Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely with regards to outcomes, there's a good argument to be made that one shouldn't admit guilt. But from a more, idk idealistic perspective, the world would be a better place if everyone promptly admitted fault and committed to doing better? I personally quite liked the advice given, and wish I had held myself to it more often in the past. I think there's definitely some truth to what you're saying, but I also wo…
>But from a more, idk idealistic perspective, the world would be a better place if everyone promptly admitted fault and committed to doing better? I'm not sure about that. I think there needs to be a distinction between a private apology to specific individuals for specific wrongs vs public apology to an undefined amorphous set of people. The former is certainly the right thing to do and it also offers hope of redemp…
So you've made a mistake and it's public
51–60 of 403 posts
Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public
#52I find it helpful when writing apology posts to start it by writing down the timeline of events. Don’t insert any commentary attempting to justify anything in this part, it just comes off as defensive. Instead just outline what happened though you can include the immediate cause of decisions you made. “Because I was worried about how people would react to X I decided to do Y” Then after that you can write all the stu…
How many apology posts do you write? Why would you need to write any? I don't understand why any apology needs to be public.
Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public
#53This is purely my personal opinion, but the wikipedia community seems like one of the most toxic communities on the web. The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in polic…
> coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community Is there an example of public crowdsourced resource of the comparable to Wikipedia size which managed to generate meaningful content without such kind of processes/bureaucracy?
Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public
#54This is purely my personal opinion, but the wikipedia community seems like one of the most toxic communities on the web. The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in polic…
I wonder if this is natural. Those in the community who care more about just making a good encyclopedia are eventually forced out by those who are interested in power games and process. I've heard it mentioned before (I forget if it has some formal name or not) in regards to companies where the people who primarily want to prioritize the goal of the company are eventually replaced by those who primarily want to implement and navigate bureaucracy because they can outcompete them on the local level, even if the company is worse off in general.
Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public
#55I'm not sure apologizing publicly has made anything better for any individual, especially in the current moral panic climate. Mobs don't accept apologies. Public apologies stamp official guilt on the individual and therefore serve as a license for the mob to further punish them because now they have admitted their fault and therefore are 'officially' guilty of the crime. Public apologies, therefore, are the metaphori…
Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public
#56This is purely my personal opinion, but the wikipedia community seems like one of the most toxic communities on the web. The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in polic…
Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public
#57I would add:
If this mistake happens in the business context, commit to a root cause analysis, perform such with all involved parties and stakeholders, use a methodology such as Toyota’s Five Whys, identify areas for improvement, share your report, and resolve issues in a timely manner.
The above will not only improve your processes so failures are less likely, it will also demonstrate a commitment to quality and improvement to all observers.
Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community Is there an example of public crowdsourced resource of the comparable to Wikipedia size which managed to generate meaningful content without such kind of processes/bureaucracy?
Yes: Wikipedia ten to fifteen years ago.
Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely with regards to outcomes, there's a good argument to be made that one shouldn't admit guilt. But from a more, idk idealistic perspective, the world would be a better place if everyone promptly admitted fault and committed to doing better? I personally quite liked the advice given, and wish I had held myself to it more often in the past. I think there's definitely some truth to what you're saying, but I also wo…
Yes, but do we live in that idealistic world? I would answer with a very firm no . The world would be a lot better place if everyone did (any number of things), but perfect compliance is just never going to happen. We cannot get people to not murder each other over shoes or sports teams. Any plan which depends on this compliance is doomed to failure.
Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public
#60This is purely my personal opinion, but the wikipedia community seems like one of the most toxic communities on the web. The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in polic…
Never heard it put like that, but it's pretty on point. The bigger changes I've seen in free software these days, all the way down to systemd, feel very corporate. People try to argue whether it's corporate or not but even that feeling when enough people feel it is detrimental to free software culture. A culture which isn't very much minded or respected by our corporate cousins.
I do not understand peoples literal obsession with grading apologies these days. I've screwed up in big ways in my life before and I had to apologize. The harder work was eventually forgiving myself so that I could move on. I cannot imagine how the expectation that someone is going to be waiting around to grade and critique my apology would weigh on me. I can't even begin to imagine the mindset of someone who engages in that kind of activity must be, what other benign or symbolic things do you question in life? What other baggage have you carried all your life and used to wallop people over the head with?
This "you owe me an apology" trend is wild. Certainly, if you screw up you should apologize if the situations suits it. Rarely are those situations so black and white though. Leaving this to the jury of the public to take sides, to form camps, and to inevitably invade with their pitchforks is the stuff that the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp controversy is fueled by. If someone has wronged you bad enough, take them to court, deal with it there, and leave it there. If things got to that point then no apology will make anything better. At that point, everyone has lost and we're just trying to maintain order.
When I see people grading apologies on Twitter (and at times here) all I see is people propagating a reason to abuse public figures and at times companies. If someone has come to the point of writing a public apology, whether you think it's for damage control or not, it takes some level of humility and self-evaluation. Maybe that triggers nothing, maybe it begets change even in some small way, and maybe it leads to some life altering conclusions. Humans are not machines and we can't just cast people out because we don't feel the vibes of someones apology. For a culture like tech that likes to comment on how terrible cast systems and social hierarchy are, we seem awful quick to throw people into an "other" category because we feel some type of way.
Personally speaking, I think people who grade apologies have a darkness of their own and that darkness begets darkness. The darkness that calls for a public apology and eagerly awaits its arrival for swift and empirical dissection is no better than the incurred darkness of the act itself.