Let me throw out an idea that might address the base problem, harassment, in a way that would perhaps obviate the need for censorship. I don't know if this is a great idea or not, but perhaps you folks can find and/or patch the flaws.
I propose that we create a fund to support editors who are being harassed solely or mainly because of legitimate on-Wikipedia work. We fund this through contributions from the community. No WMF money would be involved, but perhaps they would consent to hold and/or supervise the fund.
What do I mean by support? Well, that would be up to the community, but I imagine it would include:
* Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing criminal charges against a harasser. * Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing a civil suit against a harasser, especially when seeking a protective order. * Public relations assistance for the target of a high-profile harassment campaign. * Compensation for cash costs of dealing with harassment, like changing phone numbers or moving. * Legal support to someone frivolously sued for legitimate and beneficial on-Wikipedia activity.
Why would we do this?
* To signal to community members that they will be supported when attacked by kooks. * To provide a deterrent for people who might harass productive, good-faith Wikipedia editors. * If necessary, to make an example of a harasser as a warning to future potential attackers. * To stand behind editors who might otherwise hesitate when wading in to clean up a mess.
Would this work? Could it be done in a way that would be unlikely to go too far wrong? And would this help satisfy the people who are currently pushing for various forms of censorship as a solution to harassment?
Humbly submitted,
William
P.S. If this happens, I'm in for the first $100.
on 10/17/07 5:24 PM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
Let me throw out an idea that might address the base problem, harassment, in a way that would perhaps obviate the need for censorship. I don't know if this is a great idea or not, but perhaps you folks can find and/or patch the flaws.
I propose that we create a fund to support editors who are being harassed solely or mainly because of legitimate on-Wikipedia work. We fund this through contributions from the community. No WMF money would be involved, but perhaps they would consent to hold and/or supervise the fund.
What do I mean by support? Well, that would be up to the community, but I imagine it would include:
- Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing criminal
charges against a harasser.
- Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing a civil suit
against a harasser, especially when seeking a protective order.
- Public relations assistance for the target of a high-profile
harassment campaign.
- Compensation for cash costs of dealing with harassment, like
changing phone numbers or moving.
- Legal support to someone frivolously sued for legitimate and
beneficial on-Wikipedia activity.
Why would we do this?
- To signal to community members that they will be supported when
attacked by kooks.
- To provide a deterrent for people who might harass productive,
good-faith Wikipedia editors.
- If necessary, to make an example of a harasser as a warning to
future potential attackers.
- To stand behind editors who might otherwise hesitate when wading
in to clean up a mess.
Would this work? Could it be done in a way that would be unlikely to go too far wrong? And would this help satisfy the people who are currently pushing for various forms of censorship as a solution to harassment?
William, this is a wonderful idea!
Marc Riddell
On 17/10/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Would this work? Could it be done in a way that would be unlikely to go too far wrong? And would this help satisfy the people who are currently pushing for various forms of censorship as a solution to harassment?
The costs and problems associated with a general fund that tries to provide international support of this type are significant. In addition deciding when to pay out would be way too subjective and would likely result in further bad feeling.
An interesting idea... it could work. Here are the problems I see straight away:
1) Who decides how to dish out the money? Determining if someone is really being harassed is very difficult (due, in no small part, to the subjective nature of the term "harassment"), and deciding if their expenses are true and reasonable is even harder. 2) The main problems with harassment are not financial. It's the hassle, the fear of what they might do next, and annoyance at what they are doing, etc. You can sometimes partially solve some of those problems by throwing money at them, but not to a great extent.
You last type of support - legal costs for someone being sued - is a different matter really. It's a much more obvious situation, so much easy to dish out money for. However, I don't think a fund is required just for that. I'm pretty sure that if I block someone and they sue me, I can just put the details of a paypal account on AN, VP, this mailing list, etc. and get plenty of money pretty quickly.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
An interesting idea... it could work. Here are the problems I see straight away:
- Who decides how to dish out the money? Determining if someone is
really being harassed is very difficult (due, in no small part, to the subjective nature of the term "harassment"), and deciding if their expenses are true and reasonable is even harder.
Some options:
* The community at large, in the same way we determine other things * ArbCom (sorry, guys) * The WMF legal counsel * Jimbo
- The main problems with harassment are not financial. It's the
hassle, the fear of what they might do next, and annoyance at what they are doing, etc. You can sometimes partially solve some of those problems by throwing money at them, but not to a great extent.
