Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
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 » Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:48 am

Stanistani wrote:
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.
Let me guess, you're going to grandfather in any wikipedia admins as mods, finish banning the rest of the critics sndvretitle the site The Wikipedia forum.
#BbbGate

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 » Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:10 am

Abd wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:19 pm
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?
We can start a separate discussion thread on that, I just wasn't that interested. If Zoloft explains himself here, I won't be, either.
Stanistani wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:20 am
Y'all are an excitable bunch.
I assume your reason to write this is that it sounds better if you don't list those who were not excited at all, including me...
I'll change the topic title to dissolve this impression.
Stanistani wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:20 am
We looked at our rules and noticed there is no explicit policy on the subject.
If it ain't broke then don't fix it. What happened to make this necessary?
Stanistani wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:20 am
When we're done, we'll replace the existing TOS, change titles/descriptions on forums, and post another notice.
There was no mention of any more changes to TOS, that post sounds like you are already done. This sounds like an ex post facto explanation.
What this has to do with titles? Are you going to tag each title with [NONPUBLIC] or similar? That would make the distinction clearer. I wonder why the rule does not mention this, for the sake of clarity.
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.
This again sounds like you are ready to apply the rule. However, the rule is unclear of what to expect and how strictly you'll apply it and this non-explanation here just adds to the confusion.

The questions that need to be answered:
1. What happened to make this necessary? (anonymized, of course)
2. Did some info get out that caused retaliation to a member? That would give an explanation, that most of us can relate to and sympathize with.
3. Was it leaked on wikipedia, or an article? Which one is a bigger "danger" to the well-being of the forum members?
4. Members of this forum are mostly members of that forum and discussing WPO here is a common practice, just like discussing WPS on WPO. Do you intend to police these interactions at all?
5. Will you ask us to remove any content that might concern you - as a sign of good faith -, or do you intend to go straight to sanctions, as the rule suggests?
6. Is it a violation, if members-only content on WPO is discussed in a members-only topic here?

I believe the possibility of this policing is a major concern behind the "excitement", as you call it. The "excitement" is just a sign of how obscure the wording of the new rule is.

7. Last, but not least, what content will be deemed sensitive enough to police? The "music thread" referred by Sashi is a clear example of what not, but there will be many gray areas, that need to be clarified.
#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 » Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:46 am

JuiceBeetle wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:10 am
(questions below)
The questions that need to be answered:

1. What happened to make this necessary? (anonymized, of course)
Zoloft wrote:For a while, incidents where people took content from members-only areas, removed context, and put it in public area, were rare, and mostly harmless. Recently, several members did this, and it was not so harmless.
2. Did some info get out that caused retaliation to a member? That would give an explanation, that most of us can relate to and sympathize with.
Zoloft wrote:Some info was used to attack a few of our members. That's not outside retaliation, but it's problematic. We decided not to wait for it to become a worse issue.
3. Was it leaked on wikipedia, or an article? Which one is a bigger "danger" to the well-being of the forum members?
Zoloft wrote:Not on Wikipedia these last few times, not in an article. The posts were placed in public, available to everyone, and in a couple of cases, without context, to make accusations more sensational. This is toxic and potentially harmful to members.
4. Members of this forum are mostly members of that forum and discussing WPO here is a common practice, just like discussing WPS on WPO. Do you intend to police these interactions at all?
Zoloft wrote:I have no such intentions. I am doing my best (sometimes with a bit of wryness) to interact here in good faith. If you feel I'm not, ask me to leave and I will. Some of the people who have posted the members-only info aren't even members of this forum.
5. Will you ask us to remove any content that might concern you - as a sign of good faith -, or do you intend to go straight to sanctions, as the rule suggests?
Zoloft wrote:The TOS changes are to reduce confusion, and this discussion I hope will help clarify and amplify these changes. I don't expect any more members of WPO to do this again. If they do, what happens next will depend on individual factors. For example, did they just register and start dumping a bunch of posts out? Did they doctor screenshots? Do we know them and can talk to them and ask them to stop? Things like this vary in degree and type. If I saw a member here do it, I might ask them not to do it again. However, I am not the only trustee-type on WPO.
6. Is it a violation, if members-only content on WPO is discussed in a members-only topic here?
Zoloft wrote:That's an interesting and complex question. I don't know. The main reason for the new TOS changes is to keep information away from search engines, and to keep it in context of the topic's broader discussion. If someone moves it over here to discuss it, are you going to enforce WPO's TOS? I'm doubtful you want to take on that duty. Edit: I also believe there's a big difference between direct quotes and discussing the same thing. The first is problematic, the other is just the same topic.
7. Last, but not least, what content will be deemed sensitive enough to police? The "music thread" referred by Sashi is a clear example of what not, but there will be many gray areas, that need to be clarified.
Zoloft wrote:I think we're into the hair-splitting area now. Individual incidents will be judged on how annoying and harmful they are. if you take something from an area where you've been let in as a member, and place it where it's not supposed to be, in the face of terms of service that asked you not to, that's not much gray there. The gray will be in the response. This isn't a felony offense, and we don't need Miranda warnings, a judiciary, and counsel. They call it moderation for a reason. Also, who knows? Maybe we won't even notice.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die

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 » Sun Dec 29, 2019 1:22 am

Kumioko wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:48 am
Let me guess, you're going to grandfather in any wikipedia admins as mods, finish banning the rest of the critics

Oh god, YES YES YES, DO IT so we can laugh at Tarantino and Vigilant, and have justification!

