[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use forReview

[Phil Nash]

Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 8 September 2011 17:28, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As I am speaking as a steward, I have to say that it's very good news
>> for us. Instead of being harassed because not dealing with
>> harassment, since the implementation of ToS that would be WMF's job.
>> That's really good news for stewards!
>
>
> The purpose of the new TOS is to support the community, not to take
> over its work.
>
> Geoff and members of the Community department have been speaking
> recently with community members who are concerned about harassment on
> the wikis, about what kinds of actions we might collectively take to
> help prevent it. Making it clear that harassment is against the rules
> seems like an obvious step, and indeed I've seen research that
> suggests an inverse relationship between sites that have a TOS that
> prohibits harassment, and incidents of harassment on those sites. [1]
>
> Explicitly and publicly forbidding harassment on the wikis is a pretty
> basic and straightforward thing to do.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
> [1] I wish I had that study at hand, but I don't. I found it, I think,
> through a Google Scholar search related to danah boyd. The researcher
> was an expert in online harassment, either at Berkman or maybe MIT.

There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust debate, 
although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines. The difference is 
perhaps, largely cultural, and especially in non-English speaking 
communities, where translations may be inexact and externally 
misinterpreted. That is why I think that issues such as this should be 
determined at a local Wiki level rather than being seen to be imposed at a 
higher, and (it has to be said) Anglo-centric level.

But I am also fully aware that whatever TOS are stated, some editors won't 
subscribe to them, for whatever reason, and others, even if aware of them, 
will lawyer or sock their way round them. And there is little that can be 
done about that at Foundation level other than setting out a principle. 
Well, hot dog! POV-pushers will continue to do so, and bully other editors 
with whom they are in disagreement, regardless of principles. But those 
editors will be sanctioned locally, and maybe find that there is no WM 
project left for their outpourings.

Global bans are already available; but disruptive editors on one Wiki within 
the WM umbrella have gone on to be constructive editors elsewhere. I seem to 
remember Jimbo preaching forgiveness, and I see this proposal, unless I have 
misunderstood it completely, as being anathema to that.