Hi all,

someone asked me not to comment on this issue anymore, but as I think/hope that we are now on the meta level, let me remind everyone that a policy is just a particular aggregate state of norms. Nobody here seems to doubt that we need norms, especially at and around events. And norms often require active application. So somebody should take the leadership task of taking this debate further, but not without disecting it into the three things it is about:

a) pros and cons of having norms congealed in the form of a policy

b) the ways of application / enforcement of those norms

c) how to maintain consensus on the standards for infringement

While the last of those three parts might seem to be the most difficult, I suspect that b) is actually the most complex one to solve.

Best

John

Am So., 29. Juli 2018 um 23:14 Uhr schrieb Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>:

I disagree that there is no use for a policy at all. Sure, there are laws, but I would prefer not to have to use them - that we can avoid misbehavior in the first place. Having a good and consistent policy helps Wikipedians navigate. Don't (just) define what is forbidden, but (also) define what is 'good behavior'. For some people this is obvious, but there are also community members that find comfort in knowing what is a safe guideline to follow. There are also community members that will find comfort in knowing that they can expect certain behavior from their colleagues, no matter the country the event happens to be organized in.

I do agree however, that arbitrariness is not a good outcome. If there is even the impression that there is arbitrariness, the value of the policy is tainted. This is why I'm asking to review the policy - not because I disagree with the core principles, but because I don't like how it plays out - at the very least in the perception. But in this, I'm starting to repeat myself.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:03 PM DaB. <wp@dabpunkt.eu> wrote:
Hello.
Am 29.07.2018 um 19:27 schrieb Chris Keating:
> to make sure everyone is welcome

You mean everyone that is not a little deaf, speaks not a little too
loud and does not dare to deliver stuff to other sessions?

The hole case is a primary example why such things as a
friendly-space-policy are complete bullshit. It is nearly never used
with good intensions, it is nearly never used against people who really
are misbehaving, but against normal people.

If there is really a problem, most countries have laws for/against it.
That’s enough. If there is no law against a problem, there is no real
problem. There is no law against too-loud-speaking because it is not
needed; if somebody speaks too loud, you can just tell him/her. There
are laws against unwelcome sexual contacts because they are a problem;
use the laws if needed – no policy is needed here.

The reason why some people prefer policies is the matter of believing.
If I say “XYZ touched me!” with a policy all I need is that somebody
important believes me. With a law I need proofs. With a policy there is
no need for proofs, there is no in dubio pro reo – there is just the
question whom the important persons believes more. In German that is
called Willkür (≈arbitrariness/capriciousness/despotism) and for good
reasons we got rid of it.

Sincerely,
DaB.

P.S: And before somebody assumes: I was never the victim of a
friendly-space-policy.

--
Benutzerseite: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]]
PGP: 0x7CD1E35FD2A3A158 (pka funktioniert)

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l