Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Abd » Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:17 pm

New TOS -- that is not actual TOS -- announced on WPO.
Members are required to keep confidential the contents of forums which are not in public view, including all members-only forums. Failure to do so may involve restrictions on viewing that content, or suspension of the member’s account.
(Not the actual TOS because not displayed and there is no indication of consent to nondisclosure while viewing such "confidential" content. It is not so labelled.)

Routinely, posts on WPO violate the TOS, with regard to content that is "abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated," etc. Regulars have been allowed to troll their targets with grossly abusive posts, far beyond the pale of legitimate criticism. Some of this may be in private areas, and some has been disclosed.

I have disclosed some of this, as I recall, and have received no complaints of privacy violation.

Is a witch-hunt for the whistle-blower next? Will a reward will be offered for the identity of the snitch, who dared to supply information to a journalist?

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 245 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: SEKRIT!!! oR eLSE!!!

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:30 pm

Please note that McGeady wrote the original TOS back in 2014, and that it is standard "boilerplate".

This new addition was probably demanded by one of the Wikipedia insiders who has been hanging around WPO like a bad smell. Zoloft is such an agreeable guy, now he's agreeing to open censorship. Blah.

User avatar
sashi
Sucks Critic
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: SEKRIT!!! oR eLSE!!!

Post by sashi » Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:34 pm

This, I have to say, is a bit annoying, because you have to remember what was visible and what wasn't.

(I'm not speaking of the super-sekrit sub-fora where you have to be invited (of which I gather there are plenty), but even just the standard members-only wikiporn). I actually felt guilty for accidentally mentioning something here that I hadn't realized was members-only, and would not be entirely surprised if that mention was the origin of this new policy... though it was pretty inconsequential... just a member on vacation.)

User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Mod
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: SEKRIT!!! oR eLSE!!!

Post by JuiceBeetle » Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:45 pm

sashi wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:34 pm
This, I have to say, is a bit annoying, because you have to remember what was visible and what wasn't.
Which means, we have to scroll to the top and look at the subforum it was posted in... yep, annoying.
sashi wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:34 pm
(I'm not speaking of the super-sekrit sub-fora where you have to be invited (of which I gather there are plenty), but even just the standard members-only wikiporn). I actually felt guilty for accidentally mentioning something here that I hadn't realized was members-only, and would not be entirely surprised if that mention was the origin of this new policy... though it was pretty inconsequential... just a member on vacation.)
The logic behind the new policy might be to prevent members-only information being posted on-wiki, possibly resulting in a retaliation. Posting here by accident is of little visibility and importance. Any sanction as a result of that would be a clear indication of targeting members of this forum. I don't think that's the purpose.
#Bbbgate

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 245 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: SEKRIT!!! oR eLSE!!!

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:13 pm

sashi wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:34 pm
This, I have to say, is a bit annoying, because you have to remember what was visible and what wasn't.
It's pointless anyway. Zoloft occasionally killed threads (not often). Until 2015, which is when they had their "big purge of bad things". Including me. That was the same period Kohs cut back on his participation and McGeady vanished. At the same time, a number of threads in the mods-only areas and elsewhere disappeared. Poof.

Go ahead, ask Zoloft about that. Best of luck. I did not have the time to keep track of threads and did not expect a "purge"--no one did so far as I know.

The Wikipedians are getting what they wanted--a censored forum. Scrubbed and smoothed for their deep pleasure.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: SEKRIT!!! oR eLSE!!!

