Post by blissyu2 on Jul 25, 2008 13:22:12 GMT -5
Below are some generally accepted rules in similar internet communities that would be applicable to Wikipedia, if they had their rules based on social norms and based on what works.
1. Do not do anything illegal or borderline illegal - if in doubt, don't.
Penalty = permanent ban, unless there is a good explanation and the damage can be undone.
Reason = Wikipedia is an private entity who can ban or allow whoever they like, regardless of what their rules say. However, if anyone using their site breaks the law and they do not stop them breaking the law, then the law would deem them to be responsible. This is especially true when it is illegal at wherever Wikipedia is hosted, but is also applicable (yet harder to prosecute) if it is illegal wherever the person doing the act is.
How it works on Wikipedia = Wikipedia actually doesn't have such a rule. Odd as it might sound, they don't ban people for breaking the law. It was only relatively recently that they added in a Biographies of Living Persons policy, and they continue to slander people's names with false accusations on their user pages, false accusations in Arb Com cases, and so forth. Indeed, rather than ban people for breaking the law, Wikipedia does something really odd - they ban people for making legal threats! Legal threats help to STOP illegal things from happening! Wikipedia should encourage them, not ban people for it. Whilst perhaps 1 or 2 places also have a no legal threats policy, that is certainly not the norm.
2. Agree generally with the aims of the project.
Penalty = Permanent ban if confirmed, reversed only if convinced that they now agree with the aims of the project.
Reason = There are plenty of places around, and if you don't like this one then there is somewhere else to go. People who don't like a project shouldn't be contributing to it, period. Regardless of how bad (or not bad) they are right now, with that attitude they will inevitably become bad. If you don't like the idea of making an encyclopaedia, then you shouldn't be there. Of course, if you agree with it mostly but not completely, then that's a different story.
How it works on Wikipedia = The odd thing is that Wikipedia allows criticism to the extent that they permit people who hate every single thing about Wikipedia to continue to use it. But in reality, they do have this rule. The problem with it not being in writing is that then people who actually do like the project can be banned under the pretence that they don't.
3. Do not stalk or harass another user - if they don't want to talk to you, don't talk to them
Penalty = IGNORE USER buttons should be installed, but if they are not, then the ban would need to be permanent until an agreement is reached, then if they go against the agreement then bans of increasingly lengthy duration (to both parties) if they go against it. In severe cases, even up to a year would be appropriate.
Reason = The IGNORE button is one of the things that makes internet communication superior to real life communication and is essential in all forms of internet communication. Indeed, it exists virtually everywhere else besides Wikipedia. Stalking and harassment are grey lines, however, so people shouldn't be banned outright, rather it should be recognised as a two-way thing.
How it works on Wikipedia = On Wikipedia there is no IGNORE button, no real rule about harassment or stalking, and indeed it is perfectly acceptable to add someone's talk page to your watch list! Indeed, nothing at all can be done about it if you are harassed or even stalked. Try complaining about it and in many cases they will ban the person complaining! Wikipedia does everything they can to encourage stalking and harassment.
4. Do not hack or try to hack the server.
Penalty = Permanent ban even if not confirmed. Release ban if it was a false positive.
Reason = You quite simply cannot run a site on the internet if you allow hacking. Any form of hacking, or trying to take the place over should be penalised with a permanent ban. This cannot be done by accident and you should not forgive them.
How it works on Wikipedia = In theory Wikipedia does ban for hacking, but they don't have an actual rule on it. GNAA people (and ED etc) regularly post images that distort the screen, yet they aren't banned (or at least not efficiently enough to stop it from happening again).
5. Do not spam.
Penalty = Depending on what type of spam depends on the penalty. If it is a spam bot, then permanent ban unless proven false. If it is an individual person who can talk, then make it temporary until they can confirm that they are a real person.
Reason = Nobody wants to have 3 million advertisements for an online casino, for thingy enlargements or some porn site thrust at them everywhere. People who do this do it everywhere indiscriminately and it is one of the real negatives of the internet. You really need to stop such people. Of course, there is a difference between spam and advertising. If your product is notable, there is no reason not to have an article on the product.
