Poll: Should WR take over Wikiabuse.com?, This here be a poll! Options Rating

[LamontStormstar]

The thing is that at the time, we all thought that outing Essjay was pointless. After all, Essjay was a pretty good administrator old told, quite polite on most occasions, etc. Similarly, most of us thought that outing Kelly Martin and SlimVirgin (and Jayjg if it was possible) were very good ideas, not to mention Snowspinner. However, those 3, who probably deserved to be outed, didn't really go anywhere, and at least in Snowspinner's case, he was able to turn it around against this site. While Essjay as it turned out really warranted outing, not because of needing to know who he was, but because he was lying about credentials, and using those credentials to change history.

Of course, in saying that, we haven't really had topics to analyse Essjay's contributions, because I think that most people here agree that Essjay was a good contributor to Wikipedia. Not faultless, but pretty good.

What about HighInBC who got tracked down and got IRL harassment. I assume he did something bad as an administrator to deserve it. So what did he do?

[the fieryangel]

The thing is that at the time, we all thought that outing Essjay was pointless. After all, Essjay was a pretty good administrator old told, quite polite on most occasions, etc. Similarly, most of us thought that outing Kelly Martin and SlimVirgin (and Jayjg if it was possible) were very good ideas, not to mention Snowspinner. However, those 3, who probably deserved to be outed, didn't really go anywhere, and at least in Snowspinner's case, he was able to turn it around against this site. While Essjay as it turned out really warranted outing, not because of needing to know who he was, but because he was lying about credentials, and using those credentials to change history.

Of course, in saying that, we haven't really had topics to analyse Essjay's contributions, because I think that most people here agree that Essjay was a good contributor to Wikipedia. Not faultless, but pretty good.

What about HighInBC who got tracked down and got IRL harassment. I assume he did something bad as an administrator to deserve it. So what did he do?

Well, it would seem to me then that there are even more instances when outing has to be considered. If we choose a "closed system" editing system, then there should be forums where this sort of thing is discussed outside of public space and then a decision has to be made about outing or not, based on the evidence and the situation.

In other words, maybe outing everybody isn't right, but sometimes you have to out somebody to prove that they're doing something wrong...

Is being a "good WP admin" necessarily a good thing? I think that the system is so slanted and its objectives are so morally wrong that sometimes (as is the case with Essjay), a "good admin." is doing more damage to real people and institutions than he's "doing good".


This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Sat 14th July 2007, 9:50am

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

I know of one Wikipedia administrator who has pictures of himself (with his family) on-line. He is a nice guy and has never made a personal attack on Wikipedia, has never blocked a good faith editor (because he has never blocked anything but 4 vandal IPs), and has made only constructive edits to the encyclopedia. He has written or co-written 17 Featured Articles.

I worry that a pro-outing policy will cause this user unneeded grief in the name of revenge against "the establishment", and I worry that pictures of his family will end up on an outting website, with cobbled-together details about their lives. Neither he nor his family deserve that.

I understand that there are abusive administrators on Wikipedia, but I think there are better ways than outting all (or even any) admins, and whatever sympathy WA had at WP will have been lost by such a move.

[blissyu2]

Well how about this compromise:

Any time that we consider adding someone's real name to an article, it needs to be discussed in private first. So we can discuss it in a closed "wikiabuse" subforum on WR, and do a poll if required, and then add it, or not, and in whichever form we feel is best.

Does that sound reasonable to everyone?

[Poetlister]

Certainly discuss in private first. My question is how private is private? Do we want only a hand-picked bunch of a dozen people in this forum, or every WR user with more than say 20 edits or every registered WR user? I'd go for the first, but am I being elitist?

[GlassBeadGame]

Certainly discuss in private first. My question is how private is private? Do we want only a hand-picked bunch of a dozen people in this forum, or every WR user with more than say 20 edits or every registered WR user? I'd go for the first, but am I being elitist?