Post by Abd » Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:29 pm

JuiceBeetle wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:45 pm
sashi wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:34 pm
This, I have to say, is a bit annoying, because you have to remember what was visible and what wasn't.
Which means, we have to scroll to the top and look at the subforum it was posted in... yep, annoying.
And you have to figure out what that means, there is no warning on the subforum, and there is no warning in the actual TOS, and declaring an unenforceable policy is pretty much the kind of incompetence that has dogged WP criticism for a very long time. Allowing anonymous users the ability to defame others, in a private conference, but then going after anyone who might blow the whistle is the kind of backwards priority that is too typical.
sashi wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:34 pm
(I'm not speaking of the super-sekrit sub-fora where you have to be invited (of which I gather there are plenty), but even just the standard members-only wikiporn). I actually felt guilty for accidentally mentioning something here that I hadn't realized was members-only, and would not be entirely surprised if that mention was the origin of this new policy... though it was pretty inconsequential... just a member on vacation.)
The logic behind the new policy might be to prevent members-only information being posted on-wiki, possibly resulting in a retaliation. Posting here by accident is of little visibility and importance. Any sanction as a result of that would be a clear indication of targeting members of this forum. I don't think that's the purpose.
Well, the purpose is to protect the privacy of members. But any sane user would know that "member-only" means "anyone who signs up for an account, with no identity disclosure or verification," and so to reveal anything there that reflects back on oneself elsewhere (such as on Wikipedia) is just plain stupid. Now, consider this: is sashi a known WPO user? If so, then if sashi posts anything here from a WPO "member-only" forum, that could be used to justify banning them. But it is probably true that, unless someone in WPO administration wants to ban them, it's not likely to happen from some harmless slip.

As a Mod here, I would be likely to respect a request from any user that their content be deleted or hidden. I would also consider complaints from others about content that might harm them. Obviously, that should be handled with PM here or in one of the other open channels.

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: SEKRIT!!! oR eLSE!!!

Post by Kumioko » Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:19 am

Yeah this is more of Zoloft turning WPO into a wikipedia forum. It's disappointing, but that's what happens when the main mod/admin has aspirations to be a Wikipedia admin/arb. By turning WPO into a more wiki friendly place, he is buying good will with the very community the site was created to ctiticize.
#BbbGate

User avatar
Stanistani
Sucks
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:35 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: SEKRIT!!! oR eLSE!!!

Post by Stanistani » Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:20 am

Y'all are an excitable bunch.

We looked at our rules and noticed there is no explicit policy on the subject. We're updating the TOS. When we're done, we'll replace the existing TOS, change titles/descriptions on forums, and post another notice.

I posted the change because it would be unfair to chide or discipline people for following unclear rules.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die

User avatar
sashi
Sucks Critic
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 8 times

WPO: no loud lawn music

Post by sashi » Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:02 pm

Stanistani wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:20 am
Y'all are an excitable bunch.


Stanistani wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:20 am
I posted the change because it would be unfair to chide or discipline people for following unclear rules.


Unrelated, but you remember your music thread is still on lockdown? :(

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: SEKRIT!!! oR eLSE!!!

Post by Abd » Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:19 pm

Stanistani wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:20 am
Y'all are an excitable bunch.
Classic trolling.
We looked at our rules and noticed there is no explicit policy on the subject. We're updating the TOS. When we're done, we'll replace the existing TOS, change titles/descriptions on forums, and post another notice.
And why did you "look at " the "rules"? Any particular occasion? Was someone complaining?

Are some WPO "members" -- some of whom are anonymous -- upset because someone revealed what they wrote to a journalist? Who is being protected? And how will this new "rule" protect them?
I posted the change because it would be unfair to chide or discipline people for following unclear rules.
Never stopped you from banning people without warning or any rule violation at all, and then the "members" feel free to write whatever they please about the banned with no responsibility.

Just sayin.

First of all, the behavior of one or two persons here is not a "people," such that "you people" is appropriate. But trolls communicate like that. Instead of addressing the actual effing topic, they attack the person as a member of a class, presumed to be defective in some way, here, "excitable people." Probably forgot to take their meds.

Stanistani, you are behaving as a troll. Why?

I don't see that it is possible to comment on [http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 80#p257280 the announcement on Wikipediocracy]. It's locked. No discussion allowed. Except here, where we will be accused of being "excitable," and who knows what else?

On the other hand, tl;dr and Who Cares?

Post Reply