Page 2 of 2
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:13 pm
by thekohser
Kumioko wrote:The problem I have is this. Everyone knows that the editing environment sucks, is toxic and upsetting to people for a variety of reasons on a widespread level. It's talked about constantly here, on wiki and at the WMF. Yet nothing is done.
When you have the Chairman Emeritus of the organization commenting publicly about another (former) board member as such:
James has made a lot of noise about why he was dismissed which is utter and complete bullshit. He wrote a nice piece for the Signpost about transparency which implied that the board got rid of him for wanting more transparency. Utter fucking bullshit.
...how can you expect "something to be done about" the sucky, toxic editing environment on the organization's primary project? The example is set from the top -- toxicity is
de rigueur at Wikipedia, courtesy of Jimbo Wales' example.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:45 pm
by Drijfzand
Kumioko wrote:Unfortunately, as big a site as Wikipedia is, this is just one of those things we have to deal with sometimes and unfortunately we are not going to stop it every time. Personally this is at least the 3rd one I have seen (and others can probably list more).
The problem I have is this. Everyone knows that the editing environment sucks, is toxic and upsetting to people for a variety of reasons on a widespread level. It's talked about constantly here, on wiki and at the WMF. Yet nothing is done.
I submit that if someone were to start addressing the actual problem, which to me is the sites leadership (admins and functionaries) acting abusively and against policy, then a lot of these problems with anxiety and the toxic environment will work themselves out. It will take some time and patience but it can work. But only if it starts from the top down and only if someone, probably the WMF at this point, is willing enforce policy on the admin corps who are largely exempt from it.
Bullies in the workplace cause unnecessary anxiety and right now we have a number of admins that are nothing more than bullies and that needs to stop.
Not sure if a better work environment would help prevent such cases, might even have the opposite effect. Increasing editor retention will also increase the number of "unstable" or "vulnerable" editors staying around. They become more emotionally attached, and their reaction to adverse events (bans, blocks ...) will be more severe when they have been editing longer, imo.
I'm also not sure that it is a significant problem, WP may attract people with strong opinions, extreme views etc.. but I think most "suicide prone" individuals would prefer social network sites and forums.
Could be wrong of course, it's just my opinion, no hard facts to back it up.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:38 pm
by Rational Observer
Kumioko wrote:Unfortunately, as big a site as Wikipedia is, this is just one of those things we have to deal with sometimes and unfortunately we are not going to stop it every time. Personally this is at least the 3rd one I have seen (and others can probably list more).
The problem I have is this. Everyone knows that the editing environment sucks, is toxic and upsetting to people for a variety of reasons on a widespread level. It's talked about constantly here, on wiki and at the WMF. Yet nothing is done.
I submit that if someone were to start addressing the actual problem, which to me is the sites leadership (admins and functionaries) acting abusively and against policy, then a lot of these problems with anxiety and the toxic environment will work themselves out. It will take some time and patience but it can work. But only if it starts from the top down and only if someone, probably the WMF at this point, is willing enforce policy on the admin corps who are largely exempt from it.
Bullies in the workplace cause unnecessary anxiety and right now we have a number of admins that are nothing more than bullies and that needs to stop.
Nothing can be done because the bullies are the admins, or they control the admins. Either way, the bullies rule the roost. Wikipedia needs a wholesale change in the status quo, but too many editors are committed to stopping that at all costs. In fact, there is a group of editors (you know who you are) who do basically nothing
except turn up at various venues to squash all attempts at progress. I think it would be better for Wikipedia if all accounts expired after 5 years, and editors would then be forced to start over without the benefit of their extensive network of enablers and defenders.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:14 am
by eagle
Rational Observer wrote:I think it would be better for Wikipedia if all accounts expired after 5 years, and editors would then be forced to start over without the benefit of their extensive network of enablers and defenders.
I agree that admin privileges should have a term limit, and 5 years sounds about right. Because there are so many ways for Wiki-addicts to connect off-wiki, your proposal for all accounts would not have the intended effect. People would start over and retain their extensive network of enablers and defenders but would have a clean disciplinary record.
