should end up with people saying "and you call yourself a member of Concordia!" I have heard it before (along those lines), and personally if it becomes common place, I am not sure it is something I would wish to be a part of. Individual users don't repesent Concordia, nor it's values. They mearly strive towards Concordia helping anyone who needs it, not any form of self judgement or heirarchy.

5: No, no lobbying. Again, I think most review processes look towards the content, and it's ability to be sucessfully expanded. In a way, civility is already covered in it's ability to maintain itself, but I don't think it should be the main highlight (content should be).

Ian¹³/t 21:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your comments. Is there anything you would support, and do you have any other ideas right now? Lets hear them and get the ball rolling. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would happily support 1 and 3. Ian¹³/t 10:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support all of them, but I dont think we should proceed with number 2 just yet, and not make it one of our main objectives if it is started. We tried it before and it didnt work, maybe its just a new approach that is needed, but the problem may be that there is no place for it - • The Giant Puffin • 11:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

another idea

Here's another idea for the list. Instead of "trading userpages", we trade articles that are too close to our hearts for us to edit in an entirely constructive manner, or simply upset us to do so. It's not necessary to know about the topic - just a willingness to learn and a basic understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

We could have this project be open-ended, but I would prefer that all projects have an end-date (1 month, 3 months, whatever) to prevent burnout and create smaller, obtainable goals that will encourage us. If we wish to "re=up", we can do so, but I think a bit of a rotation would be best. We could create a notification-bot (we minus me:) ) to help us with this. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I want to clarify a couple of things (thanks Puffin). My particular vision for this group is that we do whatever we can to minimize our "presence", other than inviting new members. Even that, I feel, we can generate with our own edits and declation that we are Concordia members. I see it as a side-project that isn't a side-project. That's how we can most differentiate ourselves from other larger groups.

Towards that end, it would be great if we could have as little "side project" effort as possible. Let our edits do "double duty". In short, I'm talking too much right now:).NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 19:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I think everyone agrees a FAQ should be set up. I would do it myself but am a little unclear about how to make a page outside of the article namespace. Anyone who knows how, go for it! Should probably be made at Wikipedia:Concordia/FAQ.An important topic to cover is how are we different from the Harmonious editing club. I'm glad this project is starting up again!--Banana04131 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

. . .and no one has disagreed with a civility mentorship program either. Maybe located at Wikipedia:Concordia/Mentorship. --Banana04131 00:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

. . .Now that I am back from the help desk I am going to go ahead and be bold and make the FAQ. --Banana04131 01:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No clue either on the first topic. Second topic, GREAT!. Mentorship gets a bad rap, but people seem to like adoption - it shouldn't be called "civility" anything - it could sound pejorative. We simply adopt new users. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Until we get the proposals page organized I have just started the FAQ at Wikipedia:Concordia/Frequently Asked Questions.--Banana04131 04:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about, that's great. Thank you for your work, Banana.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposals page Ian¹³/t 18:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:CCD

I know that I'm not a member of Concordia, but I thought I could help out in some way. Everyone seemed to want a tempalate similar to the one Esperanza uses, so I made one. Please tell me your opinion on this template. If you would like to put this template on your user page, simply type {{CCD |char = Character |user = Username }} , but replace Username with your username and Character with the Character you would like to use for the template. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Behold, your great big blue box of wonder, with bold, unmistakable fonts! Surely a thing of wonder! -- Okay, sarcasm and mirth aside, I like it but I think it makes unnecessary use of huge bold fonts. On my 1400x1050 screen, it takes up considerable screen real estate. Could you put it on a diet, perhaps? ,:) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks nice, but I thought that people were trying to remove the whole "green e" thing in Esperanza because it made ESP look like some sort of exclusive club. Correct me if Im wrong, but thats what I recall happening - • The Giant Puffin • 22:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent gesture of goodwill. Thank you.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 01:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the templet to Concordia's list of templets and images. --Banana04131 17:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

talk page

Theres no need to be overpolite. I sense an external force called CIVILITY, which incidently seems to be what we stand for, controlling our minds on this page and making us say civil things for the sake of being civil. That being said, Im back. --Osbus 03:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome and - huh?NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, scratch that. Why be coy? I know what you're talking about (I think).

I'll be blunt, since Wikipedia is not censored for children) We can post on this talk page till we the end of time, and sit around and bitch about Esperanza or it's "sock" or just generally air out our assholes, but I'm not joining any club that isn't about getting the most things done with a minimum of effort. I'm a #&%^ing volunteer for heaven's sake. Any yabo off the street can see what works and what doesn't. Setting reasonable goals and obtaining them works. It works for corporations, it works for organizations, and it will work for us - if we #*%^ing DO IT. JUST DO IT. :)NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you be a little more civil? Although Wikipedia isn't censored, that doesn't mean we can do as we please, we merely include content that has a value to the encyclopedia. I hardly think swearing or otherwise will assist us here. Ian¹³/t 10:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh so true. Ian¹³/t 10:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of this project is to be civil. Make an environment where people can discuss openly and are not intimidated by someones behavior. Rather different to making everyone love each other. Ian¹³/t 10:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I cussed a lot. It was certainly WP:POINT.