No, your being sensible. If you have a group with the ability to discuss things in a closed forum maybe you should start there. I am not a member of that group but would not object to discussion continuing there. I am a little surprised such a discussion has not already started. Maybe my and others not included saying that a closed discussion is appropriate may give you more confidence in such a course.

I would only ask that you consider "what WR is" before determining "what WR should do." I think this question should be asked with a special concern for "what WR is" from the view point of the type of forces that caused Root to discontinue.

[blissyu2]

We can see from Wikipedia's budget that they spend $25,000 per month on keeping it running. That's something that we don't want to ever have to afford. I think that we should be looking at limiting it to 50 users max, and 10-15 to start with would be fine.

We may have difficulties, indeed, but again, I think that if there are any issues then they should be discussed in a private forum.

Some people have said that that is the worst part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is all fine to view if you look at the front page only. But once you start looking at the talk page and history, and see all of the nonsense that goes on, you very quickly stop taking it seriously, and the whole thing becomes an embarassment.

We should have talk pages and history, but perhaps keep that element private.

[taiwopanfob]

I know of one Wikipedia administrator who has pictures of himself (with his family) on-line. He is a nice guy and has never made a personal attack on Wikipedia, has never blocked a good faith editor (because he has never blocked anything but 4 vandal IPs), and has made only constructive edits to the encyclopedia. He has written or co-written 17 Featured Articles.

Of course it goes without saying such a person does not need to be de-cloaked.

I mentioned a policy idea about this a while back, amounting to "WMF personnel, and alpha-admins" almost by default, and those who edit BLP's. Can it be generalized a bit? Perhaps only "out" those who themselves have direct or indirect access to "non public" data at Wikipedia. That would include WMF people, most ArbCom members, Checkusers, and, in particular, those who have more or less unfettered access to Checkusers. Or maybe "out" those who use the "non public" information as a blunt instrument of social control at WP?

Whatever is decided, I think people who play with fire can have no real expectation of not getting burned. And remember that this will apply in both directions, so it may be a good idea that those who deliberate in private on this kind of decision be themselves willing to "die by the sword" as well.

But GlassBeadGame is quite correct that a better decision will take into account the threat that Rootology faced.

[JohnA]

Well wikiabuse failed as a wiki - you can call me Nostradamus.

I do not favor using a wiki at all. Wikis are there for collaborative editing and revision of documents.

What needs to be there is a news blog, a continuous conversation with the Internet about what is happening in Wikipedia, that others can use as a feed to spread conversation about Wikipedia around the "blogosphere" and hopefully to the mainstream news organizations.

I would suggest that two or three of you act as gatekeepers as to what gets published on the blog (I suggest Somey, Poetlister, Daniel Brandt), with invited contributors from WR who can create articles but cannot publish them without editorial approval.

I would suggest using Wordpress as the blogging platform.

That's all.

[JohnA]

On second thoughts, a much simpler option would be to point wikiabuse.com to blog.wikipediareview.com in the DNS tables.

[blissyu2]

On second thoughts, a much simpler option would be to point wikiabuse.com to blog.wikipediareview.com in the DNS tables.

Our current thinking is to experiment with the blog for a while. If that works out, then in a month or so we'll consider taking on the wiki. Its probably a good idea to have something as bold as wikiabuse.com be shut down for a while, so that it makes a statement. That way we know what we are getting in to too.

[badlydrawnjeff]

Dare I say this, though? If folks here aren't willing to put themselves out there, should they be in any position to "out" anyone else?

"Privacy" is overrated, but a bunch of anonymous people making attempts to break the pseudo-anonymity of Wikipedia people is really inconsistent and, dare I say, vile.

Let's not forget - the WikiAbuse model was apparently working enough for someone to feel threatened enough to get it shut down. Growing pains aside, if it ain't broke...

[GlassBeadGame]

Dare I say this, though? If folks here aren't willing to put themselves out there, should they be in any position to "out" anyone else?

