Harassment Survey 2015

[Randy from Boise]

Did Neotarf just call Wikipediocracy "organized"?!?!

She or he is hilarious.

Oh, this is even funnier...

"The arbitration committee has frequently been in collusion with WP:BADSITES in enabling harassment."

RfB

[Hex]

but...

Destroyer (The Kinks song) (T-H-L) ...was released as a track on the group's nineteenth album, Give the People What They Want, in August 1981...

Give the People What They Want (T-H-L) is the eighteenth studio album by the English rock group, The Kinks.

Good job, WP.

[Randy from Boise]

but...

Destroyer (The Kinks song) (T-H-L) ...was released as a track on the group's nineteenth album, Give the People What They Want, in August 1981...

Give the People What They Want (T-H-L) is the eighteenth studio album by the English rock group, The Kinks.

Good job, WP.

I'm too lazy to look it up and count, but the two statements are not necessarily contradictory. The operative word is STUDIO. A live album is not a studio album, so 18 studio albums and 1 live album would make both statements equally true.

RfB



PS. Sorry about the really bad lip synch from that last Destroyer link...

[ArmasRebane]

but...

Destroyer (The Kinks song) (T-H-L) ...was released as a track on the group's nineteenth album, Give the People What They Want, in August 1981...

Give the People What They Want (T-H-L) is the eighteenth studio album by the English rock group, The Kinks.

Good job, WP.

I'm too lazy to look it up and count, but the two statements are not necessarily contradictory. The operative word is STUDIO. A live album is not a studio album, so 18 studio albums and 1 live album would make both statements equally true.

RfB

Yeah it depends on your categorizing, as well as whether the sources in question are also counting things like region-specific albums or b-sides. Another fun game to play is what episode number TV shows are. Do two-part episodes count as a single, long episode, or two discrete ones? You can get different answers from the same source.

[Kingsindian]

I just made the following comment on the talk page:

Page 17 is still quite confusing. What exactly is meant by "average of 23.90 times?" 23.90 times in what period? Were the people surveyed asked to keep a diary or record of incidents? From what I can see this refers to question 6 here. It does not say what period is being considered. How can one compare the numbers of two persons, one who is on Wikipedia for 10 months vs one who has been here for 10 years? The large standard deviations in the data pointed out by Prevalence seem to suggest that many people treated it like a binary variable, rather than a sliding scale. How would people be expected to remember 20 cases of name calling anyway?

The Pew survey simply asked a binary question: "have you experienced harassment of type X", together with follow up questions about the most recent harassment episode, which makes much more sense to me. The graph on page 19 is weird. For instance, in the gender breakdown of the Pew survey, the binary variable gives men experiencing much more name calling than women, but here the corresponding variable, counting number of occurrences, it is reversed. Kingsindian (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

[thekohser]

A thoughtful person could spend at least two weeks, 9 to 5, poring over this survey and picking apart all that was wrong with it.

[Hex]

I'm too lazy to look it up and count, but the two statements are not necessarily contradictory. The operative word is STUDIO. A live album is not a studio album, so 18 studio albums and 1 live album would make both statements equally true.

Yes, you're quite right. Good catch.

I'll probably move this discussion to Off-Topic shortly, sorry for the diversion!

[Randy from Boise]

I'm too lazy to look it up and count, but the two statements are not necessarily contradictory. The operative word is STUDIO. A live album is not a studio album, so 18 studio albums and 1 live album would make both statements equally true.

Yes, you're quite right. Good catch.

I'll probably move this discussion to Off-Topic shortly, sorry for the diversion!

............Of course, one or both statements could be wrong!

RfB

[thekohser]

I had missed this comment by DGG, for which I must give credit, despite him being one of my wiki-foes:

Anyone should know that when the results defy common sense, or even are very different from the expected, they need to be checked. (Among the ways is looking at the statistical probability and checking the programming for errors, as reported above) But even with a total lack of knowledge of either discipline or of any aspect of survey design and analysis, any specific management or technical knowledge of any sort, the impossibility is immediately obvious. The only inabilities that would explain it are the inability to read, or to think, or the lack of exercise of those faculties.

