(cc'd to Foundation-l because of para 3)
School shootings are extraordinarily high profile events, nearly always followed by investigations of warnings and foreshadowing events - where blame is cast in a wide net on anyone who failed to notice what, in hindsight, was a "clear sign." Often these "clear signs" are only clear at all in hindsight, because as human beings we interpret what we see based on what we have seen in the past and few of us have encountered threats from children that turned out to be very serious.
Wikipedia is in a unique position to suffer from the recriminations associated with school shootings, and our role is only going to become more widespread and high profile as time goes on. Threats made on Wikipedia have the characteristics of being written, indelible, and traceable to a specific computer (given the right resources). Additionally, threats on Wikipedia are *seen* - this is key, because few threats of violence on Wikipedia get past recent change patrollers and watchlists of attentive editors. So, when a school shooting threat is posting on Wikipedia it is time stamped, indelible, traceable and seen more or less immediately.
The question, then, is what if any moral imperative does this impose on us? And if some of us feel compelled to report such instances to the police, and others do not, what if any should the extent of policy be on this issue? Personally I can't agree to any Wikipedia policy that mandates or punishes behavior off-wiki. On the other hand, I do think a policy that encourages all editors to report specific school threats to AN and (when willing and possible) to the police is workable and a good idea. Frankly, I'm surprised and I'm sure many others would be as well to learn that there isn't already such a Wikipedia policy. At a minimum, we should have a policy of forwarding all such threats to the Wikimedia Foundation for "official" action if necessary.
This issue is distinct from the issue of threats of self-harm, suicide or harm to public figures. While vague threats to celebrities and "I'ma kill Joe, he's a dickwad" are often reverted and ignored as simple and unserious vandalism, school threats have a unique nature in public sentiment and require a unique position in policy. I'm writing this to the two lists because its an issue that deserves a higher profile discussion than on a proposed policy page (already nominated for deletion) with a couple editors who think the policy is trying to force people in calling the cops when they don't want to.
Nathan
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The question, then, is what if any moral imperative does this impose on us? And if some of us feel compelled to report such instances to the police, and others do not, what if any should the extent of policy be on this issue? Personally I can't agree to any Wikipedia policy that mandates or punishes behavior off-wiki. On the other hand, I do think a policy that encourages all editors to report specific school threats to AN and (when willing and possible) to the police is workable and a good idea. Frankly, I'm surprised and I'm sure many others would be as well to learn that there isn't already such a Wikipedia policy. At a minimum, we should have a policy of forwarding all such threats to the Wikimedia Foundation for "official" action if necessary.
If it only encourages people to do something then it's not a policy, it's an essay, which is more than appropriate in this case. Even a guideline would be better than policy.
IMO any threat with the slightest hint of seriousness should be immediately reported. But making it a blockable offense to not report would not only be very bad for the project, it would be unenforceable in just about every case. Which would in turn make it generally a useless policy.
On another note, a noticeboard where things like this can be posted would be helpful. People who know how to go about reporting something like this could monitor the page. (Law enforcement could even subscribe to an RSS feed of the page history, if they wanted to be proactive about it.)
(cc'd to Foundation-l because of para 3)
School shootings are extraordinarily high profile events, nearly always followed by investigations of warnings and foreshadowing events - where blame is cast in a wide net on anyone who failed to notice what, in hindsight, was a "clear sign." Often these "clear signs" are only clear at all in hindsight, because as human beings we interpret what we see based on what we have seen in the past and few of us have encountered threats from children that turned out to be very serious.
Wikipedia is in a unique position to suffer from the recriminations associated with school shootings, and our role is only going to become more widespread and high profile as time goes on. Threats made on Wikipedia have the characteristics of being written, indelible, and traceable to a specific computer (given the right resources). Additionally, threats on Wikipedia are *seen* - this is key, because few threats of violence on Wikipedia get past recent change patrollers and watchlists of attentive editors. So, when a school shooting threat is posting on Wikipedia it is time stamped, indelible, traceable and seen more or less immediately.
