It's official: no pedo, At least, Jimbo says so; others debate Options

[Alison]

Sue Gardner speaks, and the wikimedia foundation weasels out of articulating any "official policy" to the volunteers regarding the subject of pedophiles participating in their project,

Personally, I believe that zero tolerance for pedophilia and pedophilia advocacy is just common sense, and shouldn't necessarily need to be explicitly articulated in policy in order to be regularly and consistently enforced by admins. It's possible that the board of trustees may in future make a statement offering guidance with regards to the appropriate protection of children --- I don't know. But I do hope that the projects in the normal course of their work would act responsibly, without necessarily needing to have policies or guidance explicitly articulated for them by the board (or any other party). Sue Gardner (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The first 'disclaimer' word sums up the situation; it's her personal opinion only. Thus, nothing has come from the WMF on this so far, the rest of the comment just being hand-waving

[Moulton]

I do hope that the projects in the normal course of their work would act responsibly.

Hope springs eternal.

[GlassBeadGame]

Sue Gardner speaks, and the wikimedia foundation weasels out of articulating any "official policy" to the volunteers regarding the subject of pedophiles participating in their project,

Personally, I believe that zero tolerance for pedophilia and pedophilia advocacy is just common sense, and shouldn't necessarily need to be explicitly articulated in policy in order to be regularly and consistently enforced by admins. It's possible that the board of trustees may in future make a statement offering guidance with regards to the appropriate protection of children --- I don't know. But I do hope that the projects in the normal course of their work would act responsibly, without necessarily needing to have policies or guidance explicitly articulated for them by the board (or any other party). Sue Gardner (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No board policy. Erratic "community" stance. No staff committed to "the priority." No implementation at all. Very odd "zero tolerance." Just "hope" the projects, who have proven unreliable and even sympathetic to pedophiles do the right thing. Ms. Gardner needs to be called to task for the false statement she publicly made concerning zero tolerance.

[Kevin]

Sue Gardner speaks, and the wikimedia foundation weasels out of articulating any "official policy" to the volunteers regarding the subject of pedophiles participating in their project,

Personally, I believe that zero tolerance for pedophilia and pedophilia advocacy is just common sense, and shouldn't necessarily need to be explicitly articulated in policy in order to be regularly and consistently enforced by admins. It's possible that the board of trustees may in future make a statement offering guidance with regards to the appropriate protection of children --- I don't know. But I do hope that the projects in the normal course of their work would act responsibly, without necessarily needing to have policies or guidance explicitly articulated for them by the board (or any other party). Sue Gardner (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No board policy. Erratic "community" stance. No staff committed to "the priority." No implementation at all. Very odd "zero tolerance." Just "hope" the projects, who have proven unreliable and even sympathetic to pedophiles do the right thing. Ms. Gardner needs to be called to task for the false statement she publicly made concerning zero tolerance.

Well, at least she has the "zero" part right. Zero policy, zero action. Time for someone to email Jana Winter.

[GlassBeadGame]

Sue Gardner speaks, and the wikimedia foundation weasels out of articulating any "official policy" to the volunteers regarding the subject of pedophiles participating in their project,

Personally, I believe that zero tolerance for pedophilia and pedophilia advocacy is just common sense, and shouldn't necessarily need to be explicitly articulated in policy in order to be regularly and consistently enforced by admins. It's possible that the board of trustees may in future make a statement offering guidance with regards to the appropriate protection of children --- I don't know. But I do hope that the projects in the normal course of their work would act responsibly, without necessarily needing to have policies or guidance explicitly articulated for them by the board (or any other party). Sue Gardner (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No board policy. Erratic "community" stance. No staff committed to "the priority." No implementation at all. Very odd "zero tolerance." Just "hope" the projects, who have proven unreliable and even sympathetic to pedophiles do the right thing. Ms. Gardner needs to be called to task for the false statement she publicly made concerning zero tolerance.

Well, at least she has the "zero" part right. Zero policy, zero action. Time for someone to email Jana Winter.

Tolerance, Zero Policy.

[carbuncle]

No board policy. Erratic "community" stance. No staff committed to "the priority." No implementation at all. Very odd "zero tolerance." Just "hope" the projects, who have proven unreliable and even sympathetic to pedophiles do the right thing. Ms. Gardner needs to be called to task for the false statement she publicly made concerning zero tolerance.

Looking at the full statement, she says:

The statement people are referring to is one I gave in response to a media article that made allegations about editing behaviour on the English Wikipedia. In it, I said that we have a longstanding zero tolerance stance on pedophilia. In saying that, I was referring to practices and policies put in place on the English Wikipedia several years ago by the Arb Com and Jimmy Wales, which were aimed at appropriately protecting kids while preventing false public allegations of pedophilia. Those policies and practices have only been documented fairly recently, but they've been consistently in place and enforced for years.

