[WikiEN-l] drama and incivility

[Monahon, Peter B.]

--

"The man whose authority is recent is always stern." -- attributed to
Aeschylus

"... because boys and girls grow up in what are essentially different
cultures ... talk between women and men is cross-cultural communication
..." Deborah Tannen

--

> Earlier: ... can you give us one example 
> of a successful online community where
> nobody has the power to ban a user? ...

Peter Blaise responds:

	Of course.  I speak from experience.  Nothing prior corresponds
exactly to the wiki experience, especially the Wikipedia experience.
Most prior Internet collections of otherwise unassociated people
worldwide were about products and activities - such as hikers,
photographers, car enthusiasts, and such.  Wikis, and Wikipedia
especially, are full-spectrum democracies, and with no significant
alternative (a monopoly?).  As such, I believe that wikis, and
especially Wikipedia, need to be overtly diligent to prevent denial of
access to anyone, and to always be open for everyone.  As an effective
monopoly, wikis, and Wikipedia especially, need to bend over backwards,
so to speak, to provide totally-inclusive customer service.

	My personal experience is twofold:

--

	1 - On http://www.yahoogroups.com/ (was "alt", then mailing
list, then onegroup / egroups / yahoo clubs, then yahoo groups -
evolution over 10 years or more, now splintering into other arena,
including Google Groups "alt" once again), new groups sprang up because
of banning in prior groups, and so, the promise of the new groups was,
as I mentioned:

	- free and open to all
	- multiple co-moderators
	- no banning

	You might ask, how do we deal with the inevitable party
crashers?

	- spammers
	- vandals
	- flamers
	- extended off-topic posters

	Simple.  

	Delete spam and vandalism, don't waste time banning spammers and
vandals since they move on from an email address or IP rather quickly.
On wikis, having blocks for such that expire in hours is appropriate.
The important thing is that the blocks are brief, and expire
automatically.

	Flamers and extended off-topic posters get moderated, where
their posts / contributions get held back for review by the multiple
co-moderators.  No one co-moderator decides on their own, and
especially, no single co-moderator who ever got involved in a dispute
with anyone else was allowed to resolve their dispute by expressing
co-moderator powers!  That might work on the wiki lists.  I'm not sure
how to moderate on the wikis themselves.  Any ideas?  Is an extension
needed to provide an dialogical alternative to banning?

	Eventually one of three things happens:

	- a co-moderator volunteers to correspond with the "offender"
off-line, and over time, they resolve the problem, usually a discovering
a misunderstanding,

	- the "offender" reconsiders, soothes themselves, and starts
offering appropriate contributions on their own,

	- the "offender" goes quiet,

	Results?  No banning, no ongoing fighting, no overwhelming
distraction from the main purpose of the group, everyone continues to
feel welcome and invited to participate without fear that they might get
irretrievably, irrevocably banned for offending other members or a
whimsical, all-powerful moderator.  

	Meta-messages, that is, messages-about-the-messages, like this
one, of course, are part and parcel of any community, and are unrelated
to the "offences" as listed above.  Meta-messages are never considered
off topic.

	Co-moderators also participate, never flaunt their admin /
moderator status, and set examples:

	- co-moderators NEVER threaten to use powers, especially never
threatening to stop an argument in which they have participated!

	- co-moderators MODERATE other people's arguments, cooling down
the participants, asking expansive questions, injecting lighter
attitudes, sometimes even defusing with humor (never ridicule).

	Is it a lot of work?  Yes and no.  Actually, with no "banning"
work to do and maintain, there's loads more time to actually participate
and moderate!  It's more fun for the moderators, and less scary for the
members, especially members who want to raise challenging, even
constitutional issues, who can do so without fear of being severed from
their own community.

	What we usually find when resolving problems is:

	- someone has taken something personally,

	- someone misunderstands another's post, and then they're both
arguing against ghosts that don't really exist,

	By keeping such "offenders" inside the community, we keep the
community whole, and everyone grows because of that effort.  I know, as
a co-moderator, that I have had to call on previously untapped personal
resources for patience, tolerance, acceptance, and equivalent
consideration.  When dialoging off-line with "offenders", I have
generally found that the real problem was someone's inarticulateness
(yes, even my own - it could happen!), or inaccurate translation across
languages.  Surprisingly easily resolved.  I treasure my relationships
with these people across the globe, sometimes more intensely earned than
my always-friendly relationships with other members of the community!

