Grants:IdeaLab/Harassment on Wikimedia has been exaggerated and overbearing harassment policies may prevent content creation

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Harassment on Wikimedia has been exaggerated and overbearing harassment policies may prevent content creation.
Harassment on Wikimedia has been exaggerated and overbearing harassment policies may prevent content creation.
contact emailGulugu Galaga
idea creator
Gulugu Galaga
researcher
Mydhily mini ajith
join
endorse
created on08:45, Saturday, June 4, 2016 (UTC)


Harassment on Wikimedia has been exaggerated and overbearing harassment policies may prevent content creation.[edit]

1. Harassment is, by nature, subjective.[edit]

What constitutes harassment differs by individual. There is no universal definition of "harassment", as well as different definitions and opinions. What is considered by one editor to be harassment may not be agreed upon by another. Overbearing harassment rules on Wikipedia would only encourage crybullying (i.e. playing victim when one is the perpetrator) and provide incentives for editors to accuse others of "harassment" in content disputes or arguments.

2. Wikipedia is not a safe space.[edit]

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. It is not, has never been, and never will be a safe space or echo chamber. Differing viewpoints, oftentimes controversial or contentious, are not only tolerated on Wikipedia, but encouraged. Thus, content disputes are inevitable and it is also inevitable that in such discourse things can get heated. Anti-harassment rules can easily be abused by one-sided admins to stifle dissent or unpopular viewpoints.

3. Anti-harassment rules encourage tone policing.[edit]

Anti-harassment rules encourage editors to tone police; i.e. respond to other editors' "unkind" or "harassing" tone instead of the content of their argument. This is unhelpful and encourages echo chambers. It can also be very easily abused by administrators to stifle dissent or unpopular viewpoints.

4. Fear of being accused of "harassment" creates a chilling effect.[edit]

A chilling effect is created when harassment rules become too overbearing resulting in editors afraid of engaging in debate or arguing in contentious issues out of fear of being sanctioned by others of "harassing" behaviour. This is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and it's status as an online encyclopedia that values arguments, debates and discourse.

5. False harassment charges creates a chilling effect.[edit]

See above. Thick skin is useful when editing Wikipedia!

Solution[edit]

1. Current Wikipedia harassment guidelines are generally effective.[edit]

There is no requirement of any significant change. Current Wikipedia guidelines against harassment are already effective.

2. Discourage crybullying.[edit]

Encourage editors to respond to arguments instead of engaging in ad hominems or attack the tone of others.

3. Harassment cases should be handled not by the community but by the Wikimedia Foundation.[edit]

A dedicated "Harassment Response Squad" could be formed. This

  • Encourages the community to focus on creating content
  • Allows them to contact law enforcement if required
  • Allows trained professionals to assess what response, if any, is necessary
  • Allows the foundation to sanction false accusations of harassment.

Project goals[edit]

  • Enforce current common-sense guidelines and approaches to Wikipedia harassment. Prevent overbearing, Orwellian anti-harassment guidelines from stifling contentious debate and the open nature of Wikipedia. Ensure Wikipedia always places its status as an encyclopedia first and foremost.

Get involved[edit]

Participants[edit]

  • Researcher i would like to help this idea by sharing my idea with u guys Mydhily mini ajith (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements[edit]

  • Definitely agree with this, we are focusing more on being 'nice' than actual' contribution .....--Stemoc 10:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Be wary of what an effect harassment policies may have, especially when they become too stringent. "False harassment charges creates a chilling effect." - this. Retention7 (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wise and well argued argument Exertuz (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I really like point 3: Harassment cases should be handled not by the community but by the Wikimedia Foundation. A heated discussion about content isn't harrassment. But when it gets personal, when it's not about content anymore, it would be really helpful to have external conflict managers. --Plauz (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Almost anything that is said to be a problem in any situation is ridiculously overblown; all of your points make a lot of sense. Awesomewiki64 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this is well argued, and like the idea of a Harassment Response Squad. Michael Reed (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The solution seems to be under-thought. It needs to be elaborated. To my understanding, the problem is partly caused by lack of time, and one possible solution is by adding more reviewers or sysops to big wikis, so that they have more time to deal with newcomers in a warm way. --Gryllida 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes! by creating too strict policies we will lose content Vikmonster (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Completely agree with this. On Wikipedia we have a problem of aggressive editors who know how to wiki-lawyer dogpiling up against outsiders with less experience. Harassment rules only strengthens the hand of these kinds of people. Spudst3r (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Nobody will argue that harassment is agreeable, but this campaign feels too much like an attempt to hop onto the increasingly fashionable bandwagon of disproportionate hypersensitivity to (perceived or real) insults and harassment.

Before investing time and effort into harassment management, it would be good to first assess how big this problem actually is on Wikipedia and whether current ways of handling harassment are adequate. Doveofsymplegades (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Exposing yourself on the web is a personal choice. A safe space for web users, would be to avoid using the web. If someone is "cyber bullying" a user, the user has the convenience of ignoring it.

The web doesn't need safe spaces, unless concerned users are willing to pay for it. Sal.alsouqi (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)