Apparently Sue thinks it is Jimbo's problem. Jimbo's recent statement seems a bit at odds with his earlier statements:

This is not a new policy. It has been in operation for several years without difficulty. It was developed through community consensus, implemented through community consensus, and is generally well-understood. I see no reason to engage in excessive a priori definition, since common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.

That seems to be moving it from a policy imposed by Jimbo and Sue to a policy that is based on a fictional consensus. Apparently Jimbo thinks it is ArbCom's problem. I wonder how long before ArbCom passes the ball to "the community" and it gets dismantled?

[GlassBeadGame]

No board policy. Erratic "community" stance. No staff committed to "the priority." No implementation at all. Very odd "zero tolerance." Just "hope" the projects, who have proven unreliable and even sympathetic to pedophiles do the right thing. Ms. Gardner needs to be called to task for the false statement she publicly made concerning zero tolerance.

Looking at the full statement, she says:

The statement people are referring to is one I gave in response to a media article that made allegations about editing behaviour on the English Wikipedia. In it, I said that we have a longstanding zero tolerance stance on pedophilia. In saying that, I was referring to practices and policies put in place on the English Wikipedia several years ago by the Arb Com and Jimmy Wales, which were aimed at appropriately protecting kids while preventing false public allegations of pedophilia. Those policies and practices have only been documented fairly recently, but they've been consistently in place and enforced for years.

Apparently Sue thinks it is Jimbo's problem. Jimbo's recent statement seems a bit at odds with his earlier statements:

This is not a new policy. It has been in operation for several years without difficulty. It was developed through community consensus, implemented through community consensus, and is generally well-understood. I see no reason to engage in excessive a priori definition, since common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.

That seems to be moving it from a policy imposed by Jimbo and Sue to a policy that is based on a fictional consensus. Apparently Jimbo thinks it is ArbCom's problem. I wonder how long before ArbCom passes the ball to "the community" and it gets dismantled?

Well every since Godwin bitched slapped ArbCom for taking a "policy" initiatives they have not seemed interested in having any activist role. Besides the worst of the pedophiles and their Free Kulture apologists seem to be centered on Commons where ArbCom has no authority.

[Kevin]

No board policy. Erratic "community" stance. No staff committed to "the priority." No implementation at all. Very odd "zero tolerance." Just "hope" the projects, who have proven unreliable and even sympathetic to pedophiles do the right thing. Ms. Gardner needs to be called to task for the false statement she publicly made concerning zero tolerance.

Looking at the full statement, she says:

The statement people are referring to is one I gave in response to a media article that made allegations about editing behaviour on the English Wikipedia. In it, I said that we have a longstanding zero tolerance stance on pedophilia. In saying that, I was referring to practices and policies put in place on the English Wikipedia several years ago by the Arb Com and Jimmy Wales, which were aimed at appropriately protecting kids while preventing false public allegations of pedophilia. Those policies and practices have only been documented fairly recently, but they've been consistently in place and enforced for years.

Apparently Sue thinks it is Jimbo's problem. Jimbo's recent statement seems a bit at odds with his earlier statements:

This is not a new policy. It has been in operation for several years without difficulty. It was developed through community consensus, implemented through community consensus, and is generally well-understood. I see no reason to engage in excessive a priori definition, since common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.

That seems to be moving it from a policy imposed by Jimbo and Sue to a policy that is based on a fictional consensus. Apparently Jimbo thinks it is ArbCom's problem. I wonder how long before ArbCom passes the ball to "the community" and it gets dismantled?

I don't think anyone picked up that in her statement to Fox, she said "Wikipedia has..." rather than referring to the Foundation or the board. So there was weaseling out from the start. As for how long before it is dismantled, I think that is happening right now on Commons.

[Moulton]

Some Rough Beast

Common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.

What quadrant of Cloud Cuckoo Land does Wales live in?

Human civilization has been slouching toward Bethlehem for 5000 years.

And, per Abd, we've barely been taking baby steps.

[GlassBeadGame]

ArbCom ought to issue a statement making it clear that they do not have the authority, support, tools, nor qualifications for this task. To allow themselves to be used in this manner makes them complicit in WMF attempt to bamboozle the public into believing suitable action is, and has been in place. Plus it would be proper comeuppance to Godwin.

[Alison]

Some Rough Beast

Common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.

What quadrant of Cloud Cuckoo Land does Wales live in?

Human civilization has been slouching toward Bethlehem for 5000 years.

And, per Abd, we've barely been taking baby steps.

"Common sense" isn't, especially on Wikipedia. On Commons, ironically, it's even less so. Funny? I almost laughed

[Kevin]

Some Rough Beast

Common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.

What quadrant of Cloud Cuckoo Land does Wales live in?

Human civilization has been slouching toward Bethlehem for 5000 years.

And, per Abd, we've barely been taking baby steps.

I agree with Jimbo here entirely, except that he said "can" instead of "could". The problem is that common sense is a rare commodity at WP.

[GlassBeadGame]

Some Rough Beast

Common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.

