Wikiversity talk:Respect people/Archive

What do you think?
What do you think of this proposal? Do you think it adequately addresses issues like attacking people and using people's names? --darklama 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the wording. Very nice.  --mikeu talk 01:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought so too. Emesee 01:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a more specific clause when discussing other wikimedia contributors, namely that if someone has not openly published their real name on the wikis, they should be referred to by their usernames. We've recently had problems with loopholing around that issue: quite a few wikimedians have had their names published off-site, but still do not want their names used on-site. It should be made clear that people should be addressed in the manner they choose to be addressed. --SB_Johnny talk 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit hesitant in this area. While I agree referring to people by their username is respectful when related to Wikiversity activities, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what is disrespectful or wrong about using someone's real name in referring to activities elsewhere when they have openly made their real name available in a place where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. I think when someone has disclosed their name someplace where no expectation of privacy exists, than it becomes fair to use in referring to their activities elsewhere. I think what is left than is using their real name responsibly and appropriately as it relates to Wikiversity's mission, mainly to discuss their activities or what they said, not for discussing what other people think of them as a human being. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or rather I mean when people have openly made the connections themselves in a place with no expectation of privacy, whether the connection is between there real name and username someplace, or some other connections. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 15:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want to stop here? Are you suggesting that Wikiversity has an obligation to protect people's identities even when they have already disclosed this information themselves in a place with no expectation of privacy, or just people trying to expose other people's identities, when they have not done so in a place with no expectation of privacy? --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 15:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a great start. Perhaps have a section at the bottom for a list of specific things on what not to do? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad this was started, so far it seems fine - if it becomes an official policy, guideline then that would be great. However I'm still concerned as to why this site haven't got a privacy policy yet since it was proposed in 2006 and it's now 2008. DarkMage  21:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a good point, and we should probably get working on that at somepoint soon. Wikiversity actually does have an official privacy policy.  It applies to all wikimedia sites and can be found here.  The proposed Privacy policy would be in addition to the first one, not a replacement.  --mikeu talk 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe telling people what not to do usually only encourages people to do them, possibly because no help was provided on what to do instead. I think if a list is necessary that it should try to focus on what to do instead. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 21:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, good point. There was an expression - "don't tell kids not to put marbles up their nose because they just will". Don't give ideas to people. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Marbles? I thought it was beans. --mikeu talk 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the current version is quite good. Kudos to darklama for his taciturn patience, understanding, and intuition. --SB_Johnny talk 21:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My take
Well, that's my 2¢ for now. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 12:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I support Darklama's suggestions about information made public, with the proviso that personal requests concerning personal information will be respected, regardless of where it has been posted.
 * 2) When discussing individuals or people, discuss their accomplishments or things they have done, rather than what you think of them as human beings —I feel this needs context. Are we talking about public figures?  Contributors?  Are there any cases where it might be appropriate to discuss what you think of certain people as human beings (say, in Philosophy?)
 * 3) when legitimately published on Wikiversity by themselves —what is meant by "legitimately"?
 * 4) Be fair and responsible in your depictions of people —what is "fair and responsible"?
 * 5) allow other participants to reasonably balance your depictions with their own fair and responsible depictions of facts, opinions and theories —who is to determine what is fair and responsible, or when something is "reasonably balanced"? What should we do when a user wants to explore a project through a particular POV, and has disclosed said POV?
 * 6) be prepared to change your approach or what you've written if your sources update or retract information —(while certainly a good idea,) what does this have to do with respecting people? (And could there be circumstances where, given changing sources, a different approach may still not be necessary or appropriate?)
 * 7) Be careful to distinguish between what other people have said or done and your own interpretations —Yes, good, but something about the way it's worded bothers me.  "Be careful to distinguish fact from interpretation" would be more succinct, though it would almost certainly need explanation (not necessarily a bad thing, so long as explanation is provided)
 * 8) your peers may ask you to be civil, respectful and to change your approach —"peers" is too vague. I would use a more Wikiversity-relevant term.
 * 9) you might be disqualified from participating in any Wikiversity activities —eschew obfuscation. While this is terribly polite, a more terse expression may be in order ("you may get blocked")
 * 10) Finally, and relating to the last section, I think we need to include something about the concept of "consensus" here; a big part of respecting people is respecting consensus. However, I expect that initial drafts of consensus issues will be problematic in and of themselves.


