Comments from feedback form – “What do you think of this page…”

BKCW8: As someone who’s primarily a reader, I don’t know how this community works– but let me assure you I was completely serious.

Actually, the first line alone is ridiculous, ignoring the sheer surreality of the rest of the tirade directed at an anonymous user who arguably did not deserve a single jot of his hate.

As far as I know, this site is for the readers, right? Attacking them for voicing an opinion about quality ain’t going to help matters. If everyone who was ever dissatisfied with an article should either stop reading or “write a fucking article”, guess which they’re going to choose?

I apologise if I am unqualified to comment on this, or if this is the wrong place to do so.

Sonia: Just as a note, BKCW8’s response shouldn’t be taken as any sort of official opinion of wikinews.

As far as your original question goes, the post was in violation of Wikinews:Etiquette.

With that said, it can be annoying when people say something is crap, without explaining why. People work hard on the article contents, and well constructive criticism is always a good thing, negative comments without explaining why or suggestions for improvement aren’t that helpful. However, it is still inappropriate to attack a reader for fulling out a “What do you think of this article form” honestly.

Bawolff: I have replied to Sonia and I made it clear I am no official =)

To be fair, it should be pointed out that my comments do not officially represent wikinews either. 🙂 (although as an admin, I guess they represent a little authority, but in general all my opinions are just my own and nobody else’s).

What do you say? Should we delete this whole thread on the grounds that Wikinews is not a theater of war”? One person did not like the article and trolled, another took the bait, and both should be embarrassed.

I don’t really think thats necessary. (but then again I’m a very anti-deletionist person).

Are you kidding? Even though Turtlestack has apologized, we cannot simply leave personal attacks and threats of physical violence here for anyone to gawk at. An admin should delete this thread, or at least Turtlestack’s initial comment, immediately.

Exsqueeze me?

This is the comments namespace! Anarchy reigns supreme!

You do not censor the opinions posted here because, well, frankly, virtually no policies apply.

So, rattle your jewellery, or clap your hands; just don’t take this page seriously.

No, it doesn’t. We have the right to remove blatant attacks, threats, personal information and similar material, as well as copyright violations and other illegal items. If I wrote down your full name, address, medical history, and other related material, would you take that seriously? I certainly would. Anarchy does not reign supreme here, and we can censor any material not adhering to our policies. Because they do apply here.

AFAIU, there is a very short list of things that will get removed from comments pages, and an even shorter list of things that will get you banned. These aren’t talk pages, they’re comments pages for all the trolls on the net to blast with whatever crap they want;).

The List, as I understand it:

1) Linking to an external non-WMF site (link removed, post can sometimes remain)

2) Personal attacks against non-public people (ie, famous people don’t count), usually other commenters, that are sufficiently bad to warrant action (this is judged on a per-post basis, and different admins will make different calls)

3) Clearly libellous statements against public figures. (post deleted)

4) Copyright infringement (post deleted, warning issued on user talk page, possible ban in repeated)

5) Death threats, that are clearly not a joke (local ban, likely global ban, possibly alert WMF, possible referral to local authorities if deemed necessary)

6) Serious sounding suicide notes/threats (always alert WMF, always constant local authorities)

7) Advertising (insta-ban)

If Turtle’s comment violated any of those, it would be number 2. Everyone has a different threshold for what constitutes a personal attack. Personally I’d be inclined to leave his post, since while it’s angry, it’s somewhat humorous as well.

I would hope that threats of physical harm are lumped in with death threats, and that humor doesn’t end up playing too big a role in any such administrative decision.

It’s not so much a question of the existence of a threat as it is the seriousness of the threat. Paraphrased: “I’m going to make a giant wooden hand, cover it in pubic hair, and then push it over on you at your doorstep” isn’t the most serious sounding threat in the world.

Here’s a serious sounding threat, as an example: “I work at an ISP. I’m going to use your IP to hunt down your RL name and address. I’m then going to go your house in the middle of the night and make sure you’re home. Then I’m going to bar all the doors. Then I’m going to toss a firebomb through a window. Then I’m going to sit on your lawn and laugh while you scream.”

That’s a far more serious sounding threat, because that’s realistic enough that even if the author of the threat has no intention of carrying it out, it may well still cause angst to the recipient of the threat. And that’s the real test. Is the threat of a type that might cause real worry to the recipient, or is it just part of a trolling flamewar? There’s a difference between the two, and they should be treated differently.

And indeed, “humorous” is not part of the test of what’s allowable and what’s not. I was thinking about “seriousness”, but wrote “humour” due to the fact that there is a bit of crossover between the two concepts in my mind (ie, a post wouldn’t be funny if it contains a serious threat).

HEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES Bradley…I’d say move this thread to the archives to set a precedent for future Meanie Beanie Fophenies

Man you people must have nothing better to do….

There is really nothing better to do than using the free voice of democracy…

I think the comment does violate no. 2, because vulgarity is only used for two purposes: 1) to be friendly with someone else; 2) to attack someone. Number two is surely the case here.

@bawolff: I did have my fair bit of fun writing this article. 🙂

*ignores possible policy violations*