Did nobody at the Foundation look at the results before publishing them? I think we really need a response from everybody who should have been involved.

But, David, they worked so haaarrrddd... you're being "an unfair".

Maybe it's the Berkman Center's fault.

[thekohser]

A revised report has been released.

[Drijfzand]

A revised report has been released.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that in my post (Fri 13 )..

[thekohser]

A revised report has been released.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that in my post (Fri 13 )..

Ouch! I guess I didn't process that properly. Might have had something to do with being in the car at 3:35 AM to get to an airport 90 minutes from me, to make a 6:00 AM flight that day. Apologies, Drijfzand!

[Kumioko]

A revised report has been released.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that in my post (Fri 13 )..

Ouch! I guess I didn't process that properly. Might have had something to do with being in the car at 3:35 AM to get to an airport 90 minutes from me, to make a 6:00 AM flight that day. Apologies, Drijfzand!

Excuses, excuses!

[MCleven]

The survey is utterly meaningless if it does not make an effort to include the views from those who have been blocked or banned from Wikipedia for what amount to arbitrary reasons - as noted above most have been blocked for claims of misconduct by those whose own conduct is more than questionable and whose words themselves violate NPA, AGF and NPOV......and, most of all, IAR.

Conduct vs content is the prevailing ethos, with uninformed and don't-care-about-subject admins (and trolls...many of whom ARE admins...) and that makes little more than a social club presuming Wikipedia (their sandbox) to write/edit an authoritative encyclopedia.... many of them are only semi-literate also; not just throwing around TLDNR and WoT based on their own inability to either read or admit to truths and facts that take more than seven sentences to write, but who also can't even compose natural English OR are able to think/act logically.....

Seeing Patrick Earley's name in the lead article just raises the vomit in my throat; he's a paid WMF staffer who attacked me and patronized me about my health and alleged (AGF) mental instability (NPA) during the war by WhisperToMe and Moonriddengirl to block me *without consensus" on their side....... and advised me via FB to submit to MRG's demands I stop pointing out the very suspicious behaviour and evident agenda of WhisperToMe.....who could say anything he wanted about ME but was himself immune from criticism...all while he had made HUGE long posts on forums to try to discredit me and try to get support for blocking sources and content which did not 'fit' with his desired narrative/worldview.....MRG commented in a post-fact ANI about my block that he had more edits than me, which made him more credible......WTF since his mass of edits include lengthy forum/board posts, tons of overcited content with full webcites for ONE adjective in the course of posting very POV ESSAY-type OR.......100s of thousands of edits mean nothing as a credential if most of them are BUNK or JUNK.

Then there's the senior admin who I approached about Brownhairedgirl's behaviour and hostility who wrote me back (via email) calling me insane and making various personal insults in the process......this to do with her interventions in the "indigenous endonym war" going against the remaining 20% of RMs I'd launched to revert mass changes by Kwamikagami one New Years Night long ago; she ignored posts/votes completely and made-up rules on the spot about how RMs MUST be formatted and what was acceptable....yet she knew nothing about the subject, and claimed her ignorance of the facts WAS A QUALIFICATION as a closer...all while not listening to posts/votes and not wanting to listen to those who knew more than her.....and all because I'd come to her talkpage to criticize her refusal to read all the material (she used TLDR which isn't supposed to apply to talkpages or discussions, only articles) re the "Squamish" CFD - deleting my comment like a censoring schoolmarm keeping order in class (schoolmarms don't like to be pointed out a having been wrong) and with one or two exceptions (one of which, Siylx, she didn't even make a point of spelling right when granting the name change) decided against my RM for very evident personal hostility.... including a block against me completely out of the blue and very much against consensus in support of me...... when the block ended, I began to work on geographic articles and categories again, as somewhat less politicized than native names, at which she jumped on my new work (Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges) where once again she made up rules that do not exist - including the very silly claim that only "official" designations could apply...and that there were no other similar categories (there were, Rivers of the Alps among them).she did not of course know anything about the region, or about wikipedia geography standards or about what constitutes "official" in Canada, which she knows zilch about......oh but she's an admin huh? So she can call bullshit on real shit, while talking bullshit herself.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.... I've seen a lot in my 10 years in Wikipedia....my first block by Zoe made the claim that I had made a legal threat; the reality was I'd been threatened in real life...... why can someone with obvious comprehension and logic deficiencies become an admin? In true schoolmarm style she would not reverse the block until I had posted a contrite apology (as advised by someone else privately) - even though I had done NOTHING wrong and it was HER who should have apologized......

