http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#School_Threat
Am I really the only one that thinks there should be a *crystal clear policy * relating to threats? Every time something like this happens, there is big discussion on what *should* happen. There is a reference as to what to do with suicide threats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_suicidal_users.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_suicidal_users
I think Jimbo himself has made it clear on several occasions that we should take these things seriously. Instead, whenever these are brought to AN / ANI, some people take it upon themselves to declare these as pranks, or jokes. Is that really appropriate?
I agree completely. We need a clear policy on this. Jimbo has already said this stuff should not be ignored and should be reported immediately. Let we forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan#Pflugerville_High_School_terrorist_th reat.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Rjd0060 - Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:56 AM To: WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Threats made on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#School_Threat
Am I really the only one that thinks there should be a *crystal clear policy * relating to threats? Every time something like this happens, there is big discussion on what *should* happen. There is a reference as to what to do with suicide threats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_suicidal_users.http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_suicidal_users
I think Jimbo himself has made it clear on several occasions that we should take these things seriously. Instead, whenever these are brought to AN / ANI, some people take it upon themselves to declare these as pranks, or jokes. Is that really appropriate?
On 21/12/2007, Rjd0060 - rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#School_Threat
Am I really the only one that thinks there should be a *crystal clear policy
- relating to threats? Every time something like this happens, there is big
discussion on what *should* happen. There is a reference as to what to do with suicide threats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_suicidal_users.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_suicidal_users
I think Jimbo himself has made it clear on several occasions that we should take these things seriously. Instead, whenever these are brought to AN / ANI, some people take it upon themselves to declare these as pranks, or jokes. Is that really appropriate?
He has, and so has Mike Godwin in the current discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
I'm disappointed that an administrator who is usually well-respected by the community would be so dismissive of potential problems.
On 12/22/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I'm disappointed that an administrator who is usually well-respected by the community would be so dismissive of potential problems.
That's well outside the scope of their role. People are appointed administrator the basis that we don't think they're likely to trash the project. Not on the basis that they are have stunning judgment in every possible scenario.
Steve
I noticed that thread on AN/I and thought perhaps people were being too dismissive. We should follow the lead of the folks who are professional in these areas and not take the decision upon ourselves, i.e. report what we can and allow police/school administrators to decide whether a particular threat is credible. A quick e-mail to school administration that a threat was posted using a school IP/against a particular school takes little time and prevents a news article saying "Wikipedia ignored threat, 27 died."
Nathan
On 21/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed that thread on AN/I and thought perhaps people were being too dismissive. We should follow the lead of the folks who are professional in these areas and not take the decision upon ourselves, i.e. report what we can and allow police/school administrators to decide whether a particular threat is credible. A quick e-mail to school administration that a threat was posted using a school IP/against a particular school takes little time and prevents a news article saying "Wikipedia ignored threat, 27 died."
A random Wikipedian will likely be reasonably smart and capable of contacting people, even if they can't reasonably be expected to be skilled in what to do in such an issue.
But - contacting the police and/or school authorities is a good idea, because they're highly skilled in dealing with such things (one would hope).
(Also, it helps the Foundation if you let them know too - who you are, who you contacted - in case of the precise "who could have helped with this?" scenario you outline.)
- d.
On 12/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
A random Wikipedian will likely be reasonably smart and capable of contacting people, even if they can't reasonably be expected to be skilled in what to do in such an issue.
(Also, it helps the Foundation if you let them know too - who you are, who you contacted - in case of the precise "who could have helped with this?" scenario you outline.)
Wouldn't it be better if someone from the foundation did it, wherever possible? Building an encyclopaedia via the wiki model is great. But responding to suicide and/or terrorist threats? Let's do it properly.
Steve
On 24/12/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
A random Wikipedian will likely be reasonably smart and capable of contacting people, even if they can't reasonably be expected to be skilled in what to do in such an issue.
(Also, it helps the Foundation if you let them know too - who you are, who you contacted - in case of the precise "who could have helped with this?" scenario you outline.)
Wouldn't it be better if someone from the foundation did it, wherever possible? Building an encyclopaedia via the wiki model is great. But responding to suicide and/or terrorist threats? Let's do it properly.
The foundation sleeps. Wikipedia does not. For maximum speed contact will tend to need to be made by the first person in the right geographical area who is prepared to do so.