What quadrant of Cloud Cuckoo Land does Wales live in?

Human civilization has been slouching toward Bethlehem for 5000 years.

And, per Abd, we've barely been taking baby steps.

I agree with Jimbo here entirely, except that he said "can" instead of "could". The problem is that common sense is a rare commodity at WP.

It seems more a matter for due and rigorous diligence than "common sense."

[Jon Awbrey]

It seems more a matter for due and rigorous diligence than "common sense."

No doubt there's a picture of Due And Rigorous Dildogents somewhere on Commons.

Jon

[Alison]

-It seems more a matter for due and rigorous diligence than "common sense."

Appealing to 'common sense' is just another way of waving your hands and thinking, 'oh, it's okay. It'll all work out, I'm sure, as people will inherently know the Right Thing To Do™' ... when they don't. History has already clearly shown that they don't, and this time isn't any different. The current Commons debate and the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Pedophilia clearly shows this, or at least shows that the loudest, shrillest voices are the ones that get heard. This is why policy like this needs to be mandated from somewhere like the WMF. It's never going to grow organically out of 'community consensus'.

[Kevin]

Some Rough Beast

Common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.

What quadrant of Cloud Cuckoo Land does Wales live in?

Human civilization has been slouching toward Bethlehem for 5000 years.

And, per Abd, we've barely been taking baby steps.

I agree with Jimbo here entirely, except that he said "can" instead of "could". The problem is that common sense is a rare commodity at WP.

It seems more a matter for due and rigorous diligence than "common sense."

Current attitude -> common sense -> due and rigorous diligence

You're probably right. They just need to jump that first hurdle.

[EricBarbour]

I've never understood why Wikipedia embraces underage volunteers the way it does.

Exploitable labor. Young, clueless, prone to manipulation via emotional appeals, lots of energy.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 8th July 2010, 3:40am

[Kelly Martin]

"Volunteers" indicates a misunderstanding of the nature of the relationship between WMF and participants ("users")of the projects. In the view that WMF hold, in fact utterly depends on for its continued operation, the participants are not volunteers at all. They are only users of an interactive active computer service that permits the participants to provide content for whatever their own purposes might be, consistent or inconsistent with an encyclopedic writing project. Everything that is said about what is permitted or not, other than licensing terms, is nothing more than other user generated content.

Indeed, the editors of the various Wikimedia projects are merely (non-paying) customers of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the relationship between the two is quite clearly arms-length. The only time that they are referred to as "volunteers" is when the WMF is trying to get money out of someone.

Unlike other similar service providers, however, the WMF refuses to establish or enforce any sort of meaningful Acceptable Use Policy. Instead, it stands by idly while expecting its users to hold public cage matches to resolve issues related to inappropriate use of their service. It's a crazy, crazy world out there.

[SB_Johnny]

Child labor laws apply to youth volunteers, so youth under the age of 18 are subject to other restrictions may apply, depending upon the child labor laws of the state.

I've never understood why Wikipedia embraces underage volunteers the way it does. I feel like every so often there is a drama storm generated by some teenage admin who was doing just fine for years until finally his age caught up with him, he got bored and decided to prank the encyclopedia. One wonders how "fine" this person was really doing all along. Of course I mean no disrespect to the teenage volunteers who do not act out like this, but the policy regarding children clearly needs to be thought through a bit better.

Well, if it were managed better, it would be a very positive opportunity for teenagers to chip in and create something positive. Actually, I think quite a few of them are still able to do that, though probably that's less common as the atmosphere becomes more toxic. The key thing (and the thing that's sadly missing) is that there should be adults keeping an eye out for teens treating one another badly (as they are wont to do), or worse still for adults that treat teens badly, or worst of all predatory adults who should be kept away from young people full stop.

"Volunteers" indicates a misunderstanding of the nature of the relationship between WMF and participants ("users")of the projects. In the view that WMF hold, in fact utterly depends on for its continued operation, the participants are not volunteers at all. They are only users of an interactive active computer service that permits the participants to provide content for whatever their own purposes might be, consistent or inconsistent with an encyclopedic writing project. Everything that is said about what is permitted or not, other than licensing terms, is nothing more than other user generated content.

Volunteers are agents of the organization they work for. They are answerable to the organization and the organization is liable for there wrongs and harm they might do. This gives non-profits good reasons to select, vet, background check, train and supervise their volunteers. The unique "user" arrangement relied on by WMF seeks to end run all accountabilty and provides none of the protections nor reasons for neither WMF nor the users to act in a responsible manner.

Right, which is what I was pointing to with the "management" thing. Though also right in that it's not necessarily "better" management that's needed, but just some sort of management in the first place (rather than the "I'm not telling you what to do, but do what I say anyway" approach that they've adopted in lieu of management).

[Moulton]

What they've adopted instead, in lieu of ethical management practices, is thuggery, pure and simple.

And it's abundantly clear that their role model for such thuggery is Jimmy Wales.