How it works on Wikipedia = Sadly, Wikipedia went way too far on this one. Yes, they have successfully minimised spam, congratulations. In their over-zealousness, they now have Conflict of Interest, Autobiography, and other rules that prevent someone from adding accurate information about something because they are an expert on that topic, all in the aims of fulfilling the theoretically impossible Neutral Point of View rule (NOBODY is EVER neutral).
And there you have it. A longish explanation, but basically 5 rules.
But why does Wikipedia really ban people?
1. Because they are assumed to be the sock puppet of some existing banned user - these bans are almost never investigated, are almost always wrong, and are almost never reversed. According to Wikipedia, each person they have banned has managed to create 3,000 accounts each, using 500,000 IP addresses across 7 different countries - each.
2. Because some administrator or otherwise someone with power got upset with them. Reasons are then made up later, including banning many other innocent unrelated people as sock puppets of them.
3. Because they were trying to correct an article and someone else with power controlled that article. Of course, they assert that the person with power's version is the "right" and "neutral" version, that the sources used by the opponent are not "reliable sources", and hence that it counts as "original research". Most of the time they make up various accusations, including the false sock puppet accusations, towards that end.
4. Because they were slandered on Wikipedia and tried to correct it. Wikipedia hates legal threats and consider that to be far worse than actually doing anything illegal. Of course, legal threats made behind their back lead to Wikipedia jumping up and down, but that's different, because then that means that something can actually happen. Also, Wikipedia only responds to bonafide famous people. Anyone else they will ignore in the belief that they probably can't afford to sue them and that there is a legal loophole somewhere. Wikipedia bans people so as to promote the idea that their lies about them are true, discredits them further, pats themselves on the back, and generally bullies them. It's like a boss firing someone for joining a union.
5. For destroying the site, hacking the site or spamming. Tiny and irrelevant it might be, but they do happen and on occasion they get banned too. Of course, usually such insignificant events as hacking a site leads to a 10 hour ban while upsetting an administrator, or just being unlucky enough to be falsely accused of being the sock puppet of someone who upset an administrator means a permanent ban with no hope of it ever being reversed.
Wikipedia gets it wrong so badly on this.
1. Do not do anything illegal or borderline illegal - if in doubt, don't.
Penalty = permanent ban, unless there is a good explanation and the damage can be undone.
Reason = Wikipedia is an private entity who can ban or allow whoever they like, regardless of what their rules say. However, if anyone using their site breaks the law and they do not stop them breaking the law, then the law would deem them to be responsible. This is especially true when it is illegal at wherever Wikipedia is hosted, but is also applicable (yet harder to prosecute) if it is illegal wherever the person doing the act is.
How it works on Wikipedia = Wikipedia actually doesn't have such a rule. Odd as it might sound, they don't ban people for breaking the law. It was only relatively recently that they added in a Biographies of Living Persons policy, and they continue to slander people's names with false accusations on their user pages, false accusations in Arb Com cases, and so forth. Indeed, rather than ban people for breaking the law, Wikipedia does something really odd - they ban people for making legal threats! Legal threats help to STOP illegal things from happening! Wikipedia should encourage them, not ban people for it. Whilst perhaps 1 or 2 places also have a no legal threats policy, that is certainly not the norm.
2. Agree generally with the aims of the project.
Penalty = Permanent ban if confirmed, reversed only if convinced that they now agree with the aims of the project.
Reason = There are plenty of places around, and if you don't like this one then there is somewhere else to go. People who don't like a project shouldn't be contributing to it, period. Regardless of how bad (or not bad) they are right now, with that attitude they will inevitably become bad. If you don't like the idea of making an encyclopaedia, then you shouldn't be there. Of course, if you agree with it mostly but not completely, then that's a different story.
How it works on Wikipedia = The odd thing is that Wikipedia allows criticism to the extent that they permit people who hate every single thing about Wikipedia to continue to use it. But in reality, they do have this rule. The problem with it not being in writing is that then people who actually do like the project can be banned under the pretence that they don't.