In the United States, we generally protect people under the age of 18 from the lifetime consequences of their criminal records. Perhaps we should require each user to verify his or her birthdate with the WMF and then program in one automatic clean start on the 23rd birthday. I did a few things while in high school and college that I wish I had done differently today. I assume that is true for everyone, yet the wikiculture does not take this into account.
Alternatively, how about a minimum age of 23 or 25 on being allowed to hold admin rights?
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:59 am
by Demonology
Ched (T-C-L) appears to be working on a draft for WP:EMERGENCY in regards to this incident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ched ... :EMERGENCY
WP:EMERGENCY
-- rough draft for when the time is right --
a discussion needs to be had for this page, especially as it pertains to administrators.
There's a fine line between transparency and respect for privacy.
If you think you have finalized proper procedures for "emergencies" .. you are missing the boat. It's something that needs to continually evolve.
somewhat of a tangent: there are two adages to keep in mind - AGF (Assume Good Faith), and DTA (Don't Trust Anyone)
NEVER base your own emergency procedures on someone else's ... Every group, location, organization, and business must develop their OWN procedures.
LISTEN to people who actually do have experience - put aside your own ego.
thoughts: too much time on the internet is not a good thing - experience real life.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:14 pm
by thekohser
eagle wrote:Perhaps we should require each user to verify his or her birthdate with the WMF and then program in one automatic clean start on the 23rd birthday. I did a few things while in high school and college that I wish I had done differently today. I assume that is true for everyone, yet the wikiculture does not take this into account.
Alternatively, how about a minimum age of 23 or 25 on being allowed to hold admin rights?
Perhaps Jimbo should step down from the Wikimedia Foundation, and perhaps I should win the Powerball, and perhaps I should give you a lifetime supply of LSD, because that's what I think you're tripping on, Eagle.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:44 pm
by Rational Observer
eagle wrote:Rational Observer wrote:I think it would be better for Wikipedia if all accounts expired after 5 years, and editors would then be forced to start over without the benefit of their extensive network of enablers and defenders.
I agree that admin privileges should have a term limit, and 5 years sounds about right. Because there are so many ways for Wiki-addicts to connect off-wiki, your proposal for all accounts would not have the intended effect. People would start over and retain their extensive network of enablers and defenders but would have a clean disciplinary record.
In the United States, we generally protect people under the age of 18 from the lifetime consequences of their criminal records. Perhaps we should require each user to verify his or her birthdate with the WMF and then program in one automatic clean start on the 23rd birthday. I did a few things while in high school and college that I wish I had done differently today. I assume that is true for everyone, yet the wikiculture does not take this into account.
Alternatively, how about a minimum age of 23 or 25 on being allowed to hold admin rights?
You're correct that back channel emails would be rampant, and established editors would definitely "find" each other in their new accounts, but if they were prohibited from claiming their previous account onWiki, most users would never know they were a reincarnation of an established editor, and as such a good deal of their influence would wane. E.g., if SlimVirgin had to make a new account that most people wouldn't know was her she'd lose most of her influence and would be forced to behave as though the rules actually applied to her. It's not a silver bullet, but I think it's an interesting idea. Albeit one that would never gain widespread support.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:56 pm
by Poetlister
eagle wrote:Alternatively, how about a minimum age of 23 or 25 on being allowed to hold admin rights?
That's a higher age limit than is generally applied to positions of real authority in the real world. You can probably be a legislator, an army officer or a magistrate in most countries before you're 23.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:57 pm
by milowent
Anroth wrote:I am a bit skeptical if only because on an anime/gaming forum I frequent, an editor I highly suspected to be Lucia Black has been active a lot in the last few weeks. (And she apparently passed away 3 weeks ago)
Maybe one of the expert sleuths here could take a look elsewhere on the Web.
The only reason some think this editor is dead is became of an IP post on her talk page? It could well be true, but there is no evidence to suggest it is true. We can't even say someone is dead on a BLP article without a cite.
