Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I don't think we should apply the same reasoning to participating in community discussions as we do with respect to editing a controversial article.
There is much wisdom in this post. I think the use of sockpuppets presents a lot of really interesting issues, and I think this could be a really strong argument for tightening the rule under which they're used.
The problem with the indef block of PM was that I think he went out of his way to follow the rules as they currently are. He was always very polite, and he was very very helpful in mediating the discussion.
From the information I have in front of me as of this second, he's an
icon of compliance with our SOCKS rules as they currently exist, and his block had much more to do with WP:BADSITES than WP:SOCKS.
Social pressure is a primary driving factor in creating cooperation and civility.
That's true, but in PM's defense, the BADSITES issue isn't just any old issue. The level of on-wiki incivility that BADSITES opponents are subjected to is really unprecedented. If you come out against BADSITES, there's a vocal group of people who are going to hate your guts for the rest of your Wikipedia career. They'll accuse you of "aiding trolls", "being a troll", "badgering", and everything in between.
With BADSITES, there's a real climate of partisan hatred that I've never really seen before on Wikipedia. There's a groups of people who are definitely "collecting names", and overtly hostile to anyone who has strongly opposed Badsites, and if you're sensitive to attacks, they can completely poison your wiki experience.
If you strongly oppose BADSITES but are the kind of person who really needs a happy, civil working environment to make it pleasant to edit wikipedia, you really either have to make a pseudonym or you have to just have to keep your mouth shut.
PM chose the pseudonym route, and absent any evidence of wrongdoing, we should respect his choice and thank him for lending a hand to trying to mediate our #1 community disagreement.
Alec
The ability to selective short circuit the social factors by occasionally dropping your pseudonym and commenting anonymously is an enemy to cooperation and civility.
Plus, it makes the rest of us tenured folks who have the courage to stick our names next to difficult positions, accepting the social consequences, look more unusually controversial than we are.
A little bit of this behavior here and there won't hurt us and we couldn't prevent it in any case, but I think privatemusings has gone too far and that outright endorsing this behavior in this case or for others would be terribly unwise.
On 01/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
That's true, but in PM's defense, the BADSITES issue isn't just any old issue. The level of on-wiki incivility that BADSITES opponents are subjected to is really unprecedented. If you come out against BADSITES, there's a vocal group of people who are going to hate your guts for the rest of your Wikipedia career. They'll accuse you of "aiding trolls", "being a troll", "badgering", and everything in between. With BADSITES, there's a real climate of partisan hatred that I've never really seen before on Wikipedia. There's a groups of people who are definitely "collecting names", and overtly hostile to anyone who has strongly opposed Badsites, and if you're sensitive to attacks, they can completely poison your wiki experience. If you strongly oppose BADSITES but are the kind of person who really needs a happy, civil working environment to make it pleasant to edit wikipedia, you really either have to make a pseudonym or you have to just have to keep your mouth shut. PM chose the pseudonym route, and absent any evidence of wrongdoing, we should respect his choice and thank him for lending a hand to trying to mediate our #1 community disagreement.
Indeed.
- d.
Alec wrote:
If you strongly oppose BADSITES but are the kind of person who really needs a happy, civil working environment to make it pleasant to edit wikipedia, you really either have to make a pseudonym or you have to just have to keep your mouth shut.
I strongly oppose BADSITES, and I am the kind of person who really needs a happy, civil working environment, and I think it important for the preservation of that to both openly oppose BADSITES and to do it using my own name and reputation.
You can't win debates in Wikipedia by sockpuppeting. It is just not a very useful strategy, even without getting into the ethical issues.
BADSITES was a badly written policy proposal and it died a rightful death. At the same time, virtually no one thinks that we need nothing in that general neighborhood... there really is such a thing as a link that should not be in wikipedia, and there really is such a thing as personal attack through linking.
The hard part is getting something accomplished in an environment where people are hurting and where other people are afraid of speaking out.
Let's try to move past that.
--Jimbo
Alec wrote:
If you strongly oppose BADSITES but are the kind of person who really needs a happy, civil working environment to make it pleasant to edit wikipedia, you really either have to make a pseudonym or you have to just have to keep your mouth shut.
I strongly oppose BADSITES, and I am the kind of person who really needs a happy, civil working environment, and I think it important for the preservation of that to both openly oppose BADSITES and to do it using my own name and reputation.
You can't win debates in Wikipedia by sockpuppeting. It is just not a very useful strategy, even without getting into the ethical issues.
BADSITES was a badly written policy proposal and it died a rightful death. At the same time, virtually no one thinks that we need nothing in that general neighborhood... there really is such a thing as a link that should not be in wikipedia, and there really is such a thing as personal attack through linking.
on 11/1/07 3:53 PM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The hard part is getting something accomplished in an environment where people are hurting and where other people are afraid of speaking out.
Let's try to move past that.
Absolutely! This is one of the most accurate, positive and constructive things I've read on the List in a very long time.
Thank you, Jimmy.
Marc Riddell
On 11/1/07, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with the indef block of PM was that I think he went out of his way to follow the rules as they currently are. He was always very polite, and he was very very helpful in mediating the discussion. From the information I have in front of me as of this second, he's an icon of compliance with our SOCKS rules as they currently exist, and his block had much more to do with WP:BADSITES than WP:SOCKS.
I think it's one thing to have an alternate account to contribute to controversial discussions - although I'm not keen on it in general - and quite another to have one to take controversial ACTIONS. This is close if not over the line of having 'good hand' / 'bad hand' accounts, and I feel is at least beyond the spirit of our policy on sockpuppetry - whether it's beyond the current wording of the policy I'm not sure.