I'm not trying to make everyone love each other. However, I do have a background in marketing (eh, well, I was an admin for a marketing agency). I have two points, and neither of them are particlularly lovey-dovey.

• Every "corporation", or in this case Wikipedia, needs a re-focusing from time to time. I submit that since the creation of articles and editing is (or at least was, recently) at a serious low, Concordia can do something about it at the same time it promotes civility.

• In order for Concordia to be successful this time around, it needs to be attractive. It not only needs to be attractive to people who wish to join, it needs to be attractive to people who would "support the cause" and not join.

That's it. I've run out of good ideas currently, so I'll stay away.

Touche. I didnt mean curse like mad but dont say thank you after each comment (that sort of thing) unless you really mean it.--Osbus 13:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I do mean everything I say. Not that anyone would know this but I'm a Buddhist, and genuine appreciation of everything is one the cornerstones of my faith. Having said that, Buddhist is not synonymous with doormat. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 13:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure bringing religion into this will help. I would have thought most people would aim not to be doormats :) Ian¹³/t 18:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. They were very positive and constructive. Thanks in particular for responding to my two central points. Much appreciated. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 05:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Smile to people and help promote wikilove!

Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks mate. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks =) - • The Giant Puffin • 21:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• The way I find people to smile at is going on other peoples talk pages and smiling at the people there. You can really smile to a lot of people this way. Another way is to go to wikiprojects and smile to the members. Another way of course is to smile to those who leave comments on your talk page. God bless.--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 21:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

At Concordia, we definitely should find ways to squelch uncivil commotion. But that action should be kept at a minimum while we encourage involved parties by directing them towards productive efforts (the other Wiki organizations). So, I do not believe it is wise to promote that Concordia "support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect." Can we change the wording? I like Húsönd's "outward" approach as mentioned above and I also agree with Computer Joe's ideas on focusing on the encyclopedia rather than the the community. Those ideas should have more influence in our introduction. --ElectricEye (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So focusing on articles that have incivility issues or edit wars going on? --Banana04131 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like that. Assisting with civility issues on those articles. But we don't have to focus on them. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Im going to change the introduction a bit because I don't think it's a good idea to be known as going around giving support to "victims". No one is a victim here, we are volunteers and anyone is free to leave when they want. No "victims". My proposed change is pretty minor and still means the same thing, but no focusing on victims:

The project was designed to foster a friendly and helpful environment to support Wikipedians confronted with incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect.

--ElectricEye (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Watch out

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza will no doubt have an effect to CCD. Computerjoe's talk 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We will probably have another MfD here before January is through - • The Giant Puffin • 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems that people had with Esperanza was that it wasn't open to everybody. This is. That's one problem gone. Also, EA was too beaucratic. CCD is not that either.--CJ King 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

But people paint us with the same brush as ESP - • The Giant Puffin • 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I'm scared! --ElectricEye (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Spare Time

Saddam Hussein's talk page is pretty incivil. --Banana04131 03:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein too. --Banana04131 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this will be one of the most edited pages on Wikipedia in the next few weeks - • The Giant Puffin • 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Banana, thanks for your efforts in civility on your spare time. ^_^ Ppl who want to help foster a friendly and helpful environment in Wikipedia can do things like this, but you don't have to notify this talk page. You just go and do it. --ElectricEye (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oath to Civility

A simple way to make the Wikipedia be more civil would be to make all CCD members agree to an oath to be WP:CIVIL. While in itself it wouldn't be that important, it would be a gesture of good will by our members. Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is a good idea. But I think those breaking the oath should be given at least 2 chances (3 strikes and your out) or else we may breed further uncivility. --ElectricEye (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm bureacracy. We don't need to launch an internal affairs division :P . The consequence for being incivil would be determined by the severity of the incivility, and would just be done with a bit of discussion. Computerjoe's talk 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Stripping membership is an important action we must be open to, even if only through discussion unless we intend this group to be vanity. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Implications of Esperanza MFD

As a barely involved outsider who hasn't had much to do with your organization, I suggest you read Mailer Diablo's comment on the Esperanza MFD carefully. He cited the governance of Esperanza as something that should be avoided, and something that would have an effect on future organizations. I suggest you abolish your governance council, so that you don't reach the same fate as Esperanza. Ral315 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have suggested that before. We have simplified it dramatically, but I am in favour of complete abolition of it. Computerjoe's talk 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Concordia members should be able to administer Concordia without a "governance". We should not follow Esperanza's governmental way. --ElectricEye (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps we could stick to electing one "Executive", whose duty will be to determine consensus on discussions (otherwise they tend to take ages - someone has to say "stop" at some point) and putting the decisions into motion (not necessarily by doing it themself, perhaps by stating that "such and such things ought to be done now").