When an editor's last post forecasts "my inevitable expiration," there is absolutely no reason to think its true. It sounds like the horseshit of many fake internet deaths I've witnessed; but, it could also be real this time. I don't know. In any event, blocking her to help her take a break was a reasonable way to deal with any editor making such suggestions. I am pleased to see some people did try to message her, no matter the circumstance, because even someone falsely suggesting they'll commit suicide over wikiwars needs better friends.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:26 am
by Kumioko
milowent wrote:Anroth wrote:I am a bit skeptical if only because on an anime/gaming forum I frequent, an editor I highly suspected to be Lucia Black has been active a lot in the last few weeks. (And she apparently passed away 3 weeks ago)
Maybe one of the expert sleuths here could take a look elsewhere on the Web.
The only reason some think this editor is dead is became of an IP post on her talk page? It could well be true, but there is no evidence to suggest it is true. We can't even say someone is dead on a BLP article without a cite.
When an editor's last post forecasts "my inevitable expiration," there is absolutely no reason to think its true. It sounds like the horseshit of many fake internet deaths I've witnessed; but, it could also be real this time. I don't know. In any event, blocking her to help her take a break was a reasonable way to deal with any editor making such suggestions. I am pleased to see some people did try to message her, no matter the circumstance, because even someone falsely suggesting they'll commit suicide over wikiwars needs better friends.
Perhaps I am naive then but when I hear that an editor has died, even if by their own hand, I assume that's true unless proven otherwise.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:29 am
by thekohser
Kumioko wrote:Perhaps I am naive then but when I hear that an editor has died, even if by their own hand, I assume that's true unless proven otherwise.
You've obviously learned nothing from years of observing Wikipedia.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:52 am
by Kumioko
thekohser wrote:Kumioko wrote:Perhaps I am naive then but when I hear that an editor has died, even if by their own hand, I assume that's true unless proven otherwise.
You've obviously learned nothing from years of observing Wikipedia.
Yeah I know, there is always a chance that it's some BS scheme to draw sympathy in which case it's a pretty low thing to do. Still though, I don't think we should assume it's a lie either.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:20 pm
by LynnWysong
Kumioko wrote:thekohser wrote:Kumioko wrote:Perhaps I am naive then but when I hear that an editor has died, even if by their own hand, I assume that's true unless proven otherwise.
You've obviously learned nothing from years of observing Wikipedia.
Yeah I know, there is always a chance that it's some BS scheme to draw sympathy in which case it's a pretty low thing to do. Still though, I don't think we should assume it's a lie either.
I think we all have a healthy degree of skepticism on the matter, especially given the nature of the announcement. But the statement "there is absolutely no reason to think its true" is something of an attack on the judgement of those who, for very good reason, are choosing to act as though it is true.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:03 pm
by Rational Observer
LynnWysong wrote:Kumioko wrote:thekohser wrote:Kumioko wrote:Perhaps I am naive then but when I hear that an editor has died, even if by their own hand, I assume that's true unless proven otherwise.
You've obviously learned nothing from years of observing Wikipedia.
Yeah I know, there is always a chance that it's some BS scheme to draw sympathy in which case it's a pretty low thing to do. Still though, I don't think we should assume it's a lie either.
I think we all have a healthy degree of skepticism on the matter, especially given the nature of the announcement. But the statement "there is absolutely no reason to think its true" is something of an attack on the judgement of those who, for very good reason, are choosing to act as though it is true.
Yes. There's a good chance this is a hoax, but some of the replies here are typical of contrarians; they can negate anything you say with hypotheticals, while providing no concrete evidence to challenge the situation's authenticity. I.e., there's no more evidence of hoax than truth, as both positions are equally speculative.
Re: Passing of editor Lucia Black
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:43 pm
by thekohser
Rational Observer wrote:I.e., there's no more evidence of hoax than truth, as both positions are equally speculative.
Look, I haven't even looked at any of the evidence, but I'm willing to bet my $10 against your $3 that the suicide is a hoax. Are you prepared to take that bet? It's a "push" if no concrete evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt is obtained before July 1.