3. Do not stalk or harass another user - if they don't want to talk to you, don't talk to them
Penalty = IGNORE USER buttons should be installed, but if they are not, then the ban would need to be permanent until an agreement is reached, then if they go against the agreement then bans of increasingly lengthy duration (to both parties) if they go against it. In severe cases, even up to a year would be appropriate.
Reason = The IGNORE button is one of the things that makes internet communication superior to real life communication and is essential in all forms of internet communication. Indeed, it exists virtually everywhere else besides Wikipedia. Stalking and harassment are grey lines, however, so people shouldn't be banned outright, rather it should be recognised as a two-way thing.
How it works on Wikipedia = On Wikipedia there is no IGNORE button, no real rule about harassment or stalking, and indeed it is perfectly acceptable to add someone's talk page to your watch list! Indeed, nothing at all can be done about it if you are harassed or even stalked. Try complaining about it and in many cases they will ban the person complaining! Wikipedia does everything they can to encourage stalking and harassment.
4. Do not hack or try to hack the server.
Penalty = Permanent ban even if not confirmed. Release ban if it was a false positive.
Reason = You quite simply cannot run a site on the internet if you allow hacking. Any form of hacking, or trying to take the place over should be penalised with a permanent ban. This cannot be done by accident and you should not forgive them.
How it works on Wikipedia = In theory Wikipedia does ban for hacking, but they don't have an actual rule on it. GNAA people (and ED etc) regularly post images that distort the screen, yet they aren't banned (or at least not efficiently enough to stop it from happening again).
5. Do not spam.
Penalty = Depending on what type of spam depends on the penalty. If it is a spam bot, then permanent ban unless proven false. If it is an individual person who can talk, then make it temporary until they can confirm that they are a real person.
Reason = Nobody wants to have 3 million advertisements for an online casino, for thingy enlargements or some porn site thrust at them everywhere. People who do this do it everywhere indiscriminately and it is one of the real negatives of the internet. You really need to stop such people. Of course, there is a difference between spam and advertising. If your product is notable, there is no reason not to have an article on the product.
How it works on Wikipedia = Sadly, Wikipedia went way too far on this one. Yes, they have successfully minimised spam, congratulations. In their over-zealousness, they now have Conflict of Interest, Autobiography, and other rules that prevent someone from adding accurate information about something because they are an expert on that topic, all in the aims of fulfilling the theoretically impossible Neutral Point of View rule (NOBODY is EVER neutral).
And there you have it. A longish explanation, but basically 5 rules.
But why does Wikipedia really ban people?
1. Because they are assumed to be the sock puppet of some existing banned user - these bans are almost never investigated, are almost always wrong, and are almost never reversed. According to Wikipedia, each person they have banned has managed to create 3,000 accounts each, using 500,000 IP addresses across 7 different countries - each.
2. Because some administrator or otherwise someone with power got upset with them. Reasons are then made up later, including banning many other innocent unrelated people as sock puppets of them.
3. Because they were trying to correct an article and someone else with power controlled that article. Of course, they assert that the person with power's version is the "right" and "neutral" version, that the sources used by the opponent are not "reliable sources", and hence that it counts as "original research". Most of the time they make up various accusations, including the false sock puppet accusations, towards that end.
4. Because they were slandered on Wikipedia and tried to correct it. Wikipedia hates legal threats and consider that to be far worse than actually doing anything illegal. Of course, legal threats made behind their back lead to Wikipedia jumping up and down, but that's different, because then that means that something can actually happen. Also, Wikipedia only responds to bonafide famous people. Anyone else they will ignore in the belief that they probably can't afford to sue them and that there is a legal loophole somewhere. Wikipedia bans people so as to promote the idea that their lies about them are true, discredits them further, pats themselves on the back, and generally bullies them. It's like a boss firing someone for joining a union.
5. For destroying the site, hacking the site or spamming. Tiny and irrelevant it might be, but they do happen and on occasion they get banned too. Of course, usually such insignificant events as hacking a site leads to a 10 hour ban while upsetting an administrator, or just being unlucky enough to be falsely accused of being the sock puppet of someone who upset an administrator means a permanent ban with no hope of it ever being reversed.
Wikipedia gets it wrong so badly on this.