It's easy to find examples of Crocker's influence on Wikipedia [1]. This fascinating exchange, very early in wikipedia's history, is about systemic bias [2]. It appears that Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales wished to deny that any such thing could exist! (amazing). Some LOL points:
The whole debate is wonderful to read and it's difficult not to find something to agree with vehemently from every single debate participant. Some of this stuff should be mined to tease apart the issue/position/argument structures and build on them for this wiki project. Also, the Wikipedia project on countering systemic bias which arose seemingly from these early 2002 debates perhaps needs an equivalent for less wrong, as it is a small community that isn't very representative.
The last word does indeed seem to be the last word:
"I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a real definition of "neutral point of view" that isn't just "because we say it is". It seems like there are roving bands of Orwellian truth monitors enforcing a left wing orthodoxy here. The systemic bias I see isn't just in what IS said in wikipedia articles, but what ISN'T said. Minority views are expunged, suppressed from history by militants intent on enforcing their idea of what "neutral" is. Whole pages are voted for deletion by people who want to suppress the information those pages communicate. Deleters don't even give editors time to put together a decent article before they descend en masse to make the editor conform to the left orthodoxy or be depersonated out of wikipedia.
There would be much less strife in wikipedia if different factions were allowed to post their view of what "neutral" is for a given topic, and the reading public was allowed to rate articles. Particularly for topics that are generally in dispute in the world at large, either politically or with regard to other things, the idea of reaching consensus in wikipedia on a topic when there is no consensus in the world at large smacks of elitist arrogance and pretentions to tyranthood. User:Citizenposse"
By declaring commitment to Crocker's rules, one authorizes other debaters to optimize their messages for information, even when this entails that emotional feelings will be disregarded. This means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind, so that if you're offended, it's your own fault. The underlying assumption is that rudeness is sometimes necessary for effective conveyance of information, if only to signal a lack of patience or tolerance: after all, knowing whether the speaker is becoming angry or despondent is useful rational evidence. Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting.
Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean one is authorized to insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor.
Crocker's rules, named after and framed by Lee Daniel Crocker, is a social communication protocol or etiquette used to reduce emotional impact on debate. Crocker was an early contributor to Wikipedia, and, with Larry Sanger, Fred Bauder and others who chose to contribute pseudonymously or anonymously, helped to form its rules to maximize objective reporting.
Crocker emphasized, repeatedly, in Wikipedia discourse and elsewhere, that one could only adopt Crocker's rules to apply to oneself,oneself, and could not impose them on a debate or forum with participants who had not opted-in explicitly to these rules, nor use them to exclude any participant.
Combining Crocker's rules with the principle of content over community resulted in another related maxim or principle that "all users are trolls", meaning, no user has the right to assume intent nor label nor categorize other users by perjoratives whose sole purpose is exclusion rather than characterization of the actual bias in an argument. Some wikipedia users for instance chose to use the term "troll" in their user name, or to describe themselves as "pro-troll" or even "smug pro-trolling trolls", and to disdain any argument that the origins of any writing or argument ought to be investigated or speculated upon. Only face value assessment of what writings actually said ought to be conducted, and editing not exclusion ought to be the only response to exaggeration, error or bias. See also the history of anonymous political comment, systemic bias and secret ballot.
Combining Crocker's rules with the principle of content over community resulted in another related maxim or principle that "all users are trolls", meaning, no user has the right to assume intent nor label nor categorize other users by perjoratives whose sole purpose is exclusion rather than characterization of the actual bias in an argument. Some wikipedia users for instance chose to use the term "troll" in their user name, or to describe themselves as "pro-troll" or even "smug pro-trolling trolls", and to disdain any argument that the origins of any writing or argument ought to be investigated or speculated upon. Only face value assessment of what writings actually said ought to be conducted, and editing not exclusion ought to be the only response to exaggeration, error or bias. See also the history of anonymous political comment, systemic bias, and secret ballot.
A lack of freedom to make emotionally uncomfortable observations is often thought to lead to groupthink. The assertion that unanimity is not consensus arises from common anecdotal evidence that disagreement is often not expressed not because it is not relevant, but not pleasant, and that poor decisions are often unchallenged as a result. This principle is ancient, and dates back at least to the ancient Hebrew Sanhedrin wherein unanimous decisions were considered unfair by nature and represented only the lack of adequate defense of the accused. A voluntary adoption of Crocker's rules would presumably eliminate at least some cases of disagreeable silence and make more objections explicit, as in the practice of appeals and supreme courts, where the minority opinion is codified with the same care as is taken with the majority's.
Combining Crocker's rules with the principle of content over community resulted in another related maxim or principle that "all users are trolls", meaning, no user has the right to assume intent nor label nor categorize other users by perjoratives whose sole purpose is exclusion rather than characterization of the actual bias in an argument. Some wikipedia users for instance chose to use the term "troll" in their user name, or to describe themselves as "pro-troll" or even "smug pro-trolling trolls", and to disdain any argument that the origins of any writing or argument ought to be investigated at other thanor speculated upon. Only face value.value assessment of what writings actually said ought to be conducted, and editing not exclusion ought to be the only response to exaggeration, error or bias. See also the history of anonymous political comment, systemic bias, and secret ballot.
Combining Crocker's rules with the principle of content over community resulted in another related maxim or principle that "all users are trolls", meaning, no user has the right to assume intent nor label nor categorize other users by perjoratives whose sole purpose is exclusion rather than characterization of the actual bias in an argument. Some wikipedia users for instance chose to use the term "troll" in their user name, or to describe themselves as "pro-troll" or even "smug pro-trolling trolls", and to disdain any argument that the origins of any writing or argument ought to be investigated at other than face value. See also the history of anonymous political comment.
Crocker's rules, named after and framed by Lee Daniel Crocker, is a social communication protocol.protocol or etiquette to reduce emotional impact on debate. Crocker was an early contributor to Wikipedia, and, with Larry Sanger, Fred Bauder and others who chose to contribute pseudonymously or anonymously, helped to form its rules to maximize objective reporting.
Thus, one who has committed to these rules largely gives up the right to complain about emotional provocation, flaming, abuse"flaming", "trolling", "abuse" (hopelessly subjective terms) and other alleged violations of etiquetteetiquette. They give these rights up in the interest of effective debate.
Crocker emphasized, repeatedly, in Wikipedia discourse and elsewhere, that one could only adopt Crocker's rules to apply to oneself, and could not impose them on a debate or forum with participants who had not opted-in explicitly to these rules, nor use them to exclude any participant.
Crocker's rules, named after Lee Daniel Crocker, is a rationality-enhancing technique.social communication protocol.
Crocker's Rulesrules, named after wikipedia:Lee Daniel Crocker, areis a rationality-enhancing technique.
By declaring commitment to Crocker's Rules,rules, one authorizes other debaters to optimize their messages for information, even when this entails that emotional feelings will be disregarded. The underlying assumption is that rudeness is sometimes necessary for effective conveyance of information, if only to signal a lack of patience or tolerance: after all, knowing whether the speaker is becoming angry or despondent is useful Bayesianrational evidence.
In contrast to radical honesty, Crocker's Rulesrules encourage being tactful with anyone who hasn't specifically accepted them. This follows the general principle of being "liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send".
Here's the full text from
sl4.org/crocker.html, in casesl4.orggoes down (as I suspected it had when it hung trying to load for a few minutes just now).