On 12/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation sleeps. Wikipedia does not. For maximum speed contact will tend to need to be made by the first person in the right geographical area who is prepared to do so.
I really don't like this idea. Surely we can elevate certain people to responsible positions. What is some school supposed to do when someone claiming to be acting on behalf of "Wikipedia" rings up? What credentials do they have? Who can vouch for them? We are *not* all spokespeople for Wikipedia.
(Like that issue with talking to the press - the responsible people diclaim their ability to speak. Leaving the irresponsible...)
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation sleeps. Wikipedia does not. For maximum speed contact will tend to need to be made by the first person in the right geographical area who is prepared to do so.
I really don't like this idea. Surely we can elevate certain people to responsible positions. What is some school supposed to do when someone claiming to be acting on behalf of "Wikipedia" rings up? What credentials do they have? Who can vouch for them? We are *not* all spokespeople for Wikipedia.
(Like that issue with talking to the press - the responsible people diclaim their ability to speak. Leaving the irresponsible...)
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
All the reporter does is show the diffs to the body affected. The capacity in which the reporter does that is quite irrelevant. They are not a spokesman for anyone - just a member of the public drawing something to someone's attention.
Doc
On 24/12/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation sleeps. Wikipedia does not. For maximum speed contact will tend to need to be made by the first person in the right geographical area who is prepared to do so.
I really don't like this idea. Surely we can elevate certain people to responsible positions. What is some school supposed to do when someone claiming to be acting on behalf of "Wikipedia" rings up? What credentials do they have? Who can vouch for them? We are *not* all spokespeople for Wikipedia.
This is correct. You are simply private citizens carrying out your civic responsibility to make sure the reliant people are informed when such issues arise. That the issue has something to with wikipedia is a mere detail.
On Dec 24, 2007 8:09 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation sleeps. Wikipedia does not. For maximum speed contact will tend to need to be made by the first person in the right geographical area who is prepared to do so.
I really don't like this idea. Surely we can elevate certain people to responsible positions. What is some school supposed to do when someone claiming to be acting on behalf of "Wikipedia" rings up? What credentials do they have? Who can vouch for them? We are *not* all spokespeople for Wikipedia.
This is correct. You are simply private citizens carrying out your civic responsibility to make sure the reliant people are informed when such issues arise. That the issue has something to with wikipedia is a mere detail.
It is important for Wikipedia to not be seen to be impeding people who are concerned about a posting from making such reports, though. That was a thread I tried to weave into the current WP:SUICIDE essay - if you are concerned by something, on Wikipedia or in Real Life, you as a concerned citizen can and should report it to proper authorities for them to evaluate and respond if appropriate. We don't want to hinder your doing that. We would like you to tell the foundation and other admins via ANI or whatnot as well as the authorities.
I would not be opposed to shifting WP:SUICIDE from essay to guideline. I did it as an essay to document best policy as performed by admins and other concerned users, after two complete flops of normal policy process on "what to do". It may be easier to keep it as an essay, or it may have gelled with enough buy-in that making it official now will just work. But I don't want to wreck it by having another "policy process" fight over it.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/25/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
For maximum speed contact will tend to need to be made by the first person in the right geographical area who is prepared to do so.
I really don't like this idea. Surely we can elevate certain people to responsible positions. What is some school supposed to do when someone claiming to be acting on behalf of "Wikipedia" rings up?
I'm not sure it matters. Presuming they can read a URL over the phone (which, I agree, is not an ideal assumption), it makes little difference whether they speak for Wikipedia, or claim to, or not -- the threat on the cited webpage speaks for itself.
On 12/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
A random Wikipedian will likely be reasonably smart and capable of contacting people, even if they can't reasonably be expected to be skilled in what to do in such an issue.
(Also, it helps the Foundation if you let them know too - who you are, who you contacted - in case of the precise "who could have helped with this?" scenario you outline.)
Wouldn't it be better if someone from the foundation did it, wherever possible? Building an encyclopaedia via the wiki model is great. But responding to suicide and/or terrorist threats? Let's do it properly.
Steve
The foundation doesn't have the staff. Best to copy any correspondence to Mike Godwin, but do it yourself, if you feel capable of making a simple sane report of the incident to a responsible party. Simply identify yourself as a Wikipedia editor. If you identify yourself as an administrator, it confuses them, as they reasonably imagine you are an executive. You can usually get an email address by googling the school. Provide a link to the offending edit but don't offer the ip if it is not publicly visible. They are required to obtain a court order to get that. If you delete or oversight the edit, you complicate things, as the school, or law enforcement cannot view it.