That's partly true. We certainly can't undo the damage. (Although perhaps adding a home security service or support from a counsellor could help a little.)
But the cash to request a restraining order could make a real difference. Ditto for assistance in getting the police involved. Trying to get cops or a DA to do anything involving the Internet is a giant pain in the as. Paying for an experienced lawyer to lean on them or a real PI to gather proof could also make a huge difference.
But I intend this partly to have a deterrent effect. If we have 10k in the bank plus the promise for more when it's needed, that will make the more crafty type of abuser think twice. Even more so if we get a couple of civil judgments, restraining orders, or arrests and make some noise about it.
You last type of support - legal costs for someone being sued - is a different matter really. It's a much more obvious situation, so much easy to dish out money for. However, I don't think a fund is required just for that. I'm pretty sure that if I block someone and they sue me, I can just put the details of a paypal account on AN, VP, this mailing list, etc. and get plenty of money pretty quickly.
Good point.
The reason to gather the money now would again be a deterrent effect. Plus making it clear to editors that they will be supported if it comes to that.
William
On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:56 PM, William Pietri wrote:
* The community at large, in the same way we determine otherthings
If anybody ever looked at RFA and thought, wistfully, "this could be a more disfunctional and horrendously fucked up page," opening community evaluation of harassment and requests for legal assistance is the solution for you.
I can just see the oppose votes now.
- ArbCom (sorry, guys)
- The WMF legal counsel
- Jimbo
COI problems crop up rapidly here.
-Phil
Thanks for replying, Phil. As somebody who has been through the wringer, I'm especially interested in your opinions here.
Phil Sandifer wrote:
- Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing criminal charges against a harasser.
This has never happened, nor, to my knowledge, come close to happening.
* Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing a civil suit against a harasser, especially when seeking a protective order.See above.
Agreed, but I'm wondering if something like this would shift the balance. And I'm at least as interested in the mental effect of the fund's very existence, both on editors and potential harassers.
[...]We are bigger than Blogger, bigger than eBay, and bigger than Amazon. We have no clue how to deal with that. [...]
The point here being that we have a lot to lose by making a fund such as this. We can be a somewhat... doggedly insular group. Any such fund or body needs clear measures in place to make sure that it does not become a tool for smacking down people who are legitimately wronged and are simply choosing ineffectual or overly hostile ways of airing their grievances.
I agree completely. That's the biggest risk, and would love to see such measures proposed. I have zero experience in this area, but I'm sure somebody here does.
* ArbCom (sorry, guys) * The WMF legal counsel * JimboCOI problems crop up rapidly here.
I don't see those COIs as a huge issue. I figure that the fund will be modest in size until there is an actual incident, and contributions from there will depend a great deal on how the incident is handled.
Of course, there's still a risk and I'd welcome a better suggestion. Come to think of it, you might be a perfect person for it.
William
Quoting Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com:
On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:56 PM, William Pietri wrote:
* The community at large, in the same way we determine otherthings
If anybody ever looked at RFA and thought, wistfully, "this could be a more disfunctional and horrendously fucked up page," opening community evaluation of harassment and requests for legal assistance is the solution for you.
I can just see the oppose votes now.
*'''Oppose''' Didn't use enough edit summaries. ~~~~ *'''Oppose''' Harassement wasn't wasn't over a Featured Article. ~~~~ *'''Oppose''' Case is insufficiently juicy. Needs more gossip. ~~~~ *'''oppose''' Did not add sufficient detail to nomination. ~~~~ *'''oppose''' Self nom. ~~~~ *'''oppose''' per above. ~~~~
Did I miss any?
Some options:
* The community at large, in the same way we determine other things
The community are very bad at determining such controversial things. And there would generally be privacy concerns about having such discussions in public.
* ArbCom (sorry, guys)
Maybe. It's not their job, though, and I doubt they want it.
* The WMF legal counsel * Jimbo
I don't think the WMF would like to be seen to be taking sides - could get nasty.
- The main problems with harassment are not financial. It's the
hassle, the fear of what they might do next, and annoyance at what they are doing, etc. You can sometimes partially solve some of those problems by throwing money at them, but not to a great extent.
That's partly true. We certainly can't undo the damage. (Although perhaps adding a home security service or support from a counsellor could help a little.)
But the cash to request a restraining order could make a real difference. Ditto for assistance in getting the police involved. Trying to get cops or a DA to do anything involving the Internet is a giant pain in the as. Paying for an experienced lawyer to lean on them or a real PI to gather proof could also make a huge difference.