Back to my original point, the survey on harassment is meaningless unless it includes all those who have been blocked by harrasment WITHIN Wikiipedia itself........what is an ANI if not harassment??

[Anroth]

You know it's difficult to not agree with the people who question your stability when you post barely coherent messes like the above.

[Kingsindian]

I found it rambling but not particularly incoherent: I could make out most of it. I find the basic point valid: banned editors are excluded from the survey, so harassment directed against them isn't counted.

Also, it would be nice if you weren't a dick to a new-ish member here.

[Kelly Martin]

Also, it would be nice if you weren't a dick to a new-ish member here.

Yeah, but then we'd have to wonder who had hijacked his account.

[Randy from Boise]

Also, it would be nice if you weren't a dick to a new-ish member here.

Yeah, but then we'd have to wonder who had hijacked his account.

Just chalk it up to a little Wikipedia Review-style retro flavor, where "Everyone Be Sure to Bite the Noobs but Don't Kill Them If You Can Help It" was the house motto.

Hi, Mike!


tim

[Kingsindian]

Message on wikimedia-l.

I am pleased to announce the launch of the third Inspire Campaign for
IdeaLab, focused on addressing harassment of Wikimedia project contributors.

The WMF Harassment survey is linked in a footnote.

However on the FAQ page it says:

This campaign is focused on content curation and review

[trout]

The attached box just came up for me on Wikipedia. It links to

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire

[Kingsindian]

I think the "content curation and review" was the last one. My mistake.

[thekohser]

Maybe the Inspire Campaign could address the harassment suffered upon Dr. Heilman by Jimmy Wales?

[MCleven]

Anroth "Re: Harassment Survey 2015
You know it's difficult to not agree with the people who question your stability when you post barely coherent messes like the above."

I see insulting NPAs are fair game here...... I'm perfectly stable but write in a stream-of-consciousness style "write like you think". And you, since NPAing is apparently fine here, lack reading comprehension skills and cant' make it through a modern novel.

The issues involved are complex/ I compressed a great deal in the above account of the abuse and wikilayering and NPA/AGF tactics hurled at me..... but you dismiss me with put-downs rather than try to listen to what I have to say... .just another semi-literate who can't read well and gets insulting when faced with something that taxes their narrow brain....

and I'm not banned, I'm blocked.

TLDR and WoT are obscenities to meaningful discourse and a symptom of the "dumbing down" of intellectual conversation.....if the lot of types like you hadn't been raised reading Coles Notes instead of full texts and knew how to hold more than four thoughts in your head at once, what I am saying is very very very clear.

it's YOUR mind that's clouded, as well as pretentious. And you should really take an English comprehension course....

[MCleven]

you want rambling, illogical, incoherent mumbo jumbo all nicely formatted and "readable"? - go look up WhisperToMe's many incredibly lengthy justifications for his campaigns against me......he has footnotes, with page-cites, too, lots of them.......but no actual content, and no actual meaning........just an agenda.

[Moral Hazard]

Thanks for shortening your latest reply.