[WikiEN-l] Query for all harassment-related proposals: How are you different from BADSITES?

[Ray Saintonge]

Alec Conroy wrote:
> By and large, it seems like the BADSITES-equivalent proposals are
> "mostly dead"--  I think everyone recognizes that "Never link to any
> 'site that is sufficently bad', deletion exempt from 3RR" has been
> rejected by the community. (Rejected in the formal sense-- it's hotly
> disputed, doesn't have consensus, and that isn't likely to change
> anytime soon).
>
> Such proposals may be mostly dead, but of course: "MOSTLY dead" isn't
> "all dead". I see there's at least one BADSITES-equivalent proposal
> still floating around here on the list, namely the proposal that says
> "Any site that is sufficiently bad shall be declared unreliable, and
> may not be linked to".   And, like any perinneal debate, I'm sure
> there will be more such proposals for the  foreseeable future.
>   
Did you really intend "perineal" instead of "perennial"?  I suppose that 
a pain in the perineum is close enough to a pain in the butt. :-)

> Ordinarily, I'd use a hypothetical example here, but I've found that
> in this debate, hypothetical examples are invariably dismissed when
> someone says  "Oh, that could never really happen".  So I actually do
> have to use a real-world example if we're going to talk about this.
>   
Real-world examples allow a discussion to be personalised.  It's much 
easier to "understand" the problem in a narrow context.  Looking at that 
situation in a larger context requires that people review their own 
assumptions.  That's rarely easy.
> The whole experience was extremely upsetting for all involved, and if
> you look around on Sci-Fi community blogs, you can see that Wikipedia
> lost a lot of respect in that incident. Many in that sci-fi-blogger
> subculture seem to have some harsh words for Wikipedia as a result of
> the experience, and I'm sure we alienated a lot of people who could
> have been valuable contributors.  The people who edit and read Making
> Lights felt bullied, abused, and harassed.
>   
The harsh words and loss of respect were for Wikipedia in general, and 
not just the misguided individual. Outsiders cannot be expected to be 
knowledgeable about Wikipedia's internal politics, or that such antics 
are the preserve of a minority of Wikipedians.
> Speaking as a reader/editors of Making Light, Sci Fi megagenius Cory
> Doctorow  summarized the experience thusly:
>
> "This is unseemly. You appear to be attempting to punish someone who
> dislikes you by removing references to her site. This seems like
> retaliation, not an effort to improve Wikipedia. What's more, the
> repeated demand to change something posted to her site seems like
> extortion, not an attempt to improve Wikipedia. TNH claims that
> Wikipedians pursue petty vendettas at the expense of quality. Please
> conduct yourself in a way that does not lend itself to this
> interpretation of the project."
>   
Such people will be more forgiving of an honest error.  Normal behaviour 
would suggest that an erroneous comment, even one that is prima facie 
libellous, can be easily removed when it is brought to our attention, 
and misunderstandings can be forgiven without further ado.  When either 
the "victim" or the community overreacts it becomes a much bigger problem.
> Ultimatlely, that particular incident came to an end when the disputed
> material was deleted from ML, at least temporarily, and the links to
> ML were restored.
>   
So blackmail worked?
> Now, let's not obsess over WHO did this.  I swear, I'm not bring this
> up to get in a dig at anyone.  The admin in question admits at least
> having "overreacted", and as long as the behavior has stopped, it
> doesn't matter WHO did this--  so by bringing this up, I'm sincerely,
> sincerely not trying to pick on anyone.  We've all done things in the
> past, on wikipedia or elsewhere, that we shouldn't be throwing stones
> over this past thing right now.
>   
There are some people who are unable to abstract general principles in 
the absence of a concrete incident.  The problem there is that 
generalisation from a particular circumstance with particular facts 
distorts the general concept, and forces us into unduly circumscribed 
modes of thought.  Examples are fine, but they are just that, and should 
never be a part of a general rule.
> But that said,  I can't help but notice that this sort of abuse seems
> inherent to any  BADSITESesque polices of the form "no linking to
> sites that are sufficiently bad".
>   
Sure, it's the misguided idea that the world's problems can be solved 
through punitive measures.
> I believe any future policy, in order to be successful, must recognize
> the past abuses of BADSITES, and must include reasonsable assurances
> that the proposed policy won't lead to the same kind of abuses in the
> future.
The experience has had to be lived, and it is hard to avoid going 
through the same mistakes when you haven't had the experience in the 
first place. :-(

Ec