I'm sure it would help, but would it help enough to be worth it?
But I intend this partly to have a deterrent effect. If we have 10k in the bank plus the promise for more when it's needed, that will make the more crafty type of abuser think twice. Even more so if we get a couple of civil judgments, restraining orders, or arrests and make some noise about it.
We would have to go out of our way to make sure everyone knows we have the money and are willing to spend it on taking people down. There is a WP:BEANS risk involved there, if nothing else.
You last type of support - legal costs for someone being sued - is a different matter really. It's a much more obvious situation, so much easy to dish out money for. However, I don't think a fund is required just for that. I'm pretty sure that if I block someone and they sue me, I can just put the details of a paypal account on AN, VP, this mailing list, etc. and get plenty of money pretty quickly.
Good point.
The reason to gather the money now would again be a deterrent effect. Plus making it clear to editors that they will be supported if it comes to that.
People don't generally sue unless they think they have case (there are exceptions, of course) - if they think they're going to win anyway, they won't really worry about whether or not the editor can afford a good lawyer. I think editors generally know they would be supported if it got that bad.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think the WMF would like to be seen to be taking sides - could get nasty.
Fair point. However, if it's a clear case of harassment, I could see them being pleased to take sides. Especially for something basic like a restraining order, and especially if the money was donated with a clear set of guidelines.
People don't generally sue unless they think they have case (there are exceptions, of course) - if they think they're going to win anyway, they won't really worry about whether or not the editor can afford a good lawyer. I think editors generally know they would be supported if it got that bad.
I don't think that's true at all. Consider SLAPPs, for example.[1] The main purpose isn't winning. It's all about financial intimidation. That calculation goes on all the time in business lawsuits.
More directly related to us was the long-running Gregory Lauder-Frost drama. They certainly made a lot of sue-ish noises under very dubious legal theories. My clear impression at the time was that the WMF would not back me even a smidgen if I got sued, even for perfectly good edits.
I eventually contacted the EFF for a referral to somebody who could price out a defense for me. So I was definitely making calculation of "Do I love Wikipedia $10k-worth"? Perhaps the community would have helped, but I didn't expect it to be substantial. Luckily for me, although perhaps not Wikipedia, the article failed AFD number 4 after the subject's friends claimed he was ill, so I never had to find out.
William
Quoting William Pietri william@scissor.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
An interesting idea... it could work. Here are the problems I see straight away:
- Who decides how to dish out the money? Determining if someone is
really being harassed is very difficult (due, in no small part, to the subjective nature of the term "harassment"), and deciding if their expenses are true and reasonable is even harder.
Some options:
- The community at large, in the same way we determine other things
- ArbCom (sorry, guys)
- The WMF legal counsel
- Jimbo
Involving the Foundation in this is not likely a good idea.
- The main problems with harassment are not financial. It's the
hassle, the fear of what they might do next, and annoyance at what they are doing, etc. You can sometimes partially solve some of those problems by throwing money at them, but not to a great extent.
That's partly true. We certainly can't undo the damage. (Although perhaps adding a home security service or support from a counsellor could help a little.)
But the cash to request a restraining order could make a real difference. Ditto for assistance in getting the police involved. Trying to get cops or a DA to do anything involving the Internet is a giant pain in the as. Paying for an experienced lawyer to lean on them or a real PI to gather proof could also make a huge difference.
But I intend this partly to have a deterrent effect. If we have 10k in the bank plus the promise for more when it's needed, that will make the more crafty type of abuser think twice. Even more so if we get a couple of civil judgments, restraining orders, or arrests and make some noise about it.
You last type of support - legal costs for someone being sued - is a different matter really. It's a much more obvious situation, so much easy to dish out money for. However, I don't think a fund is required just for that. I'm pretty sure that if I block someone and they sue me, I can just put the details of a paypal account on AN, VP, this mailing list, etc. and get plenty of money pretty quickly.
Good point.
The reason to gather the money now would again be a deterrent effect. Plus making it clear to editors that they will be supported if it comes to that.
I suspect that the main thing this would actually be useful for is PR issues. If someone learns that trying to harrasse Wikipedia admins leads to newspaper articles of the form "Notable X harasses Wikipedia" they'll be less likely to do so. (There have been at least two cases that come to mind of people whose reputation could have been severely damaged if there were such stories).
