Grants talk:IdeaLab/Karma system
Where implement a karma system ?[edit]
Thanks, Gryllida, I think that what you say. Is true and I will change my proposal because of it. A user page and a talking page already exist and we don't need a new place to implement a karma system. But if we want to change harassment behaviour, we have to change some thing some where. Harassment behavior is due to personal behavior, by the way personal users pages seem to be the place to deal with it. Do you have an idea about how to use theses pages in the context of harassment ? Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 10:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate[edit]
Please merge with Grants:IdeaLab/Introduce_reputation_points_and_priveledges_like_in_StackExchange. Nemo 15:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't mix it Nemo. They are different in my point of vue. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 21:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Opposition[edit]
- This is what a talk page already does and separating communication into 'likes' and 'dislikes' would confuse and make users go away; often feedback is a mix of both. To see what a user is like we can simply read their existing talk page. Gryllida 00:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gryllida, I think that what you say. Is true and I will change my proposal because of it. A user page and a talking page already exist and we don't need a new place to implement a karma system. But if we want to change harassment behaviour, we have to change some thing some where. Harassment behavior is due to personal behavior, by the way personal users pages seem to be the place to deal with it. Do you have an idea about how to use theses pages in the context of harassment ? Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 10:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose for the reasons given by Gryllida and because trolls/harassers don't care about karma anyway. The reason such systems work on sites like eBay and Couchsurfing is because reputation has real consequences. Trolls don't care about having -100 internet points; if anything, they might start using it as a trolling benchmark. --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Doveofsymplegades, you bring here one more relevant opinion talking about the fact than reputation must have real consequences on wikimedia project. So, in this sens I will add to this proposal a user block access vote when the Karma system accumulates certain number of complains. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 23:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, that's a very bad idea. We have seen what happens when you automate banning of people based on the amount of reports on other platforms such as Facebook: it leads to mob attacks that attempt (and often succeed) to get users autobanned. It does away with the idea of due process and replaces it with a shouting contest. Do you have reason to believe that the current system is inadequate anyway? I'm no veteran Wikipedian, but I don't feel that harassment on Wikipedia is an urgent problem which Wikimedia is currently unequipped to handle. --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Shouting system is not the target Doveofsymplegades, and banishment exist on wiki since long time. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 10:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- A shouting contest is never the goal of karma-based automoderator, but experience has shown that this is what it very often devolves into. See the example of Facebook, where you can take down pretty much any person and any group or page simply by mass reporting. There are groups (often private) dedicated to "report bombing" other groups, for example I have seen groups by Islamists dedicated to taking down secular and atheist Facebook pages. "If you build it, they will abuse it", however good your original intentions may be. Again, is there actually an argument in favor of karma-based automoderation? Is the current system inadequate? I think this question needs to be answered first. If not, this (and other ideas in this campaign) are solutions in search of problems, in my opinion. --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- The current system is inadequate, don't exist or don't exist any more. You are very welcome to make your own proposal Doveofsymplegades. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 19:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pardon me my ignorance, but what evidence is there to suggest that it is inadequate? Note that inadequate use of the current system does not mean that the system itself is inadequate. --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- The current system is inadequate, don't exist or don't exist any more. You are very welcome to make your own proposal Doveofsymplegades. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 19:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- A shouting contest is never the goal of karma-based automoderator, but experience has shown that this is what it very often devolves into. See the example of Facebook, where you can take down pretty much any person and any group or page simply by mass reporting. There are groups (often private) dedicated to "report bombing" other groups, for example I have seen groups by Islamists dedicated to taking down secular and atheist Facebook pages. "If you build it, they will abuse it", however good your original intentions may be. Again, is there actually an argument in favor of karma-based automoderation? Is the current system inadequate? I think this question needs to be answered first. If not, this (and other ideas in this campaign) are solutions in search of problems, in my opinion. --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Shouting system is not the target Doveofsymplegades, and banishment exist on wiki since long time. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 10:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, that's a very bad idea. We have seen what happens when you automate banning of people based on the amount of reports on other platforms such as Facebook: it leads to mob attacks that attempt (and often succeed) to get users autobanned. It does away with the idea of due process and replaces it with a shouting contest. Do you have reason to believe that the current system is inadequate anyway? I'm no veteran Wikipedian, but I don't feel that harassment on Wikipedia is an urgent problem which Wikimedia is currently unequipped to handle. --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Doveofsymplegades, you bring here one more relevant opinion talking about the fact than reputation must have real consequences on wikimedia project. So, in this sens I will add to this proposal a user block access vote when the Karma system accumulates certain number of complains. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 23:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Grants to improve your project[edit]
Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. The deadline for draft submissions is tommorrow. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.
- Submit a grant request
- Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants or Project and Event Grants
The next open call for Project Grants will be in October 2016. You can also consider applying for a Rapid Grant, if your project does not require a large amount of funding, as applications can be submitted anytime. Feel free to ping me if you need help getting your proposal started. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
So...[edit]
Community ban discussions can proceed (at least on en.wiki) without installation of Mediawiki extensions, and making anybody able to use Checkuser is a Bad Idea™. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)