The question, then, is what if any moral imperative does this impose on us? And if some of us feel compelled to report such instances to the police, and others do not, what if any should the extent of policy be on this issue? Personally I can't agree to any Wikipedia policy that mandates or punishes behavior off-wiki. On the other hand, I do think a policy that encourages all editors to report specific school threats to AN and (when willing and possible) to the police is workable and a good idea. Frankly, I'm surprised and I'm sure many others would be as well to learn that there isn't already such a Wikipedia policy. At a minimum, we should have a policy of forwarding all such threats to the Wikimedia Foundation for "official" action if necessary.
This issue is distinct from the issue of threats of self-harm, suicide or harm to public figures. While vague threats to celebrities and "I'ma kill Joe, he's a dickwad" are often reverted and ignored as simple and unserious vandalism, school threats have a unique nature in public sentiment and require a unique position in policy. I'm writing this to the two lists because its an issue that deserves a higher profile discussion than on a proposed policy page (already nominated for deletion) with a couple editors who think the policy is trying to force people in calling the cops when they don't want to.
Nathan
These often come to oversight, so I see them and have reported a couple. I am always aware of the absurdity of bringing the full force of the law down on a 13 year old who is probably just fooling around. I haven't made long distance calls if there is no email address on the school's website. I generally make a report to the school, to its superintendent and to the security officer. In the Los Angeles case there was no email addresses on the website, so I didn't contact them, but there was a notice on the administrator's noticeboard and someone did call.
I guess our policy should always be to call the school and the local police. There is a slight possibility of a real threat not being picked up.
Fred
I'm not sure I totally understand the contention that a policy is only worth having if you can be blocked for violating it. How many blocks are issued for violating AGF or NPOV? A policy or a guideline - but not an essay. Personally I'd prefer a policy, because it has the weight of consensus behind it and thus amounts to stronger encouragement than a simple essay from someone few have ever heard of.
As far as a separate noticeboard - I think we have noticeboard proliferationitis as it is. Someone mentioned RSN yesterday and an admin had no idea what it was, so I think that demonstrates the limited utility of yet another reports noticeboard.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
I'm not sure I totally understand the contention that a policy is only worth having if you can be blocked for violating it. How many blocks are issued for violating AGF or NPOV? A policy or a guideline - but not an essay. Personally I'd prefer a policy, because it has the weight of consensus behind it and thus amounts to stronger encouragement than a simple essay from someone few have ever heard of.
As far as a separate noticeboard - I think we have noticeboard proliferationitis as it is. Someone mentioned RSN yesterday and an admin had no idea what it was, so I think that demonstrates the limited utility of yet another reports noticeboard.
Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Shouldn't this be taking place on Wikipedia and not on the Mailing List? It would allow more to comment.
--CWii
2008/5/21 John compwhizii@gmail.com:
Shouldn't this be taking place on Wikipedia and not on the Mailing List? It would allow more to comment.
Definitely, but this is a good place to float ideas and strengthen the good ones.
At some stage soon I need to write up something on how to approach cases of suicide threats, attacks on editors and so forth (those two actually crossing into each other, unfortunately). Jimbo has in fact sought out advice on how to handle unbalanced net stalkers, for example. I'll float it here and put it on my userspace in the first instance, I expect. Others should of course feel free to do simiilarly.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2008/5/21 John compwhizii@gmail.com:
Shouldn't this be taking place on Wikipedia and not on the Mailing List? It would allow more to comment.
Definitely, but this is a good place to float ideas and strengthen the good ones.
Yes. With the number of issues under discussion at any one time it would go unnoticed by a large segment of the population. That's a big problem with policy development in the first place. Nobody can effectively track them, and we don't encounter those policies until we are personally affected. By then they are well past the discussion stage, and it becomes an uphill climb to instill any kind of sanity.
Jimbo has in fact sought out advice on how to handle unbalanced net stalkers, for example.