"Privacy" is overrated, but a bunch of anonymous people making attempts to break the pseudo-anonymity of Wikipedia people is really inconsistent and, dare I say, vile.

Let's not forget - the WikiAbuse model was apparently working enough for someone to feel threatened enough to get it shut down. Growing pains aside, if it ain't broke...

There is a difference between the use of anonymity for dissent and authority.

• Anonymity for dissent: not vile.
  
• Anonymity to exercise hooded authority: vile.

People who don't know the former sometimes seek the latter.

[Somey]

Despite the fact that we've received no credit whatsoever in Wikiland for redacting the real names of most of the Wikipedians identified here on WR, I'm still against exposing people's identities except under extreme circumstances.

The only reasons that should ever be considered valid to "out" people - which is not something you can just do, by the way - is to expose a major conflict of interest, or serious ongoing fraud or criminality. And in neither case is it normally necessary to identify the person by name. Even in Essjay's case, his ongoing credentials fraud could have been exposed without actually naming him. (In the event he named himself, of course, so it's a moot point, but I'm just saying - if.)

The only time it should ever be legitimate to identify someone by name is if there's a real moral imperative to do it. I'd say Gary Weiss is just above the bar in that respect - barely - but SlimVirgin is not.

If people are identified just to embarrass them, get them in trouble with their schools or employers, or further prove to the world the already-obvious fact that most WP'ers are 18-25-year-old guys hanging out in basements, all that usually amounts to is using a public website for payback and revenge. If people have valid reasons for doing things like that, whether those reasons are personal, moral, or legal - Daniel Brandt being the obvious example of this - then hey, web hosting is cheap enough these days, right?

[BobbyBombastic]

Speaking from talker experience, the most popular talkers were the ones that had massive restrictions on people to join. There were some that required you to submit your e-mail address (hotmail etc were banned) and then do this and that and this and that to get through, and then you were junior and so forth. They were the most popular ones.

I forgot to comment on this before. I wonder if the restrictions were in place after they became popular or before. Because I don't understand why a thing would be popular (with no context), simply because it is hard to "get in". I just assume that these talkers were popular, and reached a critical mass, at which time restrictions were put in place. This is very sensible.

Another thing (unrelated to the quote above), regarding some of the more specific aspects of this poll: If taking up the whole "wikiabuse" thing, it needs to have very few rules as to content. I really feel that Root's accomplishment in this was setting up a model for something like this to get done. No outing: therefore it can be cited freely on Wiki. We have to play by their rules a little bit, and the kicker is, you can still make them look bad, even if it is more of a challenge.

There should be very little limits at the onset: Restrict content about users to being about administrators, but also allow disputed policies and perhaps disputed articles if it is well reasoned and written, and not just nonsense ramblings. There has to be some kind of bar. Write about the simple things that you take for granted, directed towards the person that has never used a wiki, such as what admins do, bureaucrats, checkusers, stewards, etc.

Controversial bans and such, when they show indications of an abuse, should be covered, but delicately. There is a fine line for content, but you don't want to get into micromanaging it or defining what it is before you start.

As for members, it should be open for anyone to edit, as long as they register an account. This is only a protection for people that forget to log in and may leave their IP exposed. This will cause a problem and probably a shit storm, just like they did with Root, but let's face it people get bored easy. As long as their is enough people to deal with that, it won't be a big problem at all.

And I agree with leaving WA as it is right now with the message on the frontpage. Really, you don't need to be in the mindset of taking up the WA domain, this model can be transferred anywhere and word will travel fast.

at this point though i'm very skeptical about any of this happening. some think this should be a vengeance site while it would be more useful as an evidence site.

This post has been edited by BobbyBombastic: Sat 14th July 2007, 6:39pm

[Somey]

I think what we're likely to see now, in the wake of Mr. Root's decision to discontinue the site due to legal threats, is an epidemic of "Aw shucksism" from the Faithful. Take this, for example:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/077650.html

WA was, when I was watching, making no small effort to keep the discussion at an adult level.