 * I disagree with this mainly because it could be used to stop people from talking about things they've said or done, when it might be appropriate to do so.
 * Its talking about everyone, Wikiversity participants, public figures or anyone you write about. Everyone should be respected. Do you think that "This policy complements Wikiversity:Civility by addressing issues concerning respecting people (including both other Wikiversity participants and people you write about)" does not adequately put who is covered into context or did you miss that part? Using philosophy as an example, people could still write "John Doe's non-violent protest of X suggests his philosophy is ..." or "John Doe has said his philosophy is..."
 * When done by the person, and not someone impersonating them, pretending to be them, claiming to do it on their behalf, etc. I think this should be open to interpretation by the Wikiversity community.
 * What is fair and responsible should be up to community consensus or consensus of the people involved in a learning or research project.
 * The people working on the project determine what is fair and responsible, and reasonably balanced through consensus, or the Wikiversity community through consensus when or if its needed. This applies to disclosed POVs as well, which I think can still be reasonably balanced and people can still be fair and responsible in their depictions.
 * If you said "John Doe likes apple pie" based on a mistake source X made, which they than correct to say "John Doe likes pumpkin pie." or remove altogether because John Doe doesn't actually like pie, than an update might be needed on Wikiversity as well. This has to do with respecting what is said about people and getting facts straight, because even sources can make mistakes. Going back a little to your first issue, I think if people don't want personal information to be used that has already been made public than they need to get the sources that made the information public to retract it, than what's written on Wikiversity should follow suite. Changing approach might not be necessary if perhaps instead of saying "John Doe said...", "Gotham City Times quoted John Doe as saying..." and a way back machine link were used, though someone might feel compelled to mention this was later corrected or later discovered to be a mistake.
 * What bothers you about this? Not sure if a explanation would be necessary beyond that doing so respects people by clarifying what they actually did and what other people only think they did.
 * I've seen "peers" used in a Beta Wikiversity policy, I adopted the wording of the last sentence from a policy there.
 * Well it could say "or you may get blocked" too.
 * This proposal does intended to rely heavily on what consensus agrees it means. Would something like "When disagreements arises about what respecting people means, respect consensus. If you disrespect people, their privacy or consensus, your peers may ask you to be civil, respectful or to change your approach. If you continue to be disrespectful despite receiving sound advice from your peers to stop, you might be disqualified from participating in any Wikiversity activities or you may get blocked." satisfy you?
 * --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 14:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. But isn't that then failing to respect people?  Or is the policy "respect people, except for when they publish something"?
 * 2. What about Philosophy of Ethics, etc.?  Is it inappropriate to "judge" historical figures such as Hitler?
 * 3. I think it needs to be more explicit.
 * 4. Perhaps, but guidelines should be established here of what is generally considered "fair and reasonable"; people may have wildly differing opinions of what this means, and people will generally assume other people feel the way they do.
 * 5. If that is what is meant, then that is what the policy needs to say.  Be explicit.
 * 6. Wonderfully complicated in your approach, but I still fail to see how this is specific to respecting people.
 * 7. I find it awkwardly phrased and open to misunderstanding.  Thus I recommend a rephrase.
 * 8. I'm guessing the average user would find the use of "peers" more obfuscating than elucidating.
 * 9. I'm thinking policies should be written for the common denominator.
 * 10. If the policy is based on consensus, it needs to be particularly explicit about it.  Your example paragraph is an improvement, though it seems redundant to include both "disqualified from participating" and "get blocked".
 * The Jade Knight (d'viser) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think respect is a two way street. Is it respectful to students trying to learn about a person and, what they've done or accomplished, when information that they are trying to learn and understand is removed? I think some sort of balance is needed between respecting the person whose being discussed and respecting people trying to learn from what's discussed. Maybe it is more like "respect people's wishes, except when doing so would disrespect people trying to learn from published information."
 * What do you mean? Isn't discussion about a person's ethics or philosophy done by studying or analyzing what a person has said or done? Aren't judgments like "Hitler was bad" unhelpful in learning or understanding why people think Hitler was bad, and what was right or wrong with Hitler's ethics or philosophy?
 * I think there are simply too many possibilities to cover to make it explicit. Can you think of a better way to say it that would be general and flexible enough, while also open to a consensus making process? IOW lets people judge on a case-by-case bases whether what was written can be used?
