[Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] School shooting threats

[George Herbert]

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Nathan <nawrich at 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.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com