This will be a "rant" on negativity and why it's not a dreadful monster that eats people alive.
In my day to day life online, I often find things I do not like. I try to point these out - and then get shot down because I was being negative. Or arguing. Or whatever excuse they decide to use.
In one example, I nominate an article I had written on Brickipedia for Good Status (Class 1). Someone voted against it, and when I asked for clarification, they gave me reasons which weren't really sensical. In response, I went online and explained to him why in a chat room. I was told first, by a different person, to stop arguing - a statement hilarious, pathetic, and that makes me very angry, all at once. Then I was told that I was being rude by multiple people. As far as I could see, all I had done was list my reasons. It turns out that it was rude to say this in a chat room. However, this was a chat room on a Wikia intended for the use of the Wiki. It only made sense to use it for that purpose. In addition to that, it was just as likely for people, in this case people who actually mattered, to visit his talk page and see the responses, if not more so. All in all, the chat was actually more private. Yet somehow I had violated an unspoken rule. I tried to engage in civilized discussion with two people - first, the person who told me to stop arguing and the other people who joined in. However, they kept saying "Stop arguing!" over and over, so I simply left after a while. Fortunately, these people were people who I do not really respect, so I don't care if I'm going to lose their respect. The other was the person who opposed the nomination. I explained to him why I left him the message and he told me that I didn't have to reply, as if he didn't even understand what an oppose vote was - something which would entirely nullify the chance of it being given a higher status. Because of this, I had little choice but to fix it (which it did not need) or explain my opposition to his opposition.
In another example, on the same site, the builders, in general, are not very good. They generally amount to as much as the kids who post their creations on sites like MOCpages and FlickR. Recently, they created this "MOC of the Month" and "Builder of the Month" nomination system. After opposing a builder and a creation, I was told by someone that they were "tired of my negativity" - and yet there was an oppose field right there! On the site, opposes are supposed to be explained, which I did, and my following the rules and making reasonable opposes resulted in my alienation.
Onto what is really important: I'm here to explain why arguments and negativity aren't a bad thing.
I've had many, many people tell me to "stop arguing". It's interesting how the very concept of an argument is treated on some of the sites I've been on: it's as if it's one of the worst things I can do. Somehow, democracy is a bad thing online. Because that's what arguing is. It's a part of democracy. However, it is vilified beyond belief even though you can just ignore it if it bothers you. It's not your place to stop someone else's argument. I've tried labeling my arguments as discussions, and conducting them in a reasonable manner, but to no avail - I receive the same reaction.
As for negativity - I've seen in quite a few places how negativity is a "bad thing". Like arguing, it has its purpose. If you can't say "no", "I don't like this", "I disagree with this", and other such simple phrases, then you do not have a democracy. If your only options are "yes" and to abstain, then it's not a democracy.
That isn't to say that all arguing and negativity is a good thing. However, for the most part, they allow people to exchange ideas and opinions.
I don't use Facebook, Twitter, or other popular networking sites so I have no idea if this applies there. This is all in the rather limited social context of a LEGO Wiki and perhaps a few other related sites.
No comments:
Post a Comment