 * I think I'd rather the proposal was more explicit that fair and reasonable is going to depend on the consensus of the people working on a page.
 * I think we may agree here about making the proposal more explict on consensus drives what fair and reasonable means.
 * Part of respecting people is making sure that what you say about people is accurate and true to the best of your ability, so if the source of your information turn out to be wrong, it ought be corrected. I think it important to require people to fix their mistakes when they are aware of the mistakes. Sometimes correcting information requires a new approach if a lot depended on the inaccurate information.
 * How do you think it could be misunderstood? What do you think it could be understood to mean?
 * Would colleagues be any better?
 * An action other than a block might be possible, and some people seem to have problems with the word "block" and what it really means.
 * I have no problem with attempts to make this proposal more explicit about decisions being based on consensus.
 * --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be better… and for public figures, it's one thing, but for private private individuals (particularly those who contribute to Wikiversity), I think it's very important to show them respect when it comes to sensitive matters.
 * Not at all, actually, depending on the reason and method—it is quite common to discuss corruption and betrayal in terms of individuals in History, and in Philosophy in particular, it is not at all unreasonable to ask the question "Is this person ethical?" Granted, discussion will usually center around actions and beliefs, but the question, "Is this person ethical?" stands, and answering it directly (with explanation) would not likely be discouraged.
 * I think it is more likely to be misinterpreted or misapplied as stands. However, I think very few people in the community would hold someone liable for something they did not do; so it may be more effacacious to simply remove the word "legitimately" entirely from the sentence, and let it be assumed (as it almost certainly will be).
 * That would be great; it's more explicit, even if it is simply saying "accept consensus" instead of "be fair and reasonable"; there's lots of material on Wikimedia about what consensus is. There's nothing about what being "fair and reasonable" means.
 * Indeed.
 * Respecting people can include a great many elements, many of which can vary from individual to individual. Consider that much music is called "disrespectful" (for example).  Yes, according to some individuals, honesty is a very important part of respect.  According to other individuals, avoiding offense is a much more important part of respect than honesty—given, for example, that you are in a setting where your boss is wearing a new shirt recently purchased.  You think the thing is hideous, but when your boss asks you what you think of it, you may (dishonestly) say that it looks fine, etc., simply to be "respectful".  I think it's important to be honest and accurate, but that's simply a matter of good scholarship, and has nothing to do with being respectful.
 * I think the most likely misunderstanding to arise will be people who see it and interpret "what people have said or done" (emphasis added) to mean "other people's interpretations". In other words, someone might see the phrase, and think "okay, what I say and what they say is different.  Duh."  The matter is that, the phrase appears to be rhetorically emphasizing a distinction between "other people" and "your"self, when it wants to emphasize the distinction between fact and interpretation.
 * Colleagues would be somewhat better, but I think "other participants" would be better yet.
 * Oh? What ways, apart from a block, can one be disqualified from participating (I wasn't aware of them)?
 * The Jade Knight (d'viser) 13:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like, with #4 proposed changes above, that you have to accept consensus even if it is unfair or irresponsible. Dzonatas 17:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A logical impossibility, if consensus is the way what is fair and responsible is determined: Ie, if "what is fair and reasonable" is determined by consensus, then it is impossible for consensus to be "unfair or unreasonable".  Follow?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 11:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then by consensus, my input is to say that, I not only disagree with that logic, I find it unfair and irresponsible because of the assumption that all paths of consensus is fair and responsible. A consensus does not substitute being fair and responsible in any way. A consensus can be fair, and it can be unfair. For example, it is quite easy for someone involved on content to get blocked right before a planned consensus is made, and that would be quite unfair. That is an obvious example, and it has happened. The logic you gave implies that it is ok to have different outcomes for every situation with similar factors. User A did X, Y, and Z, and user A gets blocked by consensus. User B did X, Y, and Z, and user B doesn't get blocked by consensus. That clearly demonstrates how it was an unequal outcome when a user does X, Y, and Z, and that can be seen as unfair or irresponsible by those who hold the consensus. Being fair and responsible is quite different from a consensus.