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 29, 2019 5:19 pm

As for Zoloft's reply, I can't help but wonder if these people who did something so bad as to warrant a change to policy were banned like I was for standing up to Vigilant or if they were allowed to stay, perhaps because they are Wikipedia admins or editors in "good standing". I don't expect an honest answer, nor any answer at all, but I can't help but wonder if Wikipediocracy is extending the same double standards to Wikipedia admins as Wikipedia does so that Zoloft can buy good will.
#BbbGate

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 » Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:52 pm

I'm glum, Stani. You totally dodged my question about the resurrection date for all the content trapped in un-openable containers. All those punk bands, gone. Randy should be furious. ^^


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 » Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:07 am

Stanistani wrote:
Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:46 am
(answers below)
Thank you for your answers!
This makes the new rule more clear. I suggest you include the gist of these answers in the rule.
Zoloft wrote:For a while, incidents where people took content from members-only areas, removed context, and put it in public area, were rare, and mostly harmless. Recently, several members did this, and it was not so harmless.
Am I right to assume that these members were informed by PM? That is to say who have not received such PM has no reason to be worried about that rule?
Zoloft wrote:Not on Wikipedia these last few times, not in an article. The posts were placed in public, available to everyone, and in a couple of cases, without context, to make accusations more sensational. This is toxic and potentially harmful to members.
I agree with this. Sensationalism and manipulation of context or meaning is a major source of toxicity in wikipedia.
JuiceBeetle wrote: 4. Members of this forum are mostly members of that forum and discussing WPO here is a common practice, just like discussing WPS on WPO. Do you intend to police these interactions at all?
Zoloft wrote:I have no such intentions. I am doing my best (sometimes with a bit of wryness) to interact here in good faith. If you feel I'm not, ask me to leave and I will. Some of the people who have posted the members-only info aren't even members of this forum.
Thank you for clarifying this. There were no concerns about your interactions here. Actually, I haven't had that thought myself until you mentioned.
Zoloft wrote:The TOS changes are to reduce confusion, and this discussion I hope will help clarify and amplify these changes. I don't expect any more members of WPO to do this again.
It did clarify. I hope these questions helped to formalize the final version of the rule for the new TOS.
Zoloft wrote: The main reason for the new TOS changes is to keep information away from search engines, and to keep it in context of the topic's broader discussion. If someone moves it over here to discuss it, are you going to enforce WPO's TOS? I'm doubtful you want to take on that duty. Edit: I also believe there's a big difference between direct quotes and discussing the same thing. The first is problematic, the other is just the same topic.
Clarifying that search engine indexing is a major concern is a key to understanding the purpose of the rule. I believe you should include in the rule that this is the main reason.
Regarding "enforcement" of WPO's TOS: If there is a request to move a quote out of reach of the search engines then I'll take it on myself to communicate this to the forumer and to move the comment to members-only area if the information is harmful / out-of-context / manipulated or to add the proper context. I'd do it out of courtesy, without enforcement or sanctions: that's WPO's business and hopefully, a mutually agreeable resolution makes it unnecessary.

Thank you for your answers once again.
#Bbbgate

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Strelnikov » Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:07 pm

Stanistani, aka Wee Billy Burns..... I tried to sneak in again to WO-MB as Yustas, which is another Seventeen Moments of Spring reference. Either delete it or let me back in.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

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

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Stanistani » Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:39 pm

Strelnikov wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:07 pm
Stanistani, aka Wee Billy Burns..... I tried to sneak in again to WO-MB as Yustas, which is another Seventeen Moments of Spring reference. Either delete it or let me back in.
Your sarcasm is obscuring the meaning of your request. Just tell me, without snark, what you want. I don't usually handle new user registration activations. That's almost always Midsize Jake. Why would you even want back in?
That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Strelnikov » Thu Jan 02, 2020 7:16 pm

Stanistani wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:39 pm
Strelnikov wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:07 pm
Stanistani, aka Wee Billy Burns..... I tried to sneak in again to WO-MB as Yustas, which is another Seventeen Moments of Spring reference. Either delete it or let me back in.
Your sarcasm is obscuring the meaning of your request. Just tell me, without snark, what you want. I don't usually handle new user registration activations. That's almost always Midsize Jake. Why would you even want back in?
My IP is blocked by your board. I occasionally get links to things written on WO, but I can't look at them directly.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

Post Reply