What is the problem you're trying to solve?
This idea addresses the number of perceived occurrences of harassment in the virtual intercourse of cooperation in connection with -especially important to me- Wikipedia.
I have seen unintended but factual damage done to highly valuable content of Wikipedia by applying bots on articles way beyond their reasonable range (DYK-level vs. higher math): the bot operator was not willing to apologize (for formal flaws in the formatting) and a provider of much content, in articulating his POV, definitely exceeded language levels, generally considered as de rigeur.
I claim that the insisting of higher levels in the adminship on "civil" verbiage caused damage to the project by ranking formal bureaucracy above the fact "ira furor brevis est". Those who never lost patience when repeatedly seeing their work destroyed by persevering ignorance, should throw the first stone.
What is your solution?
My suggestion is aimed to substantially increase the threshold for claiming to be harassed, without denying the on average rare existence of harassment requiring intervention in this here environment.
The suggestion of level change pertains as well to those feeling harassed, as to those feeling in need to react in response to claimed harassment.
This is not to purport it were the solution, but I'm convinced of too high a level of alarmism in the context of harassment. Sadly, the ubiquitous connotations of "sexual" and "gender" are immanent here, too.
By increasing the trigger level for alarms signalling acute harassment I expect
- a focus on the logical structure of debates,
- a substantial reduction of appeals for bureaucratic intervention, and easier decisions on this level,
- higher tolerance for short time rages,
- a lowering of the reservation level for, and an increase of the effectiveness of apologies,
- unleashed capacities not only within simple editors, but also within adminship, thereby increasing productive output on all levels of any hierarchy,
- and last but not least, shooing away of some crybullying trolls, which need structural feed to succeed in pursuing their sometimes dubious agendae.
We should better listen to the factual content of the contesting message and not search for the possibility of the messenger being excited, and his written(!) words possibly could perhaps be perceived as harassing. "Sticks and stones ..."
- Love it. Love everything about it. TomStar81 (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly. A lot of the time nowadays, certain groups are using claims of harassment as a political tool.
- Inclusion should not be the focus of a wiki, but accuracy. Moiz Rafay (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Molar999 (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes please, all I'm seeing are proposals for stopping "harassment", which apparently now means "people who disagree with me" Melancholia(it) 09:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Totally agree. This is an encyclopedia, not a support group; your feelings on topics do not matter. Zaostao (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely. This site is about collecting and archiving factual data. Should differences of opinion about a point be encountered, personal opinions and emotions are of no value. Academics, scientists and philosophers have been discussing ideas since time imemorable without resorting to personal attacks. I move that we adopt a board of rotating volunteers to which individuals embroiled in heated discussion may turn for adjudication of the conflict.
- I agree. Daylon124 (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Zaostao sums it up ncely. Kyriakos04072004 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Political correctness belongs to the trash bin. Harassment doesn't cause actual damage. Flying Desert Snow Leopard (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, Wikipedia is not a social media. Mis4930 (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree completely! Someone having a different opinion then you isn't harassment, and how you feel on a topic shouldn't mean everything here. LILJJH (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Scott G. Rodgers (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree because of two reasons: 1) "Harassment" is often used as a tool to shutdown discussions and opposing opinions and 2) Most online "harassment" can be stopped by either party just walking away from the computer. Souravzzz (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree Fuxx (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- PC is the way to silence uncomfortable truth Ivandrago1 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- While there are real cases of legitimate harassment on Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects, I think that focusing on combating it could become dangerous and lead to an echo-chamber effect where administrators are so nervous about legal issues that they begin shutting down anything remotely confrontational. This is not a good way to build an encyclopedia. BoxofPresents (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nowadays words such as harassment are used as a tool to silence dissenting opinions. Freedom of speech is more important than someones right to not be offended. Lost Earthling (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- No PC. Brr. No harassment either. Zezen (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. "Political/Gender Correctness" is mostly being used to silence people with different opinions. Wikipedia should not be affected by this. Patschultz (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Political correctness is nothing more than a mean to suppress the facts. Laxentis (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly Endorse. We have to draw a bold line to emphasize what is actual personal attacks, and what is simply a debate or basic argument. If every form of argument or debate were considered harassment, then eventually the term itself would lose meaning and people would stop caring about the actual harassment. In context, If every form of conflict were considered a war, then we would already be in Armageddon as war would then be considered an everyday thing. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 14:52, 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) 16:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Preventing debates simply because some people disagree will greatly hinder the progress and growth of Wikipedia. Tulekahju (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Great idea. It's good that an alternative solution is being thought up - rather than techniques which people are comfortable with that do not work. MrSherlockHolmes123 (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with most of the above points. Wikipedia needs to be free and open. Vulpicula (talk)
- Oops, sorry for the double post. I erred. Vulpicula (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Expand your idea
Would a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation help make your idea happen?
- I do not think that this can be expanded by a grant, since it simply requires consenting of some now very agitated activists, afraid of being muted, or at least robbed off one of their loudest complaints.
Evidently, this suggestion also targets the initiators of actions against harassment, who are necessarily officials of this venerable endeavor, and so talking about using money might be somewhat ambivalent. But of course, if it takes some organized seminars and meetings, these do not come for free, and would have to be funded, too.
Concluding, I'd say that removing especially this very suggestion from the admissible list is somewhat surprising (or should I better say to be expected?), if not indicating some specific bias.