Fred
Rjd0060 - wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#School_Threat
Am I really the only one that thinks there should be a *crystal clear policy
- relating to threats? Every time something like this happens, there is big
discussion on what *should* happen. There is a reference as to what to do with suicide threats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_suicidal_users.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_suicidal_users
I think Jimbo himself has made it clear on several occasions that we should take these things seriously. Instead, whenever these are brought to AN / ANI, some people take it upon themselves to declare these as pranks, or jokes. Is that really appropriate?
I agree. If users say they will commit suicide as a joke, I believe that the user should be blocked indefinitely as with policy. These are supposed to be taken seriously, and I think it still should, even if it was a joke. I even think that there should be a more serious offense, such as a permanent ban on the user. Wikipedia can have some humor, but suicide humor just isn't funny. At all.
Jonathan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#School_Threat
Am I really the only one that thinks there should be a *crystal clear policy * relating to threats? Every time something like this happens, there is big discussion on what *should* happen. There is a reference as to what to do with suicide threats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_suicidal_users.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_suicidal_users
I think Jimbo himself has made it clear on several occasions that we should take these things seriously. Instead, whenever these are brought to AN / ANI, some people take it upon themselves to declare these as pranks, or jokes. Is that really appropriate?
If you take them seriously (and everyone follows up) you end up with the FBI coming down on a 13 year old. If you don't there is a slight chance a serious crime will occur which you might have prevented.
Fred
There was a similar thread about a potentially suicidal user on AN/I (completely separate from the school threat report) that was also dismissed as unserious (someone added 'solves everything' or something to the Suicide article and made some other problematic edits because he couldn't get an article about his teacher). We are not (unless some of you are) professionals in assessing the risk attached to these types of comments, and we should report them when we can for a collection of good reasons.
On 21/12/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think Jimbo himself has made it clear on several occasions that we should take these things seriously. Instead, whenever these are brought to AN / ANI, some people take it upon themselves to declare these as pranks, or jokes. Is that really appropriate?
If you take them seriously (and everyone follows up) you end up with the FBI coming down on a 13 year old. If you don't there is a slight chance a serious crime will occur which you might have prevented.
On the other hand, you end up with the FBI coming down on a 13 year old. In terms of preventing recidivism, this is fairly powerful...
On 21/12/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think Jimbo himself has made it clear on several occasions that we
should take these things seriously. Instead, whenever these are brought to AN / ANI, some people take it upon themselves to declare these as pranks, or jokes. Is that really appropriate?
If you take them seriously (and everyone follows up) you end up with the FBI coming down on a 13 year old. If you don't there is a slight chance a serious crime will occur which you might have prevented.
On the other hand, you end up with the FBI coming down on a 13 year old. In terms of preventing recidivism, this is fairly powerful...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Depends on both how it is handled and the kid. Pray for luck...
Fred
People have used internet sites to say things they plan, thats obvious. I know in one of the emails on this thread there was a link to an article where it had happened. I don't think we need to be playing detective. Lets leave that to the detectives (or police in general). Specifically speaking on the issue that I started this thread with (the posts at AN), at the *very least*, the school should have been immediately contacted. If somebody called 911 and said the things that were posted on the article, they would take it seriously, and we should too.
On Dec 21, 2007 12:48 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 21/12/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think Jimbo himself has made it clear on several occasions that we
should take these things seriously. Instead, whenever these are brought to AN / ANI, some people take it upon themselves to declare these as pranks, or jokes. Is that really appropriate?
If you take them seriously (and everyone follows up) you end up with the FBI coming down on a 13 year old. If you don't there is a slight chance a serious crime will occur which you might have prevented.
On the other hand, you end up with the FBI coming down on a 13 year old. In terms of preventing recidivism, this is fairly powerful...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Depends on both how it is handled and the kid. Pray for luck...
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To clarify my comment (" If somebody called 911 and said the things that were posted on the article, they would take it seriously, and we should too.")...if somebody called the police and said they were going kill people (like the user didhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eltham_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=179366969), they would not be so quick to dismiss it, and that Im absolutely certain.