 * Sue Gardener mentions about being fair and responsible, and might help understand this better, "In general, the considerations for Wikinews reporters covering the Foundation are probably fairly similar for any journalist covering anybody: if they are responsible and fair, they'll earn the respect and cooperation of the people and organizations they cover, even if their work is challenging. If they behave irresponsibly, over time they will find that people refuse to cooperate with them." A little more about the back-story to that: there are some Wikinews members that apply journalism equally to any organization, even Wikinews itself. There were other Wikinews and WMF members that didn't like any criticism of Wikinews or WMF, and they edit warred or took admin action against those that journaled on Wikinews. At that point it was obvious there are members, Wikinews and WMF, that hold political agendas. This event also clearly reveals another point, and that is one can be completely honest in their political agenda, but that does not automatically qualify them to have acted in good-faith when they don't allow equality, like in journalistic coverage about themselves, their organization, or certain people. It was also made obvious that some tried to pass off WMF actions or admin actions as community consensus. When someone does not meet their obligations (i.e. wore the wrong hat), they did not act in good-faith.
 * What you want are these kind of obligations made explicit, not just replace "fair and responsible" with "consensus." There seemed to be an earlier attempt to list some of them: Colloquium. I believe it would be more wise to take the content as-is now on this proposed policy and separate each principle on its own page. That would avoid the implied concerns of an omnibus implementation and help prevent loopholes as noted in the earlier attempt, as it is noticed in this discussion (as noted in my comment). Dzonatas 16:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with trying to be more explicit or clearer in the intentions of this proposal. I think though there is only one principle being covered by this proposal and splitting it is not the answer. Like there are many aspects to civility, there are also many aspects to respecting people. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 16:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is one principal and several principles. Dzonatas 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's ignore consensus if it's not fair and responsible. But you force me to return to my first question, Dzonatas:  "4.  Be fair and responsible in your depictions of people —what is 'fair and responsible'?"  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Some changes reflecting on "My take"
I've made some changes based on this discussion:
 * 1) I've revised the initial statement to say "Respect Wikiversity participants and anyone you write about, and their desire for dignity, autonomy and privacy" based on criticsm that it was not explicit enough, and some additions someone else had made.
 * 2) I've replaced uses of legitimately so that it now reads "Being respectful also means you must only divulge or disclose verifiable information after a notable, respected, responsible and sound public source has done so, or when verified publicly by themselves (such as on their Wikiversity user page)." I think this also makes it a bit more clearer what the context is.
 * 3) I've made "be prepared to change your approach..." more general so it now reads "Be prepared to adjust your approach when available information changes or when what the community considers acceptable changes". I think this makes it a bit clearer who decides.
 * 4) I've changed wording to say "being clear to distinguish between personal interpretations and facts". I hope this addresses your concerns about the wording
 * 5) I've replaced "peer" with Wikiversity participants.
 * 6) I've added how what "respect" and "fair, balanced and responsible" means is up to consensus when disagreements happen.
 * 7) I've gotten rid of the part about "what you think of them as human beings" instead saying "focusing mainly on what was said or done".

I am not sure if this settles all concerns, but I hope it least addresses most of them without adding new concerns. --darklama 17:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely seems like an improvement. I still think "blocked" should be thrown in there.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there consensus to make this an official Wikiversity policy?