You have examples of "balanced" net stalkers? :-)
Ec
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure I totally understand the contention that a policy is only worth having if you can be blocked for violating it. How many blocks are issued for violating AGF or NPOV? A policy or a guideline - but not an essay. Personally I'd prefer a policy, because it has the weight of consensus behind it and thus amounts to stronger encouragement than a simple essay from someone few have ever heard of.
On the English Wikipedia, we do have an informal policy, in the form of the [[Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm]] (which is short-linked from WP:SUICIDE and WP:VIOLENCE ). It says pretty much exactly what you're asking for, if I understood your comments right.
There have been four attempts to address this question in policy.
Attempts 1 and 2 went down in flames because there wasn't enough consensus on what to prescribe and how, in terms of prescriptive and blockable policy.
Attempt 3 was my essay WP:SUICIDE, which is what the current essay directly derives from. As it's an essay, it's not subject to the need to get formal policy approval, and didn't fall over and die as a result.
There was a fourth attempt, about four months ago, to make a formal policy. It crashed and burned, because there still isn't enough consensus on what to prescribe and how, in terms of prescriptive and blockable policy.
I believe that making a prescriptive policy which is sufficiently agreeable and understandable and enforceable is an extremely difficult proposition. The essay strongly encourages anyone who thinks something is, or might be, a credible threat to report it to law enforcement and ANI and other venues. That's common sense, plus what we've heard from Psychiatrists and Law Enforcement and so forth.
Writing down the common sense so that everyone knows "yes, that's what we understand you should do, reporting it is appropriate and you are encouraged to do it and we won't blame you or get angry at you if you do" is good. That's what we did.
I don't know that this is the sort of thing that's amenable to a prescriptive policy from the Foundation. I don't think that we should not do it, for some philosophical or operational reason, and I won't oppose another attempt by anyone to form such policy. But the historical record is that it's very hard to write such prescriptive policy and very hard to get buy in for it if you do. A number of people have gotten extremely upset, frustrated, and burned out trying to make that happen.
I believe that the current essay is a decent balance and it involves no additional stress on anyone. If it needs to be promoted better, such as to other projects or as a Foundation-wide essay rather than just for en.wp, those would be easy and valuable expansions.
If you want to do a real prescriptive policy, before you start, please look at the history of the 3 failed attempts before you set out. Perhaps the next try will be the one that succeeds, but I suspect that all that will happen is that decent positive contributors who are clearly trying to do a good thing for the project will get burned out and disillusioned and likely leave. I encourage people not to get burned out, disillusioned, and leave.
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure I totally understand the contention that a policy is only worth having if you can be blocked for violating it. How many blocks are issued for violating AGF or NPOV? A policy or a guideline - but not an essay. Personally I'd prefer a policy, because it has the weight of consensus behind it and thus amounts to stronger encouragement than a simple essay from someone few have ever heard of.
I know of plenty of blocks that have been placed for violations of CIVIL, which AGF is arguably an extension of. I'm sure someone rampantly assuming bad faith would be blocked pretty quickly, even if some other policy is cited for the block.
Policy generally describes how things are supposed to be done, and in some cases explicitly states what happens if it's not followed. For behavioral policies like CIVIL and AGF the obvious consequence is a block. For NPOV it's removal/refactoring of the contribution.
I'm not exactly sure what the obvious implication of breaching this new policy would be. I'm not even sure how it could be determined that a breach took place. If some remedy cannot be taken to "fix" a policy breach then what is the policy even doing? It's advising people on what *should* be done. Which sounds more like a guideline to me.
As far as a separate noticeboard - I think we have noticeboard proliferationitis as it is. Someone mentioned RSN yesterday and an admin had no idea what it was, so I think that demonstrates the limited utility of yet another reports noticeboard.
I'm an administrator and I have no clue what half of the noticeboards out there are, largely because I'm not active in those areas. Which is why it's nice to not cram all this stuff on ANI. People who know how to approach threats would monitor the page. The rest of us could ignore it with little consequence.