We might also want to rephrase the objectives (somehow; no idea what else can be done), so that we don't sound like a "civility police" (yes, people are still caling us this way and have bad connotations in mind). Миша13 10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly concur with removing any and all ranks of governance. >Radiant< 10:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I decided to be bold and redirected the governance page. After all the council has expired in November. Essentially this also means that membership is open and equal to everyone. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Membership always has. It was a founding principle of Community Justice. Computerjoe's talk 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I see, my apologies. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ComputerJoe, I'm sorry, but I don't like your idea. Even if a user is very uncivil he could be a member, as long as he made an oath. Such a organization is worthless if operated that way. Concordia should not not be developed into a worthless organization. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No no no! You understood me wrong. Originally, we stated any users, regardless of their experience, could join Concordia. Uncivil users have often been expelled. Computerjoe's talk 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Membership

I think we should use civility as our yardstick to determine membership. The past has shown that questionably civil members have almost caused this effort to die. So, there should be several levels of membership:

• 1 typical
• 2 time-honored
• 3 elected leaders from (2)

New members default to 1 and may become 2 if they have not had civility issues in 6 months. 2 may drop in status to 1 if they exhibit civility breaches. A user may be barred entirely from membership if he is known to have have a continuing uncivil history. --ElectricEye (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Too much bureaucracy and I dislike the whole rank structure. Computerjoe's talk 11:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That was one of our problems before - • The Giant Puffin • 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucracy isn't the idea. One of my concerns is that users with civility issues do not pose as members of Concordia. If we can do this without bureacracy that would be great! ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We pretty much just expel those without too much bureacracy. Computerjoe's talk 18:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Who expells who? --ElectricEye (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

With open membership, membership should be nothing more than a "color" or a "flag" showing a user is someone who wants to help foster a friendly and helpful environment in Wikipedia. Like the Welcoming Committee.--ElectricEye (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Expelling is more trouble than it's worth. If a user persists in claiming he's a Concordian even though he's not, that doesn't really harm anything. You can always say "he's not speaking for us" if you want. Note that the WP:HEC has a few known edit warriors on its membership roster, that's not problematic either. >Radiant< 09:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  Perhaps. Computerjoe's talk 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Where you can go from here

Concordia's challange is now, just as it has always been, to differentiate itself from Esperanza. The stakes now are, I say frankly and without malice, whether the Concordia pages are deleted by the outside community. This is likely to happen, as it did to Esperanza, after a month or so if Concordia doesn't seem to be on the right track. Well, what's the right track? I'm glad you asked.

Things to work on:

1. What is Concordia for?
2. What will it do?
3. Why is an umbrella organization superior to individual project pages, or the efforts of individual editors, to do these things?
4. Ruthlessly shedding unnecessary bureaucracy

Things not to work on:

1. Membership
   • Membrship rules of any kind
   • Membership levels of any kind, including leaders and councils as well as different gradations based on civility.
   • In fact, perhaps you should consider abandoning the idea of membership entirely?
2. Extensive mission statements, charters, and other wordy documentation.

In my personal opinion, I don't think these questions can be answered well, because we simply don't need any centralized organizations to support civility—rather, we need good will and individual initiative from all Wikipedians. However, I welcome you to prove my personal opinion wrong. The program above is my personal opinion too, but my best guess is that it aligns fairly well with what the community will expect the next time someone's deletion finger gets itchy—you're welcome to ignore it, but I believe you would do so at some peril. -- SCZenz 07:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• 2. We will it do?

What do we do as "Concordians"?

• In the spirit of Concordia, I provide support in fostering a creative and civil environment to work on articles (especially for newcomers). If someone is being uncivil, instead of warning them, I look at those involved in any dispute and first help those who are more productive. If it's the newcomer being uncivil, I look at their history for articles they've actually contributed to and thank them for their contributions to give them encouragement for more actual contribution. I also may try to give a light warning to the one(s) being uncivil, but I try to avoid this direction. If the civility is really a problem, then someone can do a write-up at WP:ANI. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  I do that too. How does your Concordia help? -- SCZenz 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  Concordia is a place to co-ordinate work on improving civility, although I believe we are not doing a good job at this at the moment. We need to stop talking about reform and just start working on things. Computerjoe's talk 21:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

These were some items that survived the discussions above (Wikipedia_talk:Concordia#First_Projector[1]) such as:

1. Set up a "civility mentorship" program
2. Create a civility FAQ - streamline an existing FAQ and promote it on our user pages and main page

There were other proposals which we can also discuss if we think they are good ideas.--ElectricEye (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think the best place for a civility faq is here. >Radiant< 09:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It would seem logical to place it there - • The Giant Puffin • 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)