'No consensus to make this an official policy at this time. Although there is general support (even from some who opposed) there are reservations that more time is needed to refine the wording of the policy. Lets have another round of discussion on the current revision, before opening another vote. --mikeu talk 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)'

Is the [ current propose version] ready to become an officially enforceable policy? Please include agree, disagree or neutral before your response, and explain why you agree or disagree with the proposal, or why your neutral (such as specific wording that you want changed, how you think it should be phrased instead, and why you think the change is needed), so that the discussion part of building consensus can take place. Please also don't make any changes to the proposal beyond minor trivial changes while this consensus building discussion is going on. --darklama 13:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have any specific suggestions for improvements please also comment in the section above. We'd like to get a dialogue going on what everyone would like to see. --mikeu talk 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ the current version looks good. --mikeu talk 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am in favour and support, and like what's developing, but I think this has been going too short a time without yet sufficiently wide consultation/contribution to be going to vote. In other words, even one more or two more weeks of further drafting will help to make it better and stronger. I would also like hear/see some devil's advocate points of view discussed - I daresay when this policy comes to actually be used, people will be looking hard then for its loopholes then; we may benefit from trying to find more of them now. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jtneill, I think the standing policy is quite good, and like any policy can and should be amended later when needed. It's also very low-key and "no-brainerish", so worth supporting in a "well, yeah! duh!" kind of way :-). --SB_Johnny talk 00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We're very interested in hearing suggestions on how to "make it better and stronger." The section above can be used to discuss improvements.  Everyone is encouraged to participate in that process.  --mikeu talk 12:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * -- a step in the right direction. --SB_Johnny talk 00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (disagree) - as per Jtneil. Emesee 01:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * . --HappyCamper 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This page looks like a stopgap for the recent problems, and, rather than a policy, a guideline for applying existing policies on civility and privicy, NPOV and scholar ethics. It would be more beneficial for wikiversity in the long term to consider more deeply on these specific policies. If it is felt that such a stopgap is necessary, it is useful to cite the specific problems, and a time limit should be introduced for it, so that it will expire or it is subjected to review by the end of the year, for instance. Hillgentleman|Talk 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think it would be nice to reassess all policies and related guidelines once per year... I wonder if we couldn't divide them into 12 related groups to keep that organized. --SB_Johnny talk 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 14:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've been called a "troll" and a "harassment enabler" and other bad stuff, but I have no problem with this proposed policy as written. Dtobias 02:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, part of me is wanting to support or oppose due to reading the discussions above - so I'm at the moment staying neutral in the matter. DarkMage  10:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * , per Jtneil; I support the policy in concept, but I feel that it still needs to be hammered out; I have concerns… (will post above) The Jade Knight (d'viser) 12:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * after changes. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * : I presume from the above comments that the important issue is to avoid an omnibus implementation. Dzonatas 16:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Too many changes have been made since this vote was started (see diff). While it may be something boldly not well featured in this software to handle these kinds of votes and changes, with the current implementation the ability to change a voted on version lacks respect to those that have voted. It doesn't matter if the person still agrees or disagrees about changes made after their vote, as there is no acknowledgment from those previous voters to the others voters if their vote is still valid. The section started with a specific version, but it is obvious by some votes casted here they they reflect later changes. Perhaps, when a person casts their vote, they should acknowledge it with the version beside their signature. Dzonatas 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * - unenforceable and unnecessary stopgap measure. Countrymike 22:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Seems like a reasonable policy. MBisanz 13:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge into Civility
Can't this be merged into Civility? The concept of respecting other users seems to fit perfectly into the scope of that policy. Instead of having multiple pages which cover similar areas, it would be better if this was all in one place rather than scattered around. Adambro 18:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 14:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would accept this as an important sub policy of Civility, and possibly given a section on the Civility page (if it isn't given its own page). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Hillgentleman sort of got it right when he referred to this proposal as applying existing policies. I think though rather than applying existing policies, this proposal ties the concepts of civility, privacy, NPOV and ethics together, creating a new concept and applying them in new ways. Like how two or more concepts can be used together to make new concepts. I don't think this proposal is specifically about civility, even though civility and respect tend to go hand-in-hand and are related, there still separate concepts. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 20:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes
Please read and comment on these suggested changes. I have undone them for now, because of the template on the page that requests that "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus on the discussion page." Please refrain from making major changes to this while a vote is in progress. It is important that everyone be voting on the same revision of the proposed policy in order to gauge consensus. --mikeu talk 15:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Respect people page has been protected from editing by unconfirmed users for 3 days to prevent changes to the policy while there is an ongoing vote on the current revision. Please comment on the these suggested changes in  in this section of the talk page for consideration of inclusion in the main page after the vote.  --mikeu talk 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Where's the ongoing vote? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose those changes; rhetoric like that isn't helpful here. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Case in point. Strongly oppose changes for reasons mentioned.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 03:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is if the individual in question has been deemed by their fellow scholars to have shown continued disrespect to the point where they are considered disruptive to the community—that would be, in fact, simply upholding the policy of showing respect. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

_____________ 
 * Here is a proposed revision that needs to be discussed...

Close vote?
Is it time to close this vote, and then perhaps free this policy up for some more editing? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 16:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold a new consensus for version #350064 the new version? Dzonatas 16:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should close this round of voting, since there have been too many changes to consider the earlier votes to still be valid for the current revision. --mikeu talk 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)