--

	2 - On http://www.mediwiki.org/ where (presumably an
English-as-a-second-language) co-moderator / admin admitted that they
misunderstood an entry on a discussion / talk page, yet they still
whimsically decided to ban AND delete, even removing a contributor's
contact name, address and telephone number, and the user's prior notes
on their own discussion / talk page, as if that information itself were
suddenly spam or vandalism?!?  The ban is infinite.  The member has no
way to even contact anyone to appeal.  Other members who objected to the
co-moderator's behavior were quashed into silence out of fear of being
banned, also. (Note - my previous references here SHOULD have been only
to MediaWiki.org the software, not WikiMedia.org the foundation site -
my typo, their confusing trademarks.)  "If banned, appeal to ... " ...
no can do!  Once banned, there's no way to contact anyone at the site.
Contact the Foundation site, and they forward the request back to the
software site, and so the request for review simply disappears.  As
said, so much for the Wikimedia Foundation's belief in their own wiki
democracy tool!

--

	Hey, I have nothing against banning - where the name of the
enterprise is the name of the one doing the banning.  Rename it to
Joe'sWiki, or Joe'sList, and then ban away.  But if it's a wiki,
Wikipedia, or wiki list, then NO BANNING.

	Banning = moderator and friends' blog, rename it as such.

	Wiki = come one, come all, and let's figure out how to get
along.

--

> Earlier: ... this strikes me as arguing that 
> newspaper editors should not have the 
> right to tear up any letters that come in 
> from one particular person.... 

	Peter Blaise responds:  You know this is not a newspaper, which
is by definition an expression of the publisher and editors.  A wiki,
and a wiki support list, is the expression of anyone who visits.  The
visitors are the publishers and editors.  One visitor should never have
banning powers over other visitors.

--

> Earlier: ... This is the English Wikipedia 
> mailing list, and the mods should be able 
> to prohibit or curtail discussion that does 
> not relate in any way to the English 
> Wikipedia ...

	Peter Blaise responds:  We agree ... somewhat.  We're here to
discuss English Wikipedia.  Great.  Do that.  But, as mentioned, I put
it to you that banning is an inappropriate tool for the MODERATING you
desire.  As an alternative to banning, I suggest actually MODERATING!
And, I have found that having multiple co-moderators helps, especially
when one co-moderator feels overwhelmed or personally involved in a
conflict.  Alternative co-moderators are then much better suited to
resolve the situation without themselves catching on fire.

	And, as mentioned, without banning powers, there's way less
incentive for people with hidden agendas to become admins / moderators.
THAT is my penultimate target here - to raise awareness that banning
powers may seem innocent and useful at first blush, but corrupt anyone
who holds them, and draws people with contrary goals.

	I suggest that on all wikis and wiki lists that we ban the
banning power and that whole problem will go away, and then
co-moderators can actually develop themselves, and the WHOLE community,
by developing their moderating prowess, instead of lazily solving all
problems by pulling the banning trigger whenever they feel bothered or
inconvenienced.

--

> Earlier: Re: [WikiEN-l] What en:wp 
>      would look like printed out
> ... A pox on all the deletionists 
> who want to reduce this variety ...

Peter Blaise responds: My point EXACTLY about banning.  Those who would
ban are deletionists in another incarnation.

--

> Earlier: Re: [WikiEN-l] Misogyny is the 
>     perfect troll
> ... It's no wonder there are so few women 
> in the upper echelons on Wikipedia, imo, 
> in a culture that is so damn accepting and
> ignorant of how it makes women outsiders ...

Peter Blaise responds: ... maybe because, historically, women tend to be
community builders, and are not so quick to grab the banning stick?  As
Deborah Tannen deduced in her book, "You Just Don't Understand: Men and
Women in Conversation", women tend to build "rapport" with another
person; men tend to seek out the content of the "report" and discard the
other person.  We need both - wikis, and especially the Wikipedia, needs
both content and community.  Banning powers are interruptive and
destructive of first one, then the other.

--

	Thanks for hanging in here, and reading all this, those few who
are interested or have nothing else to do.  Again, I'm sorry if I speak
past my close, and if I made this way too long, not having taken the
time to revisit and edit and cull this down to essentials, or just
letting previous posts speak for themselves without redundant
reiteration.

-- Peter Blaise