User:Grace Note/proposed FAQ for Wikipedia report

Purpose of the board

The main purpose of the board is to discuss perceived systemic flaws in Wikipedia. Primarily posts should be directed to broader criticisms of Wikipedia rather than personal issues that users have had with Wikipedia, although the latter will be welcome too. If personal experiences are framed in terms of their broader implications, this is the kind of thing that I’m looking for.

Posts on what Wikipedia does right are also welcome, so long as you are asking for more of it. Not doing enough of what is good is a "systemic flaw" in this definition.

The board is not an "anti-Wikipedia" vehicle. Its aim is to contribute to improving Wikipedia. Other avenues exist for whining about how Wikipedia is and wishing its destruction. This board is looking at how it could be. Strong criticisms of Wikipedia exist and it would be useful to discuss them critically in their turn.

“The rules”

I will obviously not permit any racist or antisemitic posting. That will include not characterising Wikipedia editors by their ethnicity. This is a blocking offence without warning.

I will not permit abuse of any Wikipedia editor, including Jimbo. This is a blocking offence with one warning.

This does not mean that editors cannot be criticised but I am looking primarily for posts that describe systemic flaws in Wikipedia rather than particular cases of "admin abuse", although of course I will permit the latter, so long as they illustrate a broader systemic problem rather than a personal problem with the admin in question.

If you want to say admin X is paid to edit Wikipedia and your "evidence" is someone says so somewhere, then I will not permit it. IOW, you cannot post that Jay edits Wikipedia for money because Marsden says so. I will remove the offending material and if you persist, you will be blocked.

But if you want to say admin Y is paid to edit Wikipedia and your "evidence" is they say so on their blog, then I will permit it. But I am asking as a courtesy for posts like that to be shown to me first.

I will not permit posting of personal information not already made explicitly public by the subject. By "explicitly public", I mean User:X must have said something amounting to: "I am User:X and my name is John Smith." Approach this with caution. I would be frowning on posts that simply “out” people as other people. Wikipedia editors should, unless they expressly indicate otherwise or use a different name to post to this board, be addressed by their usernames at Wikipedia. I ask posters to show respect for one another by respecting the usernames and not posting variations on them. Posting personal information is a blocking offence. I will give one warning and remove the information. Abusing Wikipedia users by using variations on their names will be tolerated only up to a point, at which I will offer a warning.

No tracking down of people using information in the public domain. I don’t care whether Daniel Brandt says it, this board will not repeat it. Again, I do not want this board to be used to “out” editors. If you think editor X’s behaviour is problematic, then express your view. You are not any righter or wronger because X is “really” John Smith.

Nothing that might be libellous. I will simply remove anything I believe to be defamatory. If I think you did it on purpose, you will be warned and blocked for a repeat offence. Nothing that is not permitted in the Proboards terms of service. I will block you without warning for posting porn or links to porn, for instance. Please don’t link to offsite pictures. I will simply remove them.

Some thoughts
The Igor Nazi Board A platform for disseminating nazi propaganda. The perceived flaws of Wikipedia has to do with the idea that there are too many Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Muslims, Feminists, Catholics, Homosexuals, Liberals, etc in the world. My verdict: For www.antifa.org and others to deal with.

The Selina Board Racist or anti-Semitic posting is not allowed, which is good. But if the same group of people will be dominating that board that dominated Wikipedia Review, I'm afraid that serious criticisms will drown in the many posts that deal with whether or not an admin is cute, and the constant rehashing of the trials and tribulations of a couple of former Wikipedia contributors that felt they were unfairly banned. A good quality is that they don't seem afraid to be a bit edgy. My verdict: Hopefully Selina will be offered editorial and administrative assistance from serious-minded people that she will accept, but I wont hold my breath.

The Grace Note Board Not only will racist and anti-Semitic postings not be allowed but there will also be an good understanding on what constitutes racism and anti-Semitism. There wouldn't be as many demented rants to distract from interesting thoughts regarding perceived systemic flaws aand whathaveyou. On the negative side; there already is a meta-wiki, so if describing systemic flaws can only be done without addressing Jimbo and individual members of boards and committees, there is not much need for the board. A serious venue for criticism is a place where admin X can and want to go and enter into a dialogue without feeling abused or threatened, but it is equally important that the board will have teeth. Jimbo should feel nervous about the board, because it would expose situations and offer substantial criticism that is potentially damaging for Wikimedia's reputation. My verdict: Hope for the best.

Questions:

Do you accept the notion that a lot of admins you are currently friendly with wouldn't be friendly with you if you had a serious site up and running? No more love-bombing.


 * I have very few admins friendly with me and those that are would welcome my running this board. Grace Note 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you post something like hushthis' post about charity regulations?


 * Absolutely. So long as it is not defamatory. It was a complicated post, which I didn't entirely follow, so I would be willing to accept guidance on whether it was actually true or not! Grace Note 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you allow criticism of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. and their businesspartners?


 * Serious structural criticism of Wikimedia. Not unfounded allegations. So long as we're clear on the dividing line. And as far as business partners go, only in so far as it concerns Wikimedia. No rants about answers.com, and no scurrilous bullshit about Jimbo's friends on the board. Grace Note 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by nothing that might be libellous? Anything might be libellous.


