Adding "well, actually" back as an example

[wareid]

By popular request, everyone's favourite example of patronizing language.

---

Preview | Diff

[TzviyaSiegman]

@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?

[nigelmegitt]

@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.

[wareid]

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.

[cwilso]

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)

[nigelmegitt]

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.

I think the feedback needs to win here

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.

[wareid]

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.

[dbooth-boston]

Wait, this PR contains the wrong language. The language that was agreed on yesterday's call was this, which provides considerably more informative explanation:

Be aware that, regardless of the speaker's intentions, some phrases or constructions lead people to expect a patronizing statement to follow, and avoid such phrases. For example, beginning an interjection with "Well, actually..." can set this expectation and be taken as a sign of disrespect.

[TzviyaSiegman]

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. "Well-actuallys. That is the pedantic corrections that don’t make a difference to the conversation that’s happening."

[dbooth-boston]

"Well-actuallys. That is the pedantic corrections that don’t make a difference to the conversation that’s happening."

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:

Be aware that, regardless of the speaker's intentions, some phrases or constructions lead people to expect a patronizing statement to follow, and avoid such phrases. For example, beginning an interjection with "Well, actually..." can set this expectation and be taken as a sign of disrespect.

[nigelmegitt]

The wording in https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/300#issuecomment-1601360302 is much less problematic and I would be able to accept it.

[wareid]

@nigelmegitt @dbooth-boston I've edited this to add that language (some further editing for fit and clarity). Does this satisfy your concerns?

[dbooth-boston]

Yes, that looks fine to me.