Of course, with all due respect to Mr. Herbert, any honest and objective person would have told you that the level of discourse on Waikiabuse.com was no different than the level of discourse here, or for that matter, on Wikipedia itself. There are/were people of both stellar and questionable maturity and veracity on all three sites.

However, the "loss" of Wikiabuse.com now allows various pretend-handwringers on WP to feed their detractors more BS about how the site "could have been useful" and "it seemed to be much more worthy" than the site run by the "odious trolls" here at WR.

But this completely ignores the history behind the situation, doesn't it?

Let's back up a little bit. Last month, Rootology was kicked off of WikiEN-L for arguing with JayJG about the BADSITES (non-)policy. So was Blu Aardvark, of course, though he's been allowed past the moderation queue at least twice since.

After he was kicked off, what did Rootology do? He tried to post something to the JayJG thread, now deleted and/or tar-pitted, purporting to expose his real identity - as a guy in Toronto named "Jay"-something, who apparently is some sort of SEO consultant. I didn't buy it - it simply didn't add up, frankly - so I dumped it. No harm, no foul.

That was June 18th. One day later, Rootology posted this.

Now don't get me wrong - I like Mr. Root, I think he's one of the good guys. But look what happened afterward: Over on WikiEN-L, Fred Bauder and JzG started ramping up the rhetoric against us here at WR like there was no tomorrow. Meanwhile, both of them joined Wikiabuse.com as editors.

So, what do we learn from this? Nothing - it's what we already knew. The WP'ers - JzG in particular- don't care about privacy, "outing," or "stalking" - they couldn't possibly care less, in fact. We're probably more concerned about their privacy than they are, half the time. What they absolutely can't stand is scrutiny. And Wikiabuse, by limiting itself mostly to evidence found only on Foundation-run websites, was just the sort of thing they'd wanted all along: Someone with real street cred to set up a wiki that played by their own rules, but that they could point to and say "oooh, now this is valid outside criticism."

We are the valid outside criticism. Simple as that.

[Daniel Brandt]

The only reasons that should ever be considered valid to "out" people - which is not something you can just do, by the way - is to expose a major conflict of interest, or serious ongoing fraud or criminality. And in neither case is it normally necessary to identify the person by name. Even in Essjay's case, his ongoing credentials fraud could have been exposed without actually naming him. (In the event he named himself, of course, so it's a moot point, but I'm just saying - if.)

I think that's a bit over the top. I'd prefer a policy that says that any post done by a member that purports to expose the real name of a Wikipedian (or repeat or quote from a previous exposure), should expect to have that real name redacted from this message board unless that member shows his own real name in his profile. It's the same thing as saying that Wikipedia Review as a message board will not seek to encourage or discourage "outings," but also recognizes that there are those who feel that Wikipedia, as well as Wikipedia's critics, should all operate at a higher level of accountability.

Doesn't that make more sense than a blanket policy?

[guy]

I'd prefer a policy that says that any post done by a member that purports to expose the real name of a Wikipedian, should expect to have that real name redacted from this message board unless that member shows his own real name in his profile.

I'd agree, provided we can verify our own member's real name.

[Daniel Brandt]

I'd agree, provided we can verify our own member's real name.

Then change "unless that member shows his own real name in his profile" to "unless that member shows his own real, verifiable name in his profile." That places the burden on the member to not pretend to be real if it's not verifiable. They can still post if it's not verifiable, but they cannot "out" anonymous Wikipedians.

Of course, many Wikipedians with screen names do give their real names on their user page, and this means everyone can use it whenever they wish.

(Poor Somey. I know his real name because he told me once, but I was unable to verify it.)

[blissyu2]

I think it went without saying that wikiabuse.com required mostly the same rules for validity and verifiability as wikipedia, with the exception that such sites as ED, wikitruth and wikipedia review weren't considered to be unreliable in all cases. They were used when appropriate only, but were used. And I think that that was working well enough.