 * Sorry, that was a bit loose. A tighter definition would be "anything I consider defamatory". It is largely intended to prevent abuse of contributors to Wikipedia rather than to prevent criticisms of Wikipedia's business operations. However, if I'm advised that something you post is defamatory, I'm not going to expose Proboards or whoever to legal action on account of it. Grace Note 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Luck, takebacktheboard 13:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you allow Carrots? Robust Physique 20:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Carrots are obligatory. I'd rather people didn't link to offsite photos, unless to flickr or similar. I recognise that there is every chance someone will spam the board with huge photos of cocks, but that is something all forums face. Grace Note 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

More Thoughts
takebacktheboard makes some very good points.

You need to be very careful to establish the right vibe on the forum in the first place: It should be a place where people are welcome to post in defence/support of Wikipedia, and not just in criticism of it. WikipediaReview ought to be the blueprint for how not to do it. I would steer clear of specific complaints about administrators and administrator actions (at the end of the day, who, other that the wronged user, really cares?) except in the context of illustrating the wider systemic fault that they might represent.


 * I hope I've been clear that I am looking for systemic criticisms, and that discussion of individual admins, if you have to make it, should be directed to broader concerns.


 * And I think I'm going to add to the "FAQ" that positive criticism is also welcome. "There should be more of this" is as valuable in a critical review as "I don't like this". I hold the Wikipedia Review in contempt and agree with you that it's not in any way a good model. I would not be willing to permit the unpleasantness that was directed at posters such as Ambi. She should feel as comfortable posting to a forum as the bad boys. Grace Note 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Establish some general areas for discussion in advance of going live (e.g. "accuracy" "management and control", "Pros and cons of Neutrality" and, at least at the beginning, actively weed out trolls and trolling threads (rather than target users, primarily target content). As the forum gains momentum, consciously make the decision to step back from active management - act as an incubator only.


 * That's a very good idea. You don't fancy helping with moderation by any chance? ;-) Grace Note 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Establish some form of reputation management system, so that registered users can vote, positiely or negatively, on the value of certain posts or threads or administrative actions - seniority of the system should be sheeted not to the number of posts (as is conventional for discussion boards) but to the greatest aggregate positive vote for a user's contributions. Like customer reviews voting on Amazon. User privileges (such as starting new threads, deleting posts, blocking users etc) can be assigned as a function of ones reputation status (and clearly administrative actions can result in positive or negative votes in themselves). Each user is therefore responsible for each action he or she takes.


 * That's very difficult on proboards or similar and certainly technically beyond me, but I do like the idea. Of course, there will be something of that sort going on informally. If a troll keeps opening threads about carrots, I'm going to be deleting the threads on sight. The troll will find it impossible to open threads on serious questions because their reputation will have suffered. Grace Note 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Reputation management will work if you have the right crowd contributing at the get-go, so that the system starts running in the right direction.


 * Yes, I agree. I think that is the key in any case. If you set up a review with Lir, Zordrac and Selina, you are not going to guarantee serious discussion. Although I'm willing to believe that all three have serious points to make. Grace Note 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to actively solicit contributions from existing (and even controversial) admins and bureaucrats, as well as users. I would be inclined to exclude, arbitrarily, the main contributors to the Wikipedia Review, simply because they seem to have not a brain amongst them, and they have their own board.


 * I have contacted some of the existing and controversial admins and I'm going to continue to do so. I have a good idea who the dissenters are too, and I'll be contacting them. I am definitely looking for the seriousminded dissenters to comment and not to attract a queue of banned users who just want to whine about how unfair things were for them.


 * I am not planning to exclude the Wikipedia Review contributors, but I would expect them to run foul of my posting rules in short order. Grace Note 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seek out media commentary on Wikipedia, both positive and negative, and critically review it on the board. Then invite the author of the original commentary to comment and engage in discussion on the board.


 * Invite Jimbo. Despite what the paranoid think, he seems to me to be fundamentally a decent bloke; human, imperfect, and prone to the same snafus as the rest of us. Having said that, he's never replied to one of my questions!


 * Jimbo has a standing invitation. I think that if I can establish the right atmosphere, he would be more than willing to contribute, time allowing. He might be willing to do a moderated Q&A. Grace Note 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

ElectricRay 22:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent points from takebacktheboard and ElectricRay. The point that WR is the blueprint for how not to do it is spot on. I think GraceNote's the perfect person to set it up, because he does have an edge to him, but he isn't irresponsible with it, he cares about the spirit of Wikipedia, and he's not out to get any particular individuals, which is a feature of the folks who run WR and it was the ruination of the place. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All this discussion is making people hungry, everyone have a banana Sn0rlax 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Who has odds on the likelihood of this board ever actually being created? It looks like a blue print on how not to do something. A board that is designed purely to bash others is not a good way to start things. At least make it independent of anything else, otherwise you are just hanging on to others' coat tails. I might start a poll on the likelihood of this starting. Of course, if it ever does start, it should be good for criticism, regardless of how awful your board is. People will have 2 options, so that would be a good thing. It'd stop the stupid flaming from Wikipedia admins and people like yourself, and focus on the actual issues so that we can go forward. You are right that there were problems with the board - primarily because such silly personal attacks were permitted and kept in the same place and given the same credibility as legitimate concerns about Wikipedia. You and Malber did more to destroy the board than anyone else. And in doing so you hurt anything that people on Wikipedia could have hoped to get out of it. But you don't have as much "power" on the new board, so I guess that upsets you a bit. Pity really. You are I presume going to ban Lir, Selina and myself, correct? So its going to be a board for critics that ignores 3 big critics. Great start that one. User:Zordrac 15:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)