Frankly, our policy on socking and multiple accounts is way looser than it should be, and I think the wording of the current on-wiki policy pages is significantly looser than what is actually acceptable in practice to the community.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 11/1/07, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with the indef block of PM was that I think he went out of his way to follow the rules as they currently are. He was always very polite, and he was very very helpful in mediating the discussion. From the information I have in front of me as of this second, he's an icon of compliance with our SOCKS rules as they currently exist, and his block had much more to do with WP:BADSITES than WP:SOCKS.
I think it's one thing to have an alternate account to contribute to controversial discussions - although I'm not keen on it in general - and quite another to have one to take controversial ACTIONS. This is close if not over the line of having 'good hand' / 'bad hand' accounts, and I feel is at least beyond the spirit of our policy on sockpuppetry - whether it's beyond the current wording of the policy I'm not sure.
Frankly, our policy on socking and multiple accounts is way looser than it should be, and I think the wording of the current on-wiki policy pages is significantly looser than what is actually acceptable in practice to the community.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Quite realistically, I'd rather see the use of any secondary account which does not clearly indicate that it is operated by the same person as (insert primary account) here forbidden. There are legitimate reasons for people to have two accounts. Bot accounts are the most obvious example. I've also seen (clearly marked) sock accounts used to maintain a separate watchlist, as doppelgangers to prevent impersonation from someone creating an account with a very similar name, and (including me on this one) a secondary non-admin account to avoid editing on a public terminal with an admin account.
On the other hand, if you want to get into something controversial, either own up to it or stay out of it.
Todd Allen wrote:
Quite realistically, I'd rather see the use of any secondary account which does not clearly indicate that it is operated by the same person as (insert primary account) here forbidden. There are legitimate reasons for people to have two accounts. Bot accounts are the most obvious example. I've also seen (clearly marked) sock accounts used to maintain a separate watchlist, as doppelgangers to prevent impersonation from someone creating an account with a very similar name, and (including me on this one) a secondary non-admin account to avoid editing on a public terminal with an admin account.
On the other hand, if you want to get into something controversial, either own up to it or stay out of it.
So let's see if I understand. The motivation that led to BADSITES was that outing a Wikipedian's identity was bad behaviour. What you now suggest is that all socks should have their identity outed.
Am I wrong to perceive an element of institutionalized hypocrisy in that proposal?
Ec
Quoting Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Todd Allen wrote:
Quite realistically, I'd rather see the use of any secondary account which does not clearly indicate that it is operated by the same person as (insert primary account) here forbidden. There are legitimate reasons for people to have two accounts. Bot accounts are the most obvious example. I've also seen (clearly marked) sock accounts used to maintain a separate watchlist, as doppelgangers to prevent impersonation from someone creating an account with a very similar name, and (including me on this one) a secondary non-admin account to avoid editing on a public terminal with an admin account.
On the other hand, if you want to get into something controversial, either own up to it or stay out of it.
So let's see if I understand. The motivation that led to BADSITES was that outing a Wikipedian's identity was bad behaviour. What you now suggest is that all socks should have their identity outed.
Am I wrong to perceive an element of institutionalized hypocrisy in that proposal?
It isn't the same thing at all, since it would be insisting that the socks be associated with Wikipedia editors, not the user's True Names. To be clear, I'm not in favor of this policy, but I don't see it as hypocritical.
On 01/11/2007, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, if you want to get into something controversial, either own up to it or stay out of it.
It's not quite that simple.
Normally, we say "if you personally, the Real You, don't want to be linked to your work, use a pseudonym". But what if you are able and willing to be linked to part of your work, but you would rather disclaim the link for the rest?
There are a large number of topics that are more "embarrassing" than controversial. The simplest case study (because I'm lazy) is myself - when not setting out to write, I tend to copyedit as I go, and some nights you can read my contribution history and pretty much follow the chain of my reading through the evening.
There have been times when I've stopped myself doing something - or deliberately signed out to do it - because, well, my employer knows that I edit enwp, my friends know that I edit enwp, my *housemate* knows I edit enwp, everything is public, and I'd much rather not have any of them come up to me and start making amused comments about STDs. (This is, of course, a hypothetical example! The things I'm embarrassed about editing are less unsalubrious but a lot weirder...).
That's the most common case. It isn't much of a stretch from that to contemplate people who compartmentalise their lives, who are happy to sign their own name to the erudite work on Byzantine history but would really rather prefer not to link that to their lovingly written articles on sexual practices. Not for any dubious or malevolent reasons, just that they'd rather keep some aspects of their life private whilst being open about the others.
And when people want to have a reasonably normal and productive editing career in these alternative topics, they're going to create an account and get to it as normal. It doesn't matter what policy says on the matter, this is what will happen, it's inevitable.
Maybe they say they edit under a different name on less exotic topics, maybe they don't. Either way, it's *completely harmless to the encyclopedia*; it means a bit of work gets done that wouldn't otherwise get done, and everyone's happier. There's nothing wrong with it, and I can't see any reason to try and "legislate it away".
The line that needs to be drawn - as in this case - is whether it's appropriate to do this to compartmentalise engaging in meta-debate; there are reasonable arguments both ways (as Greg is noticing...) but it's pretty clearly a different case to a normal "editing funny stuff account", and we should be very wary of throwing babies out with the bathwater.