3 ms·

> Wikipedia is one of the few very large venues online that I feel really had moderation done right For years Wikipedia has given a pass to abusive harassing a

by DanBC 7y ago

> Wikipedia is one of the few very large venues online that I feel really had moderation done right For years Wikipedia has given a pass to abusive harassing arseholes because those people were also prolific editors. That puts at risk the main principle of wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, because lots of those anyones are driven away by those toxic but prolific editors. And wikipedia just isn't very good at acknowledging they're bad at dealing with toxic editors. A bunch of admins will see clear pattern of abuse and will excuse it. "That's not so bad", "it's pretty bad but it's not as bad as it used to be", "no-one has told that person to stop" (despite there being many requests to the person to stop), "it's pretty bad but they're prolific", "I don't think it's bad and so anyone else who think's it's bad should toughen up". (We see most of these in the Fram discussion.) The worst thing about wikipedia (and we also see this on HN) is the refusal to trust process unless every single intimate detail is litigated in public, and that's something that often cannot happen when you have a person harassing others.

nullc 7y ago
> For years Wikipedia has given a pass to abusive harassing arseholes because those people were also prolific editors Can you suggest a similarly large service that does better? I can tell you first hand that reddit and twitter absoltely give not the slightest shit about constant harassment, impersonation, and posting threats and personal information: Except when I pick up the phone and directly apply pressure to the legal or executive staff via connections. > is the refusal to trust process unless every single intimate detail is litigated in public, This isn't the case here. Wikipedia has a established governance process for dealing with trouble making administrators, who regularly handle highly private confidential information-- and they're equally in the dark here. There is a process, but it isn't the users who aren't trusting it-- It's the WMF that is not trusting, bypassing the process, and not acting in a transparent manner.

by DanBC 7y ago

nullc 7y ago

> For years Wikipedia has given a pass to abusive harassing arseholes because those people were also prolific editors Can you suggest a similarly large service that does better? I can tell you first hand that reddit and twitter absoltely give not the slightest shit about constant harassment, impersonation, and posting threats and personal information: Except when I pick up the phone and directly apply pressure to the legal or executive staff via connections. > is the refusal to trust process unless every single intimate detail is litigated in public, This isn't the case here. Wikipedia has a established governance process for dealing with trouble making administrators, who regularly handle highly private confidential information-- and they're equally in the dark here. There is a process, but it isn't the users who aren't trusting it-- It's the WMF that is not trusting, bypassing the process, and not acting in a transparent manner.