Author: Chris

Fire Prevention and Fire Fighters

Update (Nov 3): I found out that the proposal was accepted!

There’s currently a request for comment on English Wikipedia that I feel is a good step toward addressing harassment. 1 The proposal is to, by default, prevent editors under a certain threshold (anonymous editors included) from being able to edit a individual’s “User:” page. 2 I have a few thoughts about the nature of the proposal and the comments that have arisen in the discussion.

Many folks have said, and I’m paraphrasing, “we have stuff to handle this” already. Everything we have is retroactive – after the fact. We can clean up horrendous stuff, but first we have to expose ourselves to it – particularly exposing new people and those that are underrepresented in our project and society in general. This request is proactive. A simple step of progress toward addressing harassment.

For the data seekers, how much harassment are you willing to tolerate? Is it the same for everyone? How do we know folks leave the project because of harassment – even that they merely witness? What number gives it justification to allow it?

Not addressing harassment, even in a small step like this proposal puts forth, is like saying Wikipedia has a litter problem, but we’re very proud that we are so good at cleaning it up.

We can prevent a big chunk of litter from ever touching the ground. There’s a strong indication that it might even make the place a little nicer to habitate.

We talk about new folks being impacted most, but as a small-potato contributor who works and volunteers in these spaces, I don’t want to deal with bullshit either.

We talk a lot about defending the wiki from vandalism, conflict of interest, neutral point of view, all things that are a threat to the project. Well, here’s a chance to protect it from another threat – assholes.

 

Outrage and Therapy

Keeping internet communities healthy is the job of the leaders and citizens of those communities.

Without conscious leadership these communities decay and destroy themselves and leach out into the real world where they harm actual individuals and our culture.

Hank Green on communities. I agree with him very much. In the Wikimedia Movement we are getting better at this.

Related, I enjoyed this rather long and nuanced approach to understanding how Wikipedia 3 and mental illness intersect.

To the hardcore editor who becomes enmeshed in the thicket of talk pages, admin noticeboard debates and never-ending arguments about every bit of minutiae ever conceived, it can reveal some of the worst aspects of human behavior, including abuse, harassment, and threats of physical violence. It can be difficult to separate the anonymous keyboard warriors simply amusing themselves by pushing buttons from those who intend to act on threats to harm others, or themselves.

Note: The subtext to the title of this post is an opinion of mine. That some people who lash out and express outrage online often are dealing with issues in their personal lives and their interactions online can complicate that. Success, or lack thereof, in life can make the distance of the Internet a place to take out your anger, reach out to help others, or seek solace among comrades – depending on your health and access.

If you are not feeling well and think you need someone to talk to, please find a mental health professional. It is the best thing you can do – it can literally save your life.

As Those Who Make

It’s not, of course, that there’s anything wrong with making (although it’s not all that clear that the world needs more stuff). The problem is the idea that the alternative to making is usually not doing nothing—it’s almost always doing things for and with other people, from the barista to the Facebook community moderator to the social worker to the surgeon. Describing oneself as a maker—regardless of what one actually or mostly does—is a way of accruing to oneself the gendered, capitalist benefits of being a person who makes products.

– Why I am Not a Maker – Debbie Chachra

I make communities. I do it with other people. It is just as valuable as those who make the architecture, content, documentation, and software that these communities use and support.

Be Informed

You have a computer that can access all of human knowledge within seconds. Please don’t remain ignorant. Do a little research, read opposing views, learn more about something you’re not familiar with.

“Now, we are caught in a series of confusing battles between opposing forces: between truth and falsehood, fact and rumour, kindness and cruelty; between the few and the many, the connected and the alienated; between the open platform of the web as its architects envisioned it and the gated enclosures of Facebook and other social networks; between an informed public and a misguided mob.

What is common to these struggles – and what makes their resolution an urgent matter – is that they all involve the diminishing status of truth. This does not mean that there are no truths. It simply means, as this year has made very clear, that we cannot agree on what those truths are, and when there is no consensus about the truth and no way to achieve it, chaos soon follows.”

How technology disrupted the truth – The Guardian