On Dec 21, 2007 1:04 PM, Rjd0060 - rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
People have used internet sites to say things they plan, thats obvious. I know in one of the emails on this thread there was a link to an article where it had happened. I don't think we need to be playing detective. Lets leave that to the detectives (or police in general). Specifically speaking on the issue that I started this thread with (the posts at AN), at the *very least*, the school should have been immediately contacted. If somebody called 911 and said the things that were posted on the article, they would take it seriously, and we should too.
On Dec 21, 2007 12:48 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 21/12/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think Jimbo himself has made it clear on several occasions that
we
should take these things seriously. Instead, whenever these are brought to AN / ANI, some people take it upon themselves to declare these as pranks, or jokes. Is that really appropriate?
If you take them seriously (and everyone follows up) you end up with the FBI coming down on a 13 year old. If you don't there is a slight chance a serious crime will occur which you might have prevented.
On the other hand, you end up with the FBI coming down on a 13 year
old.
In terms of preventing recidivism, this is fairly powerful...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Depends on both how it is handled and the kid. Pray for luck...
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com
Rjd0060 - wrote:
People have used internet sites to say things they plan, thats obvious. I know in one of the emails on this thread there was a link to an article where it had happened. I don't think we need to be playing detective. Lets leave that to the detectives (or police in general). Specifically speaking on the issue that I started this thread with (the posts at AN), at the *very least*, the school should have been immediately contacted. If somebody called 911 and said the things that were posted on the article, they would take it seriously, and we should too.
If someone wants to contact the authorities, fine. Worst case scenario, you get laughed at. But caution here:
I've seen dozens of pieces of vandalism with of BLPs with "I'm going to kill him" or "this scumbag should die" etc. We, by practice, revert and ignore - indeed sometimes a bot does it for us. Now, this next assertion is based only my gut, but I suspect we get hundreds of edits a day (or certainly in a month) that *could* be interpreted as a threat of violence. There is simply no way we can, or should report them all. We'd need a whole wikiproject just for the purpose.
As I say, someone wants to quietly phone one instance in, fine. Indeed, if it troubles you that it *might* be genuine, perhaps that's the only decent response. But let's not have a policy, essay, statement or re-education programe here - WP:BEANS and WP:DON'T FEED apply.
If people think they can set off the fire alarm with impunity we'll have schoolboy socks from unidentifiable school IP's threatening all sorts just to get us to phone the feds or the headteacher.
No harm in a phone call, but a sense of proportion is required. An anonymous threat by some individual to hunt down and kill in an unspecified way, ALL the pupils in the whole school - an Australian school that is actually (I'm told) closed for the Summer holidays - is certainly a hypothetical threat. But?
Doc
And so it continues... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
On Dec 21, 2007 1:19 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Rjd0060 - wrote:
People have used internet sites to say things they plan, thats obvious.
I
know in one of the emails on this thread there was a link to an article where it had happened. I don't think we need to be playing detective.
Lets
leave that to the detectives (or police in general). Specifically
speaking
on the issue that I started this thread with (the posts at AN), at the
*very
least*, the school should have been immediately contacted. If somebody called 911 and said the things that were posted on the article, they
would
take it seriously, and we should too.
If someone wants to contact the authorities, fine. Worst case scenario, you get laughed at. But caution here:
I've seen dozens of pieces of vandalism with of BLPs with "I'm going to kill him" or "this scumbag should die" etc. We, by practice, revert and ignore - indeed sometimes a bot does it for us. Now, this next assertion is based only my gut, but I suspect we get hundreds of edits a day (or certainly in a month) that *could* be interpreted as a threat of violence. There is simply no way we can, or should report them all. We'd need a whole wikiproject just for the purpose.
As I say, someone wants to quietly phone one instance in, fine. Indeed, if it troubles you that it *might* be genuine, perhaps that's the only decent response. But let's not have a policy, essay, statement or re-education programe here - WP:BEANS and WP:DON'T FEED apply.
If people think they can set off the fire alarm with impunity we'll have schoolboy socks from unidentifiable school IP's threatening all sorts just to get us to phone the feds or the headteacher.
No harm in a phone call, but a sense of proportion is required. An anonymous threat by some individual to hunt down and kill in an unspecified way, ALL the pupils in the whole school - an Australian school that is actually (I'm told) closed for the Summer holidays - is certainly a hypothetical threat. But?
Doc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rjd0060 - wrote:
And so it continues... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Better tell George B. to take us to defcon 4, then
Ah, wait, we can do it ourselves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikidefcon
Doc