4 ms·

It's a code of conduct which "bans harassment on and off the site, barring behaviors like hate speech, the use of slurs, stereotypes or attacks based on persona

by Aachen 6y ago

It's a code of conduct which "bans harassment on and off the site, barring behaviors like hate speech, the use of slurs, stereotypes or attacks based on personal characteristics, as well as threats of physical violence and ‘hounding,’ or following someone across different articles to critique their work". It also disallows introducing bias in articles on purpose. Enforcement is something they will figure out as a "next step", and there are no plans to increase the current abuse team. No source link anywhere or link to more info, and frankly banning harassment and undue bias doesn't sound very new for Wikipedia to me. Not sure what impact this will have on this valuable resource. Perhaps someone should, I don't know, do some journalism here.

jan_Inkepa 6y ago
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Po...
- Aachen 6y ago
  Yes, I saw and upvoted your sibling comment, thanks :). My post is more a critique of the source than actually asking for a link though, as there doesn't seem to be news for those who aren't regular editors (and even then, mostly if you're intending to harass someone).
itsoktocry 6y ago
>It also disallows introducing bias in articles on purpose How on earth would this be provable or enforceable?
- lldbg 6y ago
  It doesn't have to be. Capricious enforcement of rules is the name of the game.
dane-pgp 6y ago
> bans harassment on and off the site I wonder if "harassment" will be in the eye of the beholder. If you read someone's Tweets and find an opinion that you think is insulting towards the rich or immigrants or men or women, is that grounds to get that person's Wikipedia account deleted?
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  We don't have to leap to an extreme, paint this in black and white. Some cases may be shades of grey, but 'insulting' is fairly obvious when you see it.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    So you're advocating for an "I know it when I see it" standard for assigning guilt to people? If you're familiar with the phrase "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" then you might understand why people could be concerned about selective enforcement of these rules.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Again, trying to put words in others' mouths. Abusive language, slurs, ad-hominem attacks are not ambiguous. Neither is 'putting words in other's mouths', which is against this (HNs) site's rules. Lets do better.
      - dane-pgp 6y ago
        You said "'insulting' is fairly obvious when you see it" and I asked if you supported the standard of "I know it when I see it". I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, jumped to conclusions, or phrased my question poorly, but I hope you can forgive me for finding those two approaches very similar. If you think there is a universal unambiguous system for deciding whether a claim is "insulting" then I'd be happy to learn about it. For example, I can imagine people disagreeing about whether the statement "Country X has a problem with corruption." is insulting to people in country X.
dmatech 6y ago
Given what happened to Fram a year and a half ago, I'm not surprised that they're continuing to do this stuff (especially given that it's the same people). Honestly, I think WMF needs a serious examination of the agendas of its leadership and a focus on actually doing good work instead of stuff intended to make them look good. I personally won't donate a single cent until Sefidari and Maher are replaced with people who can focus on the real priorities. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317921 for earlier discussion.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  I actually monthly donate to Wikipedia, but after some of the things I've seen I think it's better to stop it. However useful the project often be, it's no longer something I'm willing to support as a charity.
avereveard 6y ago
"stereotyoes" - So one can now dig any dirt on any editor on whatever social media and in private conversations he engaged, present and past, and unless a literal Saint have him banned, with no limitations and no exception?

by Aachen 6y ago

jan_Inkepa 6y ago

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Po...

Aachen 6y ago
Yes, I saw and upvoted your sibling comment, thanks :). My post is more a critique of the source than actually asking for a link though, as there doesn't seem to be news for those who aren't regular editors (and even then, mostly if you're intending to harass someone).

itsoktocry 6y ago

>It also disallows introducing bias in articles on purpose How on earth would this be provable or enforceable?

lldbg 6y ago
It doesn't have to be. Capricious enforcement of rules is the name of the game.

dane-pgp 6y ago

> bans harassment on and off the site I wonder if "harassment" will be in the eye of the beholder. If you read someone's Tweets and find an opinion that you think is insulting towards the rich or immigrants or men or women, is that grounds to get that person's Wikipedia account deleted?

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
We don't have to leap to an extreme, paint this in black and white. Some cases may be shades of grey, but 'insulting' is fairly obvious when you see it.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  So you're advocating for an "I know it when I see it" standard for assigning guilt to people? If you're familiar with the phrase "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" then you might understand why people could be concerned about selective enforcement of these rules.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Again, trying to put words in others' mouths. Abusive language, slurs, ad-hominem attacks are not ambiguous. Neither is 'putting words in other's mouths', which is against this (HNs) site's rules. Lets do better.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      You said "'insulting' is fairly obvious when you see it" and I asked if you supported the standard of "I know it when I see it". I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, jumped to conclusions, or phrased my question poorly, but I hope you can forgive me for finding those two approaches very similar. If you think there is a universal unambiguous system for deciding whether a claim is "insulting" then I'd be happy to learn about it. For example, I can imagine people disagreeing about whether the statement "Country X has a problem with corruption." is insulting to people in country X.

dmatech 6y ago

Given what happened to Fram a year and a half ago, I'm not surprised that they're continuing to do this stuff (especially given that it's the same people). Honestly, I think WMF needs a serious examination of the agendas of its leadership and a focus on actually doing good work instead of stuff intended to make them look good. I personally won't donate a single cent until Sefidari and Maher are replaced with people who can focus on the real priorities. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317921 for earlier discussion.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
I actually monthly donate to Wikipedia, but after some of the things I've seen I think it's better to stop it. However useful the project often be, it's no longer something I'm willing to support as a charity.

avereveard 6y ago

"stereotyoes" - So one can now dig any dirt on any editor on whatever social media and in private conversations he engaged, present and past, and unless a literal Saint have him banned, with no limitations and no exception?