On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:24 PM, William Pietri wrote:
* Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing criminal charges against a harasser.
This has never happened, nor, to my knowledge, come close to happening.
* Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing a civil suit against a harasser, especially when seeking a protective order.
See above.
* Public relations assistance for the target of a high-profile harassment campaign.
Issues arise here - most notably how, if at all, to coordinate that PR assistance with the Foundation. This may be something better subsumed into the Foundation.
- Compensation for cash costs of dealing with harassment, like changing phone numbers or moving.
Possible - again, I'm unaware of cases of things getting anywhere near this far.
* Legal support to someone frivolously sued for legitimate and beneficial on-Wikipedia activity.
It has always been my assumption (though an untested one) that the Foundation would step in on this level.
We also have to watch out, though - for fuckheads like ED and even Bagley we're, honestly, well-equipped to handle them as-is because they're so self-obviously stupid. But we have to remember, we are the 800 lb gorilla in most conflicts with people. We are huge. We are a huge fucking website staffed by people who do not know how to run the ninth biggest website on Teh Intarwebs. We are bigger than Blogger, bigger than eBay, and bigger than Amazon. We have no clue how to deal with that. And I count myself in that we - I have no fucking clue why I am a powerful and trusted administrator on the ninth biggest website in the world.
The point here being that we have a lot to lose by making a fund such as this. We can be a somewhat... doggedly insular group. Any such fund or body needs clear measures in place to make sure that it does not become a tool for smacking down people who are legitimately wronged and are simply choosing ineffectual or overly hostile ways of airing their grievances.
-Phil
On 17/10/2007, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:24 PM, William Pietri wrote:
* Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing criminal charges against a harasser.This has never happened, nor, to my knowledge, come close to happening.
The Amorrow case would be the closest I know the police got involved although not sure the courts did.
On 17/10/2007, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
* Legal support to someone frivolously sued for legitimate and beneficial on-Wikipedia activity.It has always been my assumption (though an untested one) that the Foundation would step in on this level.
Mmm, though there might be legal issues with actually saying upfront we intend to - I don't know what Florida (or California, or federal, or whatever) charity laws are like with regards to using funds for not-strictly-relevant purposes like paying your volunteers legal bills. I suspect they're looser than they are over here, but even loose can still be stifling.
The point here being that we have a lot to lose by making a fund such as this.
Legal issues aside, having the Foundation in any way required (or strongly expected) to step in - by having such a dedicated fund or by any other means - leaves us open to the potential for some very unfortunate overreaction. It also leaves us open to the potential for being gamed, or for being placed in a no-win situation - imagine the perfectly plausible situation where the user being harassed turns out to be someone the Foundation, or most of the community, would balk at standing next to at a press conference.
And Lord help the day we get people whining "We collected all this money, we ought to use it, and ---- still hasn't shut up..."
I like the idea; I like that the community is making a tangible statement of its willingness to support one another by encouraging practical activity outside of its own sphere. But I think that, for now, statements are all that are required.
Send the money when someone *has* the problem and takes action; I think you'll get a good and tangible response to a specific call, and you'll avoid having to have a fuss over whether or not the money "ought to be released for this case", etc.
But actually having an account with the money sitting in it? I think that's more of a liability than a benefit, all things considered.
Andrew Gray wrote:
Legal issues aside, having the Foundation in any way required (or strongly expected) to step in - by having such a dedicated fund or by any other means - leaves us open to the potential for some very unfortunate overreaction. It also leaves us open to the potential for being gamed, or for being placed in a no-win situation [...]
Excellent point. And interestingly, it pushes in the opposite direction of Phil's concern. With too little up-front specification, it's prone to going off the rails. Too much, and it invites gaming.
And Lord help the day we get people whining "We collected all this money, we ought to use it, and ---- still hasn't shut up..."
There could be a solution to this, though. One person wrote to me off-list, saying:
When in doubt, use the funds in a non-vengeful manner - i.e. help the victim without hurting the person who hurt the victim. Harassment can be a two-way street, so perhaps hiring a professional dispute resolution person would be helpful in some circumstances.
Even restricting ourselves to the non-vengeful options -- among which I include restraining orders -- would send a number of the positive signals I was hoping for.
Send the money when someone *has* the problem and takes action; I think you'll get a good and tangible response to a specific call, and you'll avoid having to have a fuss over whether or not the money "ought to be released for this case", etc.
But actually having an account with the money sitting in it? I think that's more of a liability than a benefit, all things considered.
Interesting point. Do you think just collecting pledges would be a worthwhile compromise, assuming it's done in such a way that people can base their actual donation decision on the details of the case?
William
Quoting William Pietri william@scissor.com:
Let me throw out an idea that might address the base problem, harassment, in a way that would perhaps obviate the need for censorship. I don't know if this is a great idea or not, but perhaps you folks can find and/or patch the flaws.
I propose that we create a fund to support editors who are being harassed solely or mainly because of legitimate on-Wikipedia work. We fund this through contributions from the community. No WMF money would be involved, but perhaps they would consent to hold and/or supervise the fund.
What do I mean by support? Well, that would be up to the community, but I imagine it would include:
- Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing criminal charges against a harasser.
- Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing a civil suit against a harasser, especially when seeking a protective order.
- Public relations assistance for the target of a high-profile harassment campaign.
- Compensation for cash costs of dealing with harassment, like changing phone numbers or moving.
- Legal support to someone frivolously sued for legitimate and beneficial on-Wikipedia activity.
Why would we do this?
- To signal to community members that they will be supported when attacked by kooks.
- To provide a deterrent for people who might harass productive, good-faith Wikipedia editors.
- If necessary, to make an example of a harasser as a warning to future potential attackers.
- To stand behind editors who might otherwise hesitate when wading in to clean up a mess.
Would this work? Could it be done in a way that would be unlikely to go too far wrong? And would this help satisfy the people who are currently pushing for various forms of censorship as a solution to harassment?
Humbly submitted,
William
P.S. If this happens, I'm in for the first $100.
I've discussed this idea with a few editors before including JzG, Slimvirgin and KillerChihuaha all who thought it was a good idea. Unfortunately the first two of those are no longer active. In both cases they might very well be active if we did have such a fund. IANAL but we would need to set it up as a 501c3 probably and make very sure to keep it very separate from the foundation. The foundation is more important than anyone editor and must be well insulated against any legal foul ups by editors.
On 18/10/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I've discussed this idea with a few editors before including JzG, Slimvirgin and KillerChihuaha all who thought it was a good idea. Unfortunately the first two of those are no longer active. In both cases they might very well be active if we did have such a fund. IANAL but we would need to set it up as a 501c3 probably and make very sure to keep it very separate from the foundation. The foundation is more important than anyone editor and must be well insulated against any legal foul ups by editors.
How many people did we lose due to amorrow? And that was inbox full of death threats harassment. People leave. Some of them come back. Yes there are some for who a legal fund might be useful in getting them to stay but probably not the ones you are thinking of.
Quoting geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 18/10/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I've discussed this idea with a few editors before including JzG, Slimvirgin and KillerChihuaha all who thought it was a good idea. Unfortunately the first two of those are no longer active. In both cases they might very well be active if we did have such a fund. IANAL but we would need to set it up as a 501c3 probably and make very sure to keep it very separate from the foundation. The foundation is more important than anyone editor and must be well insulated against any legal foul ups by editors.
How many people did we lose due to amorrow? And that was inbox full of death threats harassment. People leave. Some of them come back. Yes there are some for who a legal fund might be useful in getting them to stay but probably not the ones you are thinking of.
I think in the cases of both JzG and SV there were many issues and we shouldn't confuse the proximate cause of either one leaving with the various other contributing causes. But yes, in neither case would this have helped deal with the immediate cause for leaving.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
[...] I propose that we create a fund to support editors who are being harassed solely or mainly because of legitimate on-Wikipedia work. We fund this through contributions from the community. No WMF money would be involved, but perhaps they would consent to hold and/or supervise the fund. [...]
I've discussed this idea with a few editors before including JzG, Slimvirgin and KillerChihuaha all who thought it was a good idea. Unfortunately the first two of those are no longer active. In both cases they might very well be active if we did have such a fund. IANAL but we would need to set it up as a 501c3 probably and make very sure to keep it very separate from the foundation. The foundation is more important than anyone editor and must be well insulated against any legal foul ups by editors.
Keeping it separate certainly would keep things clearer, especially given that during any actual use of something like this, there would probably be drama a-plenty for the Foundation to deal with.
Is there some separate but sympathetic non-profit that would be able to give this a home? For the lawsuit defense stuff, we might be able to talk the EFF into it, but the rest seems well away from what they do. I know the Tides Foundation will occasionally shelter fractional non-profits, but